|
|
Domestic Violence in the West
At a time when the hostile media is incessant in its attempts to defame and ridicule Islam and the muslim woman, to portray her as oppressed and abused, the following facts should be enough to prove that the disbelieving nations are more worthy of the accusations they throw at others.
"They Don't Treat Their Women Very Well"
An American Woman married to a Muslim man (visit her website) writes: I can't tell you how many times I heard that phrase, over and again, from well-meaning friends, when they found out I was going marry a *gasp!* Muslim! I was also warned that he was just marrying me for a green card. To add insult injury, when I was planning a trip to Pakistan with my baby and to meet my husband's family, I heard all the "Not Without My Daughter" horror stories. "Aren't you afraid they'll try to take your baby?" I would ask, who do you mean by "they?" The Government of Pakistan? The general populace? My husband's family? Are you telling me that my husband's family exists to totally screw me over and take my son? People have always been afraid of what they don't understand. To make things worse, the perception of Muslims and Islam in western society has been totally skewed by movies and the media.
"Glass Houses". We all know the adage, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." When you hear someone say something to the effect that "muslims don't treat their women well," then it's time to say, "Oh, and Americans do?" Here are some statistics on spousal (or significant other) abuse, murder, and rape that men commit against their women partners, here in America, in the twenty-first century.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THE UNITED STATES
MURDER . Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends. That's approximately 1,400 women a year, according to the FBI. The number of women who have been murdered by their intimate partners is greater than the number of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War.
BATTERING . Although only 572,000 reports of assault by intimates are officially reported to federal officials each year, the most conservative estimates indicate two to four million women of all races and classes are battered each year. At least 170,000 of those violent incidents are serious enough to require hospitalization, emergency room care or a doctor's attention.
SEXUAL ASSAULT . Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them knew their attackers. It's estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once.
THE TARGETS . Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate. Young women, women who are separated, divorced or single, low- income women and African-American women are disproportionately victims of assault and rape. Domestic violence rates are five times higher among families below poverty levels, and severe spouse abuse is twice as likely to be committed by unemployed men as by those working full time. Violent attacks on lesbians and gay men have become two to three times more common than they were prior to 1988.
IMPACT ON CHILDREN . Violent juvenile offenders are four times more likely to have grown up in homes where they saw violence. Children who have witnessed violence at home are also five times more likely to commit or suffer violence when they become adults.
IMPACT ON HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES . Women who are battered have more than twice the health care needs and costs than those who are never battered. Approximately 17 percent of pregnant women report having been battered, and the results include miscarriages, stillbirths and a two to four times greater likelihood of bearing a low birth weight baby. Abused women are disproportionately represented among the homeless and suicide victims. Victims of domestic violence are being denied insurance in some states because they are considered to have a "pre-existing condition."
SOURCES:
"Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report", U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., January 1994.
"The National Women's Study," Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 1992.
"Five Issues In American Health," American Medical Association, Chicago, 1991.
Bullock, Linda F. and Judith McFarlane, "The Birth Weight/Battering Connection," Journal of American Nursing, September 1989.
McFarlane, Judith, et. al., "Assessing for Abuse During Pregnancy," Journal of the American Medical Association, June 17, 1992.
Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics, 1992.
Sheehan, Myra A. "An Interstate Compact on Domestic Violence: What are the Advantages?" Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 1993.
Sherman, Lawrence W. et al. Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas, 1990.
* Domestic Violence accounts for a quarter of all reported violent crime. [Working Party Report, Victim Support, 1992]
* Each year 100,000 women seek treatment in London for violent injuries caused in their homes.
[Punching Judy, BBC TV Documentary, 1989]
* Domestic Violence is not limited to physical assault. It includes sexual abuse and mental cruelty which undermine a woman's self-esteem. [McGibbon and Kelly, "Abuse of Women in the Home", 1989]
* Research conducted by Police found that 2/3 of all men believed that they would respond violently to their partners in certain situations. [Islington Council, 1994]
* Almost half of all murders of women are killings by current or former partners. [National Working Party Report on Domestic Violence, Victim Support, 1992]
From OASIS - "Opposing Abuse with Service, Information, and Shelter". You can visit their website. Adapted from the American Bar Association.
Every day 4 women are **murdered** by their husbands, boyfriends, or ex-boyfriends after reported abuse.
An estimated 2 to 6 million women are battered annually in the USA.
Battering is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15-44.
One out of four pregnant women are battered. The battering may start or excalate during pregnancy.
Medical expenses from Domestic Violence total at least $3 billion annually and businesses lose another $100 million in sick leave, absenteeism and productivity.
One out of 7 girls is abused by her boyfriend, and many will be abused by their husbands.
Every Day four women are murdered by their husbands, boyfriends, or ex-boyfriends after reported abuse.
Courtship violence is wide-spread and underreported by both men and women. 30% of High School students have experienced physical or sexual violence in dating relationships. 37% of Men and 35% of Women have inflicted some form of physical aggression on their dating partners.
Women sustained more injuries than men, and they were two to three times more likely to experience unwanted sexual intercourse.
95% of violent crime on Campus is alcohol or drug related.
37% of the assailants and 55% of victims of rape had used alcohol or other drugs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Husbands and boyfriends commit 13,000 acts of violence against women in the workplace every year (United States Department of Justice, 1994).
Over 1.7 million women were physically abused in 1995 by their male partners, one every 12 seconds (Federal Bureau of Investigation).
There were approximently 4.5 million violent crimes against women in 1992 and 1993. (The Justice Department recognizes that this is an under-estimation of domestic violence and violence against women). (Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey).
50% of all women will be involved in some type of abusive relationship in their life time. We could be talking about your daughters, your mothers, your wives, your girlfriends.
In 95% of VIOLENT CRIMES on campuses, ALCOHOL OR DRUGS WERE A FACTOR.
30% of High School students have experienced physical or sexual violence in dating relationships.
37% of men and 35% of women have inflicted some form of physical aggression with their dating partners.
For every 1 rape that IS reported, 10 are NOT reported.
By the most conservative estimate, each year 1 million women suffer nonfatal violence by an intimate. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey (NCJ-154348), August 1995, p. 3.)
Other estimates suggest that 4 million American women experience a serious assault by an intimate partner during an average 12-month period. (American Psychl. Ass’n. Violence and the Family: Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family (1996), p. 10.)
Nearly 1 in 3 adult women experience at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. (American Psychl. Ass’n. Violence and the Family: Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family (1996), p. 10.)
In 1993, approximately 575,000 men were arrested for committing violence against women, approximately 49,000 women were arrested for committing violence against men. (American Psychl. Ass’n. Violence and the Family: Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family (1996), p. 10.)
Domestic violence is statistically consistent across racial and ethnic boundaries. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey (NCJ-154348), August 1995, p. 3.)
90-95% of domestic violence victims are women. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings: Violence Between Intimates (NCJ-149259), November 1994.)
Much of female violence is committed in self-defense, and inflicts less injury than male violence. (Chalk & King, eds., Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention & Treatment Programs, National Resource Council and Institute of Medicine, p. 42 (1996).)
47% of men who beat their wives do so at least 3 times per year. (AMA Diagnostic & Treatment Guidelines on Domestic Violence, SEC: 94-677: 3M: 9/94 (1994).)
In homes where partner abuse occurs, children are 1,500 times more likely to be abused. (Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Family Violence: Interventions for the Justice System, 1993.)
26% of pregnant teens reported being physically abused by their boyfriends, about half of them said the battering began or intensified after he learned of her pregnancy. (Brustin, S., Legal Response to Teen Dating Violence, Family Law Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 2, 333-334 (Summer 1995) (citing Worcester, A More Hidden Crime: Adolescent Battered Women, The Network News, July/Aug., National Women’s Health Network 1993).)
Female victims of violence are 2.5 times more likely to be injured when the violence is committed by an intimate than when committed by a stranger. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey (NCJ-154348), August 1995, p. 4.)
Domestic violence is an ongoing cycle producing increasingly severe injuries over time, battered women are likely to see physicians frequently. (Children’s Safety Network, Domestic Violence: A Directory of Protocols for Health Care Providers (1992) p. (1).)
65% of intimate homicide victims had separated from the perpetrator prior to their death. (Florida Governor’s Task Force on Domestic and Sexual Violence, Florida Morality Review Project, 1997, p. 47, table 17.)
88% of victims domestic violence fatalities had a documented history of physical abuse. (Florida Governor’s Task Force on Domestic and Sexual Violence, Florida Morality Review Project, 1997, pp. 46-48, tables 14-21.)
44% of victims of intimate homicides had prior threats by the killer to kill victim or self. 30% had prior police calls to the residence. 17% had a protection order. (Florida Governor’s Task Force on Domestic and Sexual Violence, Florida Morality Review Project, 1997, pp. 46-48, tables 14-21.)
From the YWCA of San Diego and the Domestic Violence Research and Training Institute. You can visit their website.
A female is battered every nine seconds. [California Alliance Against Domestic Violence, 1994]
It is estimated that one third of all high school and college students will have been in an abusive relationship by the time they graduate. [Levy, 1992]
Relationship violence is the number one cause of injury to women ages 15-44: more that rapes, muggings and car accidents combined. [Center For Community Solutions, 1997]
There are three times as many animal shelters in the United States as battered women shelters. [Senate Judiciary Committee, 1990]
63% of all boys ages 11-20 arrested for murder, murdered the man who was assaulting their mother.[Center For Community Solutions, 1997]
As many as 15 million women have been abused at some time during their lives. [Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, 1989]
As many as one-quarter to two-thirds of battered women report abuse during preganancy.["Battered and Pregnant: A Prevalence Study," Journal of the American Public Health Association]
In a prospective study of 1,200 white, Hispanic and black pregnant women, one in six reported physical abuse during pregnancy. ["Abuse During Pregnancy: A Cross-Cultural Studyof Frequent and Severity of Injuries," J. McFarlane, 1991]
The average battered women is attacked three times each year. [Intimate Violence, R. Gelles and M. Straus, 1988]
22 to 35 percent of women who visit emergency departments in the United States are there for symptoms related to on-going abuse. ["Domestic Violence Intervention Calls for More than Treating Injuries," Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990]
Families in which domestic violence occurs use doctors eight times more often, visit the emergency room six times more often and use six times more prescription drugs than the general population. ["Domestic Violence: A Community Crisis Waiting for an Effective Response" Seattle Domestic Violence Intervention, 1989]
Allah Knows Best...
Peace Yall.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/us/by_the_sword.htm
About Christianity:
Christians love to think that their religion is all about peace and love. This is true for many parts of the Bible, but is SOUNDLY FALSE in many other parts!
Let us examine the Bible:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 5:43-44)"
"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. (From the NIV Bible, Luke 6:35)"
It is quite clear from the above Verses that Jesus peace be upon him commands his followers to love their enemies and to give them without expecting anything in return. This is all wonderful and I appreciate that Christians bring such Verses up to prove their points about the Bible being a Book of Love and Peace. However, let us look at the other side of the Bible and see if this claim is really true for 100% of the Bible's NT: [TOP]
Jesus contradicted his own commands!
Above, we saw Jesus commanding his followers to be infinitely patient with their enemies and to help them without expecting anything good in return from them. Yet below, we see Jesus losing his temper and killing his enemies while he was MORE POWERFUL THAN THEM!
If he were in a bad situation where in order to survive he had to kill some of his enemies to enable him to run away or something, then this would be a completely different issue. But below, you will see that Jesus had the full power and his enemies were the WEAK!
"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.' After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. (From the NIV Bible, Luke 19:26-28)"
Luke 19:26-28 is an obvious contradiction to what Jesus taught from Love toward the enemies. [TOP]
Other non-peaceful commands by Jesus in the Bible:
In the NT, we read about Jesus commanding his followers to buy swords "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. (From the NIV Bible, Luke 22:36)"
We also read about Jesus bringing corruption and destruction to earth rather than peace "Do not suppose that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 10:34)"
Jesus hitting others with a whip, not that it makes him bad, but certainly takes his "perfection" away "So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, 'Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!.' (From the NIV Bible, John 2:15)"
Jesus not respecting the life of the innocent animals, which again takes away his "perfection" from him "He [Jesus] said to them, 'Go!' so they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 8:32)"
Jesus taught his followers to hate! "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes, even his own life- he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)"
Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in danger of hell fire (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 5:22), yet he called people "fools" himself (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 23:17).
So can I now claim that since Jesus took up arms, taught his followers to kill their enemies, buy swords and use them, and hate their parents and to call others fools as he did it himself that Christianity is a false religion?
Quite honestly, I wouldn't be shallow enough to do that. My refusal of Christianity's Trinity and belief of the Bible's historical corruptions comes from a much bigger reasoning than this.
Allah Knows Best..
Peace Yall... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OHHH Begitu..!!!!!
|
baguih jugak topik nie...bro aenemy7 kalau jumpa site lain pasal topik nie jgn lupa letak address dia...barang baik nie!!!!....good job!!!!!!! btw pasal kes missonery kat malaysia, nie dulu dah kecoh dorang try preach dkt bebudak U kita...my wife pun kena jugak..nasib baik le dia tu ada ilmu sikit...taktik lebih kurang sama..mula tanya pasal islam sampai mangsa dia x bleh jawab, pas tu cerita pasal kristian dan kelebihan dia(scolarship+kerja+money, bukan kebaikan!!!)...my wife kena first level (tanya pasal islam) masuk second level (preach about Christainity), dia blah...rasa semacam lepas ternampak pamplet atas meja....tentu korang tanya napa tak report kat pentadbiran kan????...nak mampus?????? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insyaallah, i will post a good article if i find a good one, keep in touch....:lol
Allah Knows Best...
Peace Yall... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taken from;
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/misconceptions/index.htm
Q53. Why do Muslims call God, ‘Allaah’? Is ALLAAH" MORE APPROPRIATE THAN GOD?
Answer;
1. A person can play around with the English word ‘God’:
Muslims prefer calling Allah (swt) as Allah, instead of the English word ‘God’. The Arabic word ‘Allaah’ is pure and unique, unlike the English word ‘God’ which can be played around with.
2. God + s = Gods:
If you add the alphabet ‘S’ to ‘God’, it becomes ‘Gods’, that is plural of God. Allaah is One and Singular. There is no plural of Allaah.
3. God + dess = Goddess:
If you add ‘dess’ to ‘God’ it becomes ‘Goddess’, that is a female God. There is nothing like male ‘Allaah’ or female ‘Allaah’. Allaah has no gender.
4. God + Father = Godfather:
If you add the word ‘father’ to ‘God’, it becomes ‘Godfather’. "He is my Godfather" i.e. he is my guardian. There is nothing like ‘Allaah Abba’ or ‘Allaah father’ in Islaam.
5. God + Mother = Godmother:
If you add the word ‘mother’ to ‘God’ it becomes ‘Godmother’. There is nothing like ‘Allaah Ammi‘ or ‘Allaah mother’ in Islaam.
6. Tin + God = Tingod:
If you put ‘tin’ before ‘God’ it becomes ‘Tin-God’ i.e. a fake God. There is nothing like ‘tin Allaah’ or ‘fake Allaah’ in Islaam.
7. Allaah is an Unique Word:
‘Allaah’ is an unique word, with which can neither conjure up a mental picture, nor can it be played around with. ‘Allaah’ is the name mentioned for the One Unique and True God, in the Qur’an. Therefore, Muslims prefer calling God, ‘Allaah’. But sometimes while speaking to non-Muslims we may have to use the inappropriate word ‘God’, for Allaah.
For your Comments/ Suggestions/Criticisms, please do not hesitate to mail us at: [email protected]
http://www.allaahuakbar.net
Allah Knows Best...
Peace Yall... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taken from;
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/misconceptions/index.htm
Q62. Religion or a way of life, should not be rigid but should be flexible. Islaam is very rigid, has several rules, with do’s and don’ts. Why is it so?
Answer;
The brother has asked a very good question. He asks, "Why is Islaam such a rigid religion with do’s and don’ts, although a religion as a way of life should be flexible and not rigid. I agree with the brother, that religion as a way of life should be flexible and not rigid, (every rule and regulation for anything to function properly then should at least be a few sets of fixed rules). Overall I agree with you that a way of life should be flexible, but a few set of rules are necessary for any system to function properly. For example, if the government of India has to function well there should be a few set of rules e.g. no one should rape, no one should rob, no one should cheat. If you do not have these rules, so as to be flexible, then someone could come and rape your sister or rape my sister. Would you like a life, where someone comes and robs you. Do you not agree that if the country has to run properly at least few rules have to be enacted / implemented, viz no one should rob, no one should rape, no one should cheat. Other things are necessary e.g. you become a doctor, you become an engineer, you stay in Bombay, you stay in Delhi are optional. Similarly in Islam, there are a few do’s and don’ts, while every thing else is optional. A few do’s and don’ts for example, you should believe in only One God; you should offer Salaah; you should give charity if you are rich; you should fast during the month of Ramadhan; should be there. Remaining you can be a Muslim living in India, whether you are a Muslim living in America or in Saudi Arabia. Whether you are black or white, or yellow or brown or rich or poor, you are a Muslim. Is not Islam flexible? Yes, most of the things are flexible.
For any system to be successful, there has to be basic set of rules which are fixed. For example, if you want to learn English, you should know A,B,C,D. The styles of teaching may differ. St. Peter’s School may have a different style of teaching English language i.e. reading, writing and understanding. St. Mary’s School may have a different style from Rosary School. If you go to America, they have a different type of English from Britain, but the basic rule is same i.e. A,B,C,D. Whether you are in America or India or St. Peter’s School or St. Mary’s School, if you want to read and write and understand English, first you should know A,B,C,D. There is no other option. That rule is fixed. Other things like pronunciation etc. may differ. You may teach with pictures or teach with pencils or with paper - the style will differ. The Basic rules should be the same. If you want to know Maths, you should know 1,2,3, or else you cannot do maths. Thus, the basic set of rules should be there.
The same is in Islaam. There are a few do’s and don’ts, whereas the remaining are optional. When it comes to wearing clothes, a few basic rules exist. A man should cover himself from navel to knees whereas a woman’s complete body except face, hands up to the wrists should be covered - clothes should not be tight or transparent, clothes should not be glamorous, clothes should not resemble that of the opposite sex, and should not resemble that of the unbeliever. You can wear cotton or terricotton, or georjet or the latest or old model shirt. You can imitate Amitabh Bachan or Raj Kapoor as long as it fulfills the Islamic criteria, the rest is optional. Whether you wear a blue shirt or green shirt, or a white shirt, or black shirt, so far as you fulfil the Islamic criteria. For every system to be successful, a little rigidity must be there. So I agree with you that life should not be fully rigid. Islam is not fully rigid but it is the media which portrays Islam as very rigid. For the complete life to be successful, the basic fundamentals should be fixed, along with a few options. For example, few rules for eating of food – Pork is haram, alcohol is haram. On the other hand, you can have chicken, or mutton biryani, or veg. pulav or roti.
There are many options but the do’s and don’ts are few. Therefore , for any manner of life to be successful, a few of the rules should be rigid and the remaining should be flexible, and Islam is the best example. Allahamdulillah it shows a complete way of life which caters to the body as well as to the soul. It is a complete way of life alongwith the Instruction Manual - The Qur’an just as every machine requires a manual, human beings also require a manual with do’s and don’ts are very essential.
Hope that answers the question and hope that summarises everyone’s answer also.
Allah Knows Best...
Peace Yall.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If any missionaries claimed that Prophet Muhammad SAW(pbuh) copied the Quran from the bible from a christian monk...give him this url!
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjucri98.html
The Buhayra Monk Incident
-Abdus Sattar Ghauri-
The Prophet of Islam (sws) never claimed that his teachings stemmed from his own ‘intellectual world’. The Qur’an explicitly asserts:
Even so We have revealed to thee a Spirit of Our bidding. Thou knewest not what the Book was, nor belief; but We made it a light, whereby We guide whom We will of Our servants. And thou, surely thou shall guide unto a straight path -- the path of God, to whom belongs whatsoever is in the heavens, and whatsoever is in the earth. Surely unto God all things come home.1
As regards the charge that his teachings ‘stemmed mostly from Judaism and Christianity’, it is to be noted that the source of all true religions is one and the same: the divine revelation; there is also a unity of purpose in all the divine religions: providing guidance to mankind. The Prophet of Islam (sws) never claimed that Islam was a novel or a unique religion. This fact has been categorically made clear in the Qur’an:
I am not an innovation among the Messengers, and I know not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me; I am only a clear warner.2
The resemblance of some aspects of Islam and the Biblical religions (Judaism and Christianity) is due to the unity of source of all the three religions. There is no possibility of the Prophet of Islam (sws) having extorted and adopted his teachings from the Biblical sources. Some of the Orientalists have also admitted this fact. Prof. Montgomery Watt observes:
(...) The possibility of his having read the Bible or other Jewish or Christian books may be ruled out. [p.39] (....); and it is unlikely that he had ever read any other books.3
Marshall G. S. Hodgson has also expressed the same views:
Muhammad’s standard for prophecy was, in principle, the experience and action of the old Hebrew prophets. But he knew nothing of them directly. His own experience was evidently very personal.4
Islam is a code of life revealed by God through his Messengers for providing guidance to the whole of mankind through the ages and its basic teachings have remained common in spirit and purpose all along. It would have been ridiculous if its fundamental teachings, which are not subject to time and space, had been different. God is One; He is the Creator and Sustainer of every being; there is no peer or partner to Him; Resurrection is unavoidable; murder, adultery, telling a lie, stealing, cruelty, etc. are sins and liable to punishment; mercy, truth, alms-giving, service to all beings and social welfare are virtues: These had been virtues hundreds of thousands of years back, they are virtues today, and they will remain virtues throughout the centuries and millennia to come. How can, then, the teachings of one Prophet (sws) be different from other Prophets even though there be a gap of hundreds and thousands of years between them? This fact should best be known, and be made known to all others, by, of all people, the learned orientalists. The Qur’an explains:
He has laid down for you the [same] way of life and belief which He commanded to Noah, and which We have enjoined on you, and which We had bequeathed to Abraham, Moses and Jesus, so that they should maintain the order and not be divided among themselves. Heavy is to idolaters what you invite them to. God chooses whom He please for Himself, and guides to Himself whoever turns to Him.5
The Prophet of Islam (sws) was an unlettered person. He had no contact with some authority of religious knowledge, nor had he any opportunity of receiving a regular schooling or education from some religious scholar. There is a tradition that the Prophet, at the age of nine or twelve, travelled to Syria, with his guardian uncle, Abu Talib, in a trading caravan. The caravan broke journey at Busra. A monk, Buhayra or Bahira by name, who lived there in a monastery, recognized him to be the Apostle of the Lord of the Worlds. When asked about his source of knowledge about Muhammad’s imminent apostleship, he replied that every tree and rock had prostrated itself before him; At his advice, Abu Talib sent him back to Makkah with Abu Bakr and Bilal. Most of the renowned Orientalists have made every effort to exploit this tradition and to assert that the Prophet (sws) of Islam (sws) conceived the idea of apostleship and got most of its training and education from this monk. They let aside all their scholarship, analytic study, objectivity and their high standard of research for which they are conspicuously renowned and appreciated the world over and made a mountain out of a molehill.
The tradition has been reported through different chains of narrators and is found in different collections. The strongest chain is that of Tirmizi. All other stories are so obviously fabricated ones that none of the regular compilers of the traditions of the Prophet of Islam (sws) considered them worthy of mention. The chain of the narrators in Tirmizi is:
Tirmizi reports it from Fadl Ibn Sahl, who reports it from `Abd al-Rahman Ibn Ghazwan, -- from Yunus Ibn Abi Ishaq, -- from Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Musa, from his father [Abu Musa Ash`ari]. He said: Abu Talib set out for Syria etc.6
Allama Shibli Nu`mani, and later on his learned student Allama Sayyid Sulayman Nadwi, made some analytic observations on the Buhayra incident in their esteemed seven-volume Urdu work on the life of the Prophet (sws), "Sirat al-Nabi". A gist of their observations from Volume I and Volume III is given hereunder:
Although one of the narrators, `Abd al-Rahman Ibn Ghazwan, has been approved by some of the critics of Asma al-Rijal (the science of judging the reliability of the narrators of the traditions); yet others have leveled charges against him. Allama Dhahabi, in his "Mizan al-I`tidal", says: `Abd al-Rahman relates Munkar (unacceptable) traditions; the most unacceptable of which is the tradition regarding the account of Buhayra. The concocted tradition regarding Mamalik was also reported by him. Hakim says: He reported an unacceptable tradition from Imam Layth. Ibn Hibban writes: He committed mistakes. Abd al-Rahman has reported it from Yunus Ibn Ishaq. Although some of the critics have approved this Yunus, yet generally he is considered to be unreliable. Yahya says: He was very careless. Shu`ba has accused him of deceit. Imam Ahmad has termed his reporting, in general, as disturbed and worthless. Yunus reported it from Abu Bakr who reported it from his father, Abu Musa Asha`ri; but it is not certain that he ever heard some tradition from his father. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hunbal has totally rejected his hearing from his father. That’s why Ibn Sa`ad has declared him as unreliable. Thus the tradition can safely be termed as Munqata` (whose chain of reporters is cut off).7
After giving a brief account of the chain of narrators from "Sirat al-Nabi", a fairly detailed study of the narrators is undertaken hereunder. First of all, a few words about the first narrator, Abu Musa Asha`ri. He was one of the companions of the Prophet of Islam (sws). Ibn Athir asserts about him:
A group of scholars of genealogy and biography asserts that Abu Musa came to Makkah, entered into alliance with Sa`id Ibn al-As and turned back to the area of his tribe. Then [after not less than ten to fifteen years] he came with his brethren and his journey coincided with the return of the refugees from Ethiopia at the time of the conquest of Khaybar. It is also said that their ship was driven by the wind to the land of Negroes, where they stayed for some time. Then they joined the Refugees in their return to Madinah from Ethiopia.8 Abu Musa died between 42-53 AH at the age of 63.9
Hafiz Dhahabi has collected some detailed information about him. He says:
It is reported that Abu Musa died in the year 42 AH. Abu Ahmad al-Hakim reports: He died in the year 42 AH; and it is also said that in 43 AH.’ Abu Na’im, Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Numayr and Qa`nab Ibn al-Muharrar reported that he died in the year 44 AH]. So far as Waqidi is concerned, he says: He died in the year 52 AH; and Mada`Ini says: in the year 53 AH after Mughirah. And I had mentioned in Tabaqat al-Qurra: True it is that Abu Musa died in Dhu al-Hijjah in the year 44 AH.10
Similar data has been recorded about him by the following authorities:
(a) Ibn Hajr.11
(b) Ibn Sa`ad.12
It is thus clear from the above that:
i) Abu Musa died at the age of 63.
ii) He died between the year 42-53 AH and most probably in 44 AH, as stated above by Dhahabi.
iii) If he died in 42 AH, he was born when the Prophet (sws) was 32, i.e. 20 to 23 years after the incident of Buhayra.
iv) If he died in 53 AH, he might have been born when the Prophet was 34, i.e. 31 to 34 years after the incident of Buhayra.
v) In no case can Abu Musa be treated as an eye-witness to the incident which took place not less than 20-34 years prior to his coming into existence; and 30-40 years before his pubescence, when he could have been expected to be able to understand and remember such an event even to a very small degree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if Abu Musa be not an eye-witness, his report could have been acceptable, had he stated that either he had heard it from the Prophet (sws) himself, or from some of the Prophet’s companions, who should have heard it from the Prophet (sws) himself. In the absence of such a statement, the chain of the narrators is to be considered as disconnected, and such a tradition is termed as ‘Mursal’, which is a sort of a defect in a tradition. But even if this flaw is ignored, the chain has other serious shortcomings, which render it quite unacceptable.
Abu Bakr reports the tradition from his father, Abu Musa Asha`ri. It is genuinely questionable if he ever heard some tradition from his father. He died in the year 106 AH13 whereas his father Abu Musa died [at the age of 63]14 in 42 AH as has been reported by Imam Dhahabi, which is reproduced here: Ibn Sa`ad reports from Haytham Ibn `Adi: He died in the year 42 AH or later.’15 It means that he lived for 64 years or so after the death of his father and would not have been more than a boy at the death of his father. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hunbal has categorically rejected any possibility of it. Ibn Sa’ad says that he is considered as unworthy and unreliable. Hafiz Yusuf al-Mizzi states that it is reported that his name was `Amar or `Amir. He further states:
He reported the traditions from: al-Aswad Ibn Hilal, Bara Ibn `Azib, Jabir Ibn Samurah, Abdullah Ibn `Abbas, `Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and what had been said, which is a misconception, [emphasis added] from his father, Abu Musa.16
From Abu Bakr the tradition has been reported to Yunus Ibn Ishaq. As already stated: he is unworthy, unreliable, careless and even a cheat. Abu Hakim asserts that he is often baffled and hallucinated about his reports. Although some of the critics have tolerated or even approved him, yet most of them consider him unreliable. Hafiz Mizzi has collected some fairly detailed information about him. It would be pertinent to study some of the remarks made by him:
Salih Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hanbal reports from `Ali Ibn al-Madyani that he was listening to Yahya. When Yunus Ibn Ishaq was mentioned there, he said: He was negligent and careless; and these were his natural and innate characteristics. Bundar quotes from Salm Ibn Qutaybah: I came from Kufah. Shu`bah asked me whom I had seen there. I said I saw such and such persons there; and I also met Yunus Ibn Abi Ishaq. He asked: what [hadith] has he related to you. I narrated [whatever I had heard]. He kept silent for a while. I told him that he said: Bakr Ibn Ma’iz narrated to me. Shu`bah observed: Didn’t he say to you that Abdullah Ibn Mas`ud had narrated to him? (which was obviously impossible due to the gap of time in both of them. It means that Shu`bah treats him as a fabricator.) Abu Bakr al-Athram says: I heard Abu Abdullah. When [the name of] Yunus Ibn Abi Ishaq was mentioned, he termed his reporting from his father as unreliable. Abu Talib told Ahmad Ibn Hanbal as saying that in Yunus’s hadith there were some additions on the reports of the people. His son Israel heard and noted down from Abu Ishaq; but there are no such additions in it as Yunus adds. Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said: I asked my father about Yunus Ibn Abi Ishaq; he said that his reports are disturbed and confused. (...). He is such and such a person. Abu Hatim said that he was truthful but his hadiths cannot be quoted as authentic or offered as a proof for something. Imam Nasai tolerated him by saying that there is no harm in him. (...). He died in 159 or 152 or 158; the first one is more correct.17 The next narrator `Abd al-Rahman Ibn Ghazwan -- although most of the learned critics have declared him a strong, reliable or acceptable narrator -- is also not without a blame. Imam Mizzi observes as follows:
Ibn Hibban has reported about him: He used to commit mistakes. His report from al-Layth -- from Malik -- from Zuhri -- from `Urwah -- from `Aishah about the story of al-Mamalik disturbs and troubles the heart. Tabari says that he died in the year 207 AH.18
Now there remains only Fadhl Ibn Sahl Ibn Ibrahim al-`Araj. He is a reliable narrator; but there are also some reservations about him. Khatib Baghdadi asserts:
Ahmad Ibn Sulayman Ibn `Ali al-Muqriu reported to me from Abu Sa`id Ahmad Ibn Muhammad al-Malini to whom reported Abdullah Ibn `Adi -- he said: I heard Abdan saying that he heard Abu Dawud al-Sajistani saying that he did not [like to] report [some tradition] from Fadhl [the Lame]. I asked why. He said [how is it that] no good hadith escaped from him. Ibn `Adi said that he heard Ahmad Ibn al-Husayn al-Sufi saying that Fadhl was one of the fox like cunning, wily and crafty persons.19
It is to be noted that if only a single narrator is adversely criticized, or if there is a disconnection in the chain of the narrators, or if the first narrator is not either a part of the event himself or an eye-witness to the event, the whole chain of the narrators becomes doubtful and the report or the hadith becomes unreliable. In this hadith, most of the narrators are unreliable. Secondly, the chain of the narrators is disconnected. And finally, the first narrator is not an eye-witness or part of the incident. It is strange that in spite of all these defects and with the chain of narrators being of such a dubious nature, how could a scholarly analyst have even dared to quote this tradition, not to say of presenting it as an evidence on an important issue.
After undertaking the external study of its chain of narrators of the tradition, its text and content also needs to be looked into. The text of the tradition is reproduced below:
Along with the Prophet, Abu Talib set out to Syria with some of the elders of the Quraysh. When they approached the monk, they dismounted for a break. The monk came to them, whereas, previously, when they passed by him, he never came out or took any notice of them. While they were unfastening their saddle-bags, he passed through them. Coming to Muhammad, he caught his hand and said: This is the Chief of the Worlds, Messenger of the Lord; Allah shall appoint him as Mercy for the Worlds. The elders of Quraysh asked him how he came to know about it. He said: When you appeared from the gorge, each and every tree and stone bowed down before him; and they never prostrate for anyone except a prophet. I also recognized him by means of an apple-like "Seal of Prophethood", which is below his shoulder-bones. Then he came back and got some lunch prepared for them. When he brought it for them, he [the ‘would be’ Prophet boy] was with the herd of camels. The monk sent for him. The [‘would be’] Prophet came along with a cloud casting shadow on him. When he reached the people he found that they had already occupied all the shady place under the tree. The Prophet sat, and lo! the shade of the tree leaned over him. The monk said: Look here! the shade of the tree has inclined towards him. He was yet standing with them, solemnly requesting them not to take him to the territory of Byzantine, because no sooner would the Romans see him than they would recognize him by his traits, and would murder him; when, all of a sudden, seven persons appeared from Byzantine. He welcomed them and asked the purpose of their visit. They said: It has been brought to our knowledge that this [promised] Prophet is to come out [of his place of residence] in this month. So, people have been dispatched on all sides and we have been sent to this route of yours. The monk said: Is there anyone behind you who is superior to you? They said that they being the best ones had been selected for this side. The monk said: Have you pondered ?! Can anyone prevent the accomplishment of a task that Allah has resolved to accomplish? At their reply in the negative, he urged them to pledge their allegiance to him. They stood with him. Upon his earnest request people told him that Abu Talib was his [Muhammad’s] guardian. On his insistence, Abu Talib sent him back [to Makkah] with Abu Bakr and Bilal [or it was Abu Bakr who sent Bilal with him; which does not look to be a proper rendering]. The monk [then] offered them oil and cake for their en-route provisions.20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the text is critically analysed, it reveals serious flaws. Some of the observations are given below:
1. Abu Talib had never been a wealthy person. His poverty was so dire and it struck him to such an extent that he was unable even to support his own children. Some of his close relatives, who were sympathetic to him, undertook the up-bringing of some of his sons. Involvement in mercantile activities and going out in trade caravans could have only been undertaken by some rich person and Abu Talib could not have dreamed of it. The story of the tradition is a fabrication; and there is no mention of any trade activity of Abu Talib any where else. He was a simple perfume maker. He is also reported to have been lame21; and thus incapacitated to commit such a long and troublesome journey.
2. If it be true that Buhayra was such a great scholar and manipulator that he masterminded the prophethood of Muhammad, there would have been a lot of literature about this great benefactor of Christianity in the annals of Christianity. There would have been volumes replete with his life and works, whereas whatever has been stated about him, is borrowed from a very weak tradition of Islamic literature.
3. Buhayra singled out the ‘would be’ Prophet and in the presence of the elders of the Quraysh said that the boy shall become the "Choicest Leader of the Worlds, Apostle of the Lord of Worlds and Mercy for the Worlds". It is very likely that after these elders had borne witness to this incident they would have described this unusual event to the people of Makkah on their return. It would have become the talk of the town making Muhammad a very introduced personality in Makkah. When, a few years later, he appeared in the Ka`ba one early morning to settle the dispute of the fixing of the ‘Black Stone’, people should have shouted: `The Apostle of the Lord of the Worlds has arrived, the Chief Leader of all the Beings has come in; the Mercy for the Worlds has appeared. We pleasingly approve him and will accept his decision’. But history records that none of them uttered any such epithets; they rather cried: `Here comes the Amin -- the trustworthy--etc’. Then again, when this ‘would be’ Prophet announced his being formally commissioned to the position, every one should have rushed to pledge allegiance to him. It should have been on record that whosoever embraced Islam had announced that he already knew him to be a prophet and he had been eagerly waiting for his being commissioned as such.
4. When asked about his source of knowledge about the boy who was to be commissioned as a Prophet, Buhayra is reported to have answered that he saw all the trees and rocks bowing down before him. Had it been so, every body coming in contact with him in Makkah or elsewhere should have been aware of it. It was an unusual, uncommon, supernatural and extra-ordinary phenomenon and could not have escaped the notice of the people. It is strange that the caravan fellows who had been travelling with him for hundreds of miles, failed to take note of it; and it was only Buhayra who could catch sight of it. Also, this unusual happening should have been recorded in the Bible as a sign to recognize Prophet of Islam (sws). But we do not find any such mention in the Bible. This is an ample proof of this tradition being a fabricated one.
5. Had the learned orientalists, who pick this event as a boon to show that Muhammad learned and borrowed all the knowledge of his religious teachings from Christianity through this monk, believed that this incident was a fact and not fiction, and had they been sincere in their findings, their attitude towards Islam would have been quite different. Their present negative attitude towards Islam reveals that, as a matter of fact, they do not believe in the validity of this tradition.
6. Had the trees and stones bowed down to Muhammad, this prostration should not have been confined for this journey only. Hundreds of thousands of people should have already seen it in Makkah and elsewhere. But we do not find even a single sound tradition in any book of Hadith reporting such a happening. This also shows that the tradition is baseless.
It is also to be borne in mind that Islam has strictly denounced any prostration before anyone except Allah. The Qur’an asserts:
Bow not yourselves to the sun and moon, but bow yourselves to God who created them, if Him you serve.22
(...), and the stars and the trees bow themselves; and heaven -- He raised it up, and set the balance.23
And they serve, apart from God, what neither profits them nor hurts them; (...)But when they are told: Bow yourselves to the All-merciful, they say: And what is the All-merciful?24
The Prophet (sws) also prohibited the believers from prostrating before anyone except Allah. It had also been prohibited in the Bible:
You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.(...).25
It can thus be appreciated that prostration before the Prophet (sws) is not permissible in any case.
7. As to the "Seal of Prophethood", there seems to be no clear account of it in the Bible. Had there been any mention of this sign for the Prophet of Islam (sws) in the Bible; and had this ‘Seal’ physically existed on the back of the Prophet (sws), the sincere among the scholars and the elders of the Quraysh should have appreciated the genuineness of the claim of the Prophet of Islam (sws) as being the apostle of Allah and, as a result, should have acknowledged his religion to be true. Although there was a gland-like blackish growth on the upper back (beneath the shoulder bones) of the Prophet of Islam (sws), yet he never claimed it to be a sign for his apostleship. Had it something to do with a sign of his apostleship, the Prophet (sws) would have insistently offered it as such; the absence of which shows its irrelevance with any ultra-natural miraculous sign. It thus clearly establishes the absurdity of this tradition.
8. Had it been a genuine tradition; the Prophet of Islam (sws) would have asserted it as a conspicuous sign for his prophethood; and it would have been difficult for an unbeliever of Muhammad’s time to reject outright such an obviously tangible sign.
9. The same above mentioned observations are pertinently applicable to the shadow of the cloud for the Prophet of Islam (sws).
10. The same observations are fully applicable to the inclination of the tree to extend its shade for the Prophet (sws).
11. The tradition says that the monk urged them not to take the boy to the Byzantine territory, because, seeing the boy, they would recognize him by his signs and would put him to death. This only means that the signs of this ‘would be’ Prophet were so conspicuously laid down in the Bible, that he could in no case have escaped the notice of the Roman elders. Do the learned Orientalists agree with the monk’s observations? And if it be so, how far do they find themselves prepared to surrender to the truth? Do these scholars believe that the signs in favour of the Prophet of Islam (sws) are really so plainly described in the Bible that only at the sight of him, and that too in his early age, a scholar of the Bible could have, of certain, recognized him to be the Prophet?
12. As regards the assertion of the group of seven elders from Byzantine that the Prophet is out of his station during this month, one may ask about the source of their information. As far as the Bible is concerned, there is nothing to be found in it of this sort. It is strange that the learned Orientalists choose to build their castle on the ground of such a fabrication which itself has got not a single column to stand upon
13. Had the event been true, the elders of Quraysh and especially Abu Talib would not have refrained from embracing Islam as soon as the Prophet (sws) declared his commissioning to the office.
14. Had there been any truth in the story, the Islamic literature would have been full of the description of various aspects of the life of this monk. But he has nowhere been mentioned in whole of the Islamic writings of that age.
15. According to the last part of the tradition, at the insistence of the monk, Abu Talib sent the boy back with Abu Bakr and Bilal. This is a clear proof of the story being a blatant lie. It is a well known historical fact that Abu Bakr was two to three years younger to the Prophet (sws). If the ‘would be Prophet’ was 9 at that time, Abu Bakr would have been only 6; and had the ‘would be Prophet’ been 12, Abu Bakr would have been 9. There is a Persian maxim: `A liar has no memory.’ The fabricator of the story forgot that Abu Bakr was younger to the Prophet (sws), as is recorded in history. Ibn Sa’ad reports: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muhammad Ibn `Umar told us that he heard from Shu`ayb Ibn Talhah [reporting] from a son of Abu Bakr al-Siddique who said: Bilal was of the same age as Abu Bakr. Muhammad Ibn `Umar said: If it is like this, and it is a fact that Abu Bakr died in the year 13 [AH], when he was a ‘boy’ of 63 years; thus, between this and between that which was reported to us about Bilal, [there is a gap of] seven years. And Shu`ayb Ibn Talhah knows better about the birth of Bilal when he says: He was of the same age as Abu Bakr."26
Hafiz Dhahahbi, who is a reliable authority on Asma al-Rijal, has narrated a brief account of the life of Abu Bakr. He says:
al-Siddique died when eight days were left from the month of Jumada al-Akhirah in the year 13 AH and his age was sixty three years.27
The above reports reveal that there seems to be no sense in sending Abu Bakr with the ‘would be Prophet’ boy for his protection on his way back home.
As to Bilal, he may not have even been born by that time. Ibn Sa`ad says:
Bilal died in Damascus and was buried at Bab al-Saghir in the year 20 A H when he was a ‘boy’ of over sixty; and it is [also] said that he died in the year 17 or 18 A H.28
Similar information has been provided by Ibn Hajr. He Says:
He died in Syria in the year 17 or 18 AH and it is also said in 20 AH when he was above sixty.29
Shams al-ddin Dhahahbi has also noted some of the reports about Bilal. He says:
Yahya Ibn Bukayr reports: Bilal died in Damascus of plague in the year 18 AH. Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Taymi, Ibn Ishaq, and Abu `Umar al-Zarir, and a group report: ‘He died in Damascus in the year 20 AH.30
Hafiz Jamal al-ddin al-Mizzi has also quoted some authorities about Bilal. He writes:
Bukhari says that he died in Syria in the reign of `Umar. Ahvmad Ibn Abdullah Ibn al-Barqi reports that he died in the year 20 AH. Waqidi and Amar Ibn Ali say that he died in Damascus in the year 20 AH when he was a ‘boy’ of over sixty years.31
From all the above references and general information, it can plainly be deduced that:
i. The Prophet (sws), Abu Bakr and Bilal lived to be of the same age, that is 63 years.
ii. The Prophet (sws) died in the year 11 AH.
iii. Abu Bakr died in the year 13 AH, 2 years and 3 months later than the Prophet’s (sws) death.
iv. Bilal died in the year 17 or 18, and, most probably, in 20 AH, i.e., at least 6 or 7 years and most probably 9 years after the death of the Prophet (sws).
v. So, when the Prophet (sws) was 9, either he may not have been born or would have been a child of 1-3 years.
vi. When the Prophet (sws) was 12, he may have been either 5-7 years or most probably only 3 years of age.
It can thus be easily concluded that there may have been no chance of Bilal having been sent with the Prophet (sws) from Busra on the journey back home for his protection. This renders the tradition as totally impossible and obviously a concocted one. It is now every body’s case that where the grand edifice of the learned orientalists, showing that the Prophet of Islam (sws) learned all his religious teachings from a Christian monk, stands.
Abd al-Rahman Mubarakpuri in his commentary on Sunan al-Tirmizi, while explaining this tradition, observes:
And our Imams have counted it as an illusion in that the age of the Prophet, at that time, was twelve and Abu Bakr was two [and a quarter] years younger than the Prophet, whereas Bilal was not even born by that time. In Mizan al-’Itidal, it has been noted that of the points that indicate the absurdity of this tradition is his words ‘and he sent with him Abu Bakr and Bilal’ whereas Bilal was not born by that time and Abu Bakr was still a boy. And Dhahabi declared this hadith as weak [and unreliable] due to the words: And Abu Bakr sent with him Bilal, whereas Abu Bakr had not yet purchased Bilal [and as such he had no right to order him for some task]. (...). And Hafiz Ibn Qayyim said in his Zad al-Ma’ad (...); when he became of 12 years, his uncle set out with him to Syria. and it is also said that his age was only nine years at that time. (...). And it is obviously wrong; because Bilal had perhaps not even been born. And if he had been born he could not have been with Abu Bakr.32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The tradition says that on the persistent request of the monk, the ‘would be’ Prophet boy was sent back to Makkah under the protection of Abu Bakr and Bilal, because if he were to be taken to the Byzantine territory, there was a serious danger to the life of the boy; the religious scholars of the territory would recognize him and would put him to death. Abu Bakr and Bilal had not been sent with him for providing him company nor was it a sports trip. It is just silly, and quite unbelievable, that Abu Talib, who is believed to be loving the boy more than his own children, put him in the sole custody of two youngsters, one of whom was three years junior to him, and the other (Bilal) was either yet to be born (if the would be Prophet (sws) was 9 at that time), or a suckling baby of nearly two years. It is difficult to interpret how the learned orientalists, who are genuinely acknowledged to be commendable research scholars, and which, no doubt, they really are, picked up this obviously fabricated tradition and, with their exquisite and adroit pen, managed to build a complete castle in the air on its foundations.
16. At the age of about 25 years, when the Prophet (sws) had become a young man, he again undertook the journey to Syria with the trading caravan for Khadijah. Had he known that the land and its people are so inimical to him, and that, at the very sight of him, they would recognize him by his so conspicuous signs, he would never have undertaken that journey. But at the offer of taking the trading caravan by Khadijah, he showed no reservations; and unflinchingly accepted the offer. And to the surprise of the scholars nobody put a hand on him. He returned safe and sound after a very successful business.
17. It is surprisingly noted that in all this tradition, which although is a fabrication in itself, yet is stronger than all other narratives of the so-called incident, the monk is, at no time, seen to be addressing the ‘would be’ Prophet boy directly. One may once more go through the tradition and observe for himself the strange phenomenon. There has not been a single second person pronoun used for Muhammad any where at any time in the whole of the report. At every time, the monk uses the third person or a demonstrative pronoun for the boy. It shows that the monk did not consider that such a boy and from such an unlettered back ground could have been able even to understand his assertions. It can also be observed that none of the narrators of the tradition either, had been so silly as to show the monk addressing the boy directly; because they could naturally not have conceived a boy of his age worthy of such conversation.
To end the article, it will be useful to look into some balanced observations of some learned orientalists. John B. Noss and David S. Noss write in their esteemed work "Man’s Religions":
(...). The venerable tradition that he learned about Judaism and Christianity during caravan trips to Syria, the first when he was twelve in the company of Abu Talib and the second when he was twenty-five and in the employ of Khadija, whom he subsequently married, must be set aside as untrustworthy.33
Thomas Carlyle observes:
I know not what to make of that Sergius [Bahira or Buhayra, whatsoever the pronunciation be, has also been called as Sergius], the Nestorian Monk whom Abu Thalib and he are said to have lodged with; or how much any monk could have taught one still so young. Probably enough it is greatly exaggerated, this of Nestorian Monk. Mahomet was only fourteen [according to the tradition he was either only nine or, at the most, twelve]; had no language but his own: much in Syria must have been a strange unintelligible whirlpool to him.34
From the perusal of the above analysis it can be concluded that the claim of those scholars who assert that the Prophet of Islam (sws) acquired all his religious understandings from some Biblical scholar like Buhayra is baseless; and it is only out of their wishful miscalculations that they articulate such an obviously obscure and improbable story. Objective research demands sustained and un-prepossessed efforts to secure facts with a reasonable, justifiable, and responsible approach.
Allah Knows Best...
Peace Yall... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/jew/evil.htm
Evil, Genocide and Wars Spread by Judaism and Christianity
Numbers 25:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the HEADS of the people, and HANG them up before the LORD AGAINST THE SUN, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.
Deuteronomy 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee [for] an inheritance, THOU SHALT SAVE ALIVE NOTHING THAT BREATHETH:
Deuteronomy 20:17 But thou shalt UTTERLY DESTROY them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath COMMANDED THEE:
Judges 1:4 And Judah went up; and the LORD delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand: and they SLEW of them in Bezek TEN THOUSAND MEN.
Judges 1:5 And they found Adonibezek in Bezek: and they fought against him, and they SLEW the Canaanites and the Perizzites.
Judges 1:6 But Adonibezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and CUT OFF HIS THUMBS AND HIS GREAT TOES.
Ezek. 9:5 And the Lord said, "Go through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have you pity. SLAY UTTERLY OLD AND YOUNG, BOTH MAIDS AND LITTLE CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.
[Num. 31:1] And the Lord said unto Moses, "Avenge the children of the Mid'-an'ites.. They warred against the Mid'-i-an'ites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slay all the males. And they took all women as captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. Moses said, "HAVE YOU SAVED ALL THE WOMEN ALIVE? NOW KILL EVERY MALE AMONG THE LITTLE ONES, AND KILL EVERY WOMAN that has known a man by lying with him, but all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.
[Josh 6:16] Joshua said to the people of Israel, "The Lord has given you the city (of the Canaanites).. all silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are c consecrated unto the Lord: They shall come into the treasury of the Lord. The people utterly DESTROYED ALL THAT WAS IN THE CITY, BOTH MAN AND WOMAN, YOUNG AND OLD, AND OX AND SHEEP, AND ASS, WITH THE EDGE OF THE SWORD.
KILLING, KIDNAPPING, SLAVERY
[Josh. 16:10] So the Canaanites have dwelt in the midst of E'phraim to this day, but become slaves to do forced labour. (see also Joshua 17:13 and Judg. 1:30)
[Judg. 21:10] The congregation of Benjamin sent twelve thousand of their bravest men, and commanded them, "Go and smite the inhabitants of Ja'-besh-gil'ead with the edge of the sword; also the women and the little ones. Every male and every woman that has lain with a male YOU SHALL UTTERLY DESTROY.
And they found among the inhabitants four hundred YOUNG VIRGINS who had not known a man by lying with him; and they brought them to the camp of Shiloh, which is the land of Canaan. And Benjamin returned at that time, and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Ja'besh-gil'ead, but they did not suffice for them.
STEALING WOMEN !!
And they commanded the Benjaminites, saying:"Go and lie in wait in the vineyard, and watch, if the daughters of Shiloh go out to dance in the dances, then come out of the vineyard and seize each man his wife from the daughters of Shiloh. And the Benjaminites did so, and took their wives from
the dancers whom they caught.
KILL THEM AND TAKE THEIR PROPERTIES
[Deut. 20:10] When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it SHALL BE FORCED LABOUR FOR YOU AND SHALL SERVE YOU.
But if it makes no peace with you, then you shall besiege it, .. YOU SHALL PUT ALL ITS MALES TO THE SWORD, BUT THE WOMEN AND THE LITTLE ONES, the cattle and every thing else in the city all its spoil, YOU SHALL TAKE AS BOOTY FOR YOURSELVES; AND YOU SHALL ENJOY THE SPOIL OF YOUR ENEMIES.
REVENGE, SWORD, FIRE !!
[Heb. 12:29] OUR GOD IS DESTROYING FIRE.
[Psalm. 94:1] O LORD, YOU GOD OF VENGEANCE.
[Job 7:21] Why do not you pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity?
[Ezek. 11:8] God said, "You have feared the sword, the sword I will bring upon you."
[Amos 9:1] I will slay that left of them with the sword, not one of them shall flee away.. I WILL COMMAND THE SWORD, AND IT SHALL SLAY THEM.
[Jer.49:37] I will send the sword after them, until I have consumed them. (Let those who say Islam is the religion of the sword know that the word "sword" is never mentioned in the Quran while the Bible mentions it many times, in the way that you see here.) [Ezek. 12:14] I will unsheathe the sword after them. I will let a few of them escape from the sword, from famine and pestilence.
THE BIBLE MISREPRESENTS GOD'S MERCY
[Jer. 19:7] The Lord said, "T WILL MAKE THEM EAT THE FLESH OF THEIR SONS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS, and every one shall eat the flesh of his neighbour.
[Levi.26:14] If you will not hearken to me..21 I will bring a sword upon you.. 29 YOU SHALL EAT THE FLESH OF YOUR SONS, AND DAUGHTERS.
[Lam. 2:20] LOOK O LORD, AND SEE! WITH WHOM YOU HAVE DONE THAT: SHOULD WOMEN EAT THEIR FRUIT AND CHILDREN OF A SPAN LONG?
[Lam. 4:4] The hands of compassionate women have boiled their own childrenthey became their food.
SWORD AND FIRE IN NEW TESTAMENT
[Math. 10:34] "Do not think that I have come to make peace on earth? I HAVE NOT COME TO BRING PEACE, BUT A SWORD. "For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother." [said Jesus]! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Luke. 12:49] 'I CAME TO CAST FIRE UPON THE EARTH, AND WOULD THAT IT WERE ALREADY KINDLED.. DO YOU THINK THAT I HAVE COME TO GIVE PEACE ON EARTH? NO, I TELL YOU, BUT RATHER DIVISION; for from henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two, and two against three. They will be divided, father against son, and son against father, mother against daughter, and daughter against her mother. [said Jesus]!
[Luke. 19:27] For these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, BRING THEM HERE AND SLAY THEM BEFORE ME.
[Luke. 14:26] If any one comes to me and does not HATE his own father and mother and wife, and children, and brothers and sisters yes and even his own life: he cannot be my disciple.
PAUL AND RACISM
[Gal. 2:15] Paul said, "We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners."
[Gal. 4:22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave, and by a free women. BUT WHAT DOES THE SCRIPTURE SAY? "CAST OUT THE SLAVE AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF SLAVE SHALL NOT INHERIT WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN" SO, BRETHREN WE ARE NOT CHILDREN OF THE SLAVE BUT OF THE FREE WOMAN."
GENTILES IN THE BIBLE !!!
[Isia. 49:22] Thus the Lord said, "Behold I will lift up my hand to the gentiles, and raise up my signal to the people, and they shall bring your sons in their bosom, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders. Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. WITH THEIR FACES TO THE GROUND THEY SHALL BOW DOWN TO YOU, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET.
[Isia. 60:4] Lift up your eyes round about, and see, they all gather together, they come to you. THE WEALTH OF THE NATIONS(in K.J.version: gentiles) SHALL COME UNTO YOU and the sons of the foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister unto you...MEN MAY BRING UNTO YOU THE WEALTH OF THE NATIONS (in K.J. version: Gentiles)
WITH THEIR KINGS LED IN YOUR POSSESSION. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste. YOU SHALL SUCK THE MILK OF THE NATIONS(in K.J. version: Gentiles), YOU SHALL SUCK THE BREAST OF KINGS.
[Isia. 61:5] And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedresses. BUT YOU SHALL BE NAMED THE PRIESTS OF THE LORD. Men shall call you the ministers of God. YOU SHALL EAT THE RICHES OF THE NATIONS(in K.J.version Gentiles) AND IN THEIR GLORY SHALL YOU BOAST YOURSELVES.
TAKE USURY FROM THE GENTILES ONLY !!
[Deut. 23:19] "Do not charge your brother interest, you may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite." (The word Israelite according to the Good News Bible)
[Deut.15:1] Every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbour. He shall not exact it of his neighbour, his brother. Of a foreigner you may exact it. But whatever of yours is with your brother, your
hand shall release.
EX 21:23-25, LE 24:17-21, DT 19:21 An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.
EX 22:20 Anyone who sacrifices to other gods must be destroyed.
LE 24:16 Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death.
NU 3:10 An unauthorized person who acts as a priest must be put to death.
DT 13:6-10 A man is required to slay his friends and members of his own family who are guilty of worshipping another god.
DT 17:12 A man who shows contempt for a judge or priest must be put to death.
DT 18:20-22, EZ 14:9 If a prophet's words do not come true, he is a false prophet and must be put to death. This is true even if he has been deceived by God himself.
DT 22:23-24 A betrothed virgin who is seduced in the city is to be put to death unless she cries for help.
PR 13:24, 22:15, 23:13 Children are to be disciplined with the rod-- if beaten with a rod, they will not die. (Note: Many Christian parents have inadvertently beaten a child to death following this precept.)
MT 5:29-30, 18:8-9, MK 9:43-47 If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off.
MK 10:2-12, LK 16:18 Divorce is wrong, and to remarry is to commit adultery.
LE 20:10-12, DT 22:22 Adulterers (in some cases) must be put to death.
Genesis 34:25 Three days later, while all of them were still in pain, two of Jacob's sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male.
Exodus 32:27 Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'"
Leviticus 26:29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.
Numbers 21:35 So they struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army, leaving them no survivors. And they took possession of his land.
Numbers 31:31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.
32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep,
33 72,000 cattle,
34 61,000 donkeys
35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was: 337,500 sheep,
37 of which the tribute for the LORD was 675;
38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the LORD was 72;
39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the LORD was 61;
40 16,000 people, of which the tribute for the LORD was 32.
Deuteronomy 2 :33 The LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army.
34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed
[1] them--men, women and children. We left no survivors.
Deuteronomy 20:13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.
Joshua 6:21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it--men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
Joshua 10:34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it.
35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.
Judges 1:6 Adoni-Bezek fled, but they chased him and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and big toes.
Judges 9:45 All that day Abimelech pressed his attack against the city until he had captured it and killed its people. Then he destroyed the city and scattered salt over it.
1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[1] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
Ezekiel 9:6 Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.
Allah Knows Best...
Peace Yall.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :lol
http://www.themodernreligion.com ... bible_amalekite.htm
Was the Amalekite Massacre a Moral Atrocity?
By Farrell Till
The story of the Israelite massacre of the Amalekite nation is recorded in 1 Samuel 15 . The facts of the case, as claimed in this chapter, are these: Yahweh sent the prophet Samuel to command Saul, the first king of Israel, to "go and smite Amalek" and to " utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not" (v:3 ); the command explicitly stated that Saul was to kill "both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (same verse). According to the story, Saul took "two hundred thousand footmen and ten thousand men of Judah" (v:4 ) against the Amalekites and "utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword" (v:7 ), except for Agag their king, whom he kept alive to take back as a prisoner. This act of mercy, of course, was a clear violation of Yahweh's instructions, which were to kill everyone and spare no one. In addition to this act of disobedience, Saul also kept alive "the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them" (v:9 ).
Saul's disobedience irked Yahweh, whose word came to Samuel (as Yahweh's word had a habit of doing in those days) and said, "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king, for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments" (v:10 ). Apparently when Yahweh said kill everyone and everything and spare no one and nothing, he meant kill everyone and everything and spare no one and nothing. Samuel left the next morning and met Saul returning home from battle. Samuel sharply reprimanded Saul for not executing [no pun intended] Yahweh's word to the letter and informed Saul that Yahweh had rejected him from being king (vv:17-23 ). Samuel ordered that Agag, the Amalekite king, be brought out, and then in the presence of Yahweh, Samuel hacked Agag to pieces with a sword (vv:32-33 ), presumably to show the people that when Yahweh said kill everyone, he meant kill everyone.
What happened on that day, if indeed it did happen, must by all standards of decency and morality--except for biblical standards, of course--be considered a moral atrocity. After all, this is a case where an attacking army went beyond the killing of the soldiers they fought against to the butchering of women and children and even infants still nursing their mothers' breasts. Please notice that Yahweh's order was to slay even "infant and suckling" (v:3); no one--nothing--was to be spared. As we will soon note, it was Yahwistic vengeance at its bloodiest.
My position, which is the position that any humanitarian would take in the matter, is that such an event as this must be considered a moral atrocity. The American Heritage Dictionary defines moral as that which is "concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character; pertaining to the discernment of good and evil." It defines atrocity as an "atrocious condition, quality, or behavior; monstrousness; vileness." Atrocious is defined as "extremely evil or cruel; monstrous; exceptionally bad." What degree of judgment is required for one to determine that killing defenseless babies is "bad"? In the following article, Lindell Mitchell will deny that the massacre of the Amalekites was a moral atrocity, so I wonder if Mr. Mitchell will tell us that killing children and babies in his "judgment" is not "monstrous" or "exceptionally bad," that it can, in fact, be an act of goodness? Indeed he will, because he is a Bible inerrantist and can take no other position.
The killing of just one Amalekite woman or child or infant, solely because of her, his, or its nationality, would have constituted moral atrocity by any civilized standard of morality, but to put into proper perspective the extent of this massacre, I want first to establish a concrete image of what probably occurred on that occasion. If the story happened as recorded, then by necessity, hundreds of women, children, and babies were killed by Israelite soldiers. How do I know this? Well, even though Saul "utterly destroyed" the Amalekites, except for Agag, whom Samuel quickly took care of, the Amalekites were, inexplicably, still around just a few chapters later where the guerrilla escapades of David were chronicled. On one occasion, David raided the Amalekites and "saved neither man nor woman alive" (1 Sam. 27:8-9 ), yet these twice-utterly-destroyed Amalekites somehow made a speedy comeback, raided David's camp at Ziklag (30:1 ), and took the women captive. (Apparently, Amalekites were more humanitarian than the Yahwistic Hebrews.) David pursued the Amalekites, and when he reached their encampment, he "smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day" (v:17 ). There "escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, who rode upon camels and fled" (v:17 ). Now if David smote these twice-utterly-destroyed Amalekites from twilight until evening of the next day, there must have been a lot of them when the battle started. The extent of their numbers would also be indicated by the way it was said that "there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men." In other words, the writer must have intended for us to understand that the "four hundred young men" who escaped on camels represented just a small fraction of the total Amalekite population. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If 400 young men escaped on camels, we can reasonably assume that many other young men were killed when David was smiting the Amalekites "from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day." So if that many young Amalekite men were alive at the time of this encounter with David's guerrillas, we can imagine how many of them there must have been before Saul and Samuel utterly destroyed them. Be that as it may, we can assume that if there were at least 400 young Amalekite men, there were probably that many young women too. Young men able to escape on camels were probably not children, and certainly they were not infants. A steadiness of tribal growth from year to year, then, would suggest a population of at least several hundred children and infants at the time of David's battle with the Amalekites, so before the Amalekites were "utterly destroyed" by Saul and Samuel, there must have been thousands of children and infants. The point is that, if there is any degree of accuracy at all in the Bible, inerrantists will have to concede that the Israelite massacre of the Amalekite nation in 1 Samuel 15 entailed the killing of thousands of women, children, and infants. Mr. Mitchell wants us to believe that this massacre was morally proper.
To put the incident--if indeed the massacre of thousands of women, children, and infants can properly be called just an "incident"--into a clear perspective, let's try to visualize in specific, concrete terms what had to have happened on that day, not just once, not just twice, but hundreds of times. The instruments of warfare at that time were swords, spears, and bows and arrows, so we can only assume that these were the weapons used to "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling" (1 Sam. 15:3 ). David, whom the Bible describes as a man "after Yahweh's own heart" (1 Sam. 13:14 ), made the survivors of a battle with the Moabites lie on the ground so that he could measure them off in three "lines." Two of the lines were killed, and the third was kept alive to become "servants of David" (2 Sam. 8:2 ). As brutal as this was, it was comparatively civilized in terms of the treatment that the Israelite king Menahem accorded his captives. He "ripped up" the pregnant women captives after a military campaign against Tiphsah (2 Kings 15:16 ). The point is that these were barbaric times, so we can reasonably assume that what contemporaries did with civilian captives was probably what the Israelites did with the Amalekites.
I have often wondered if inerrantists defend biblical events like the Amalekite massacre because they don't take the time to think in specific terms of everything that such an event would necessarily have encompassed. I don't know; I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do men like Mr. Mitchell see thousands of Amalekite women, children, and infants as merely an abstract concept or words on paper rather than specific, living and breathing individuals with hopes, aspirations, and a desire for life as real as yours and mine... and Mr. Mitchell's? Does he think that Amalekite children and babies somehow didn't bleed when spears were thrust through them or feel pain when they were hacked with swords? Recalling again that the weapons of the time were swords and spears, we can reasonably assume that these were the instruments of slaughter that the Israelites used to kill the Amalekite women, children, and infants. So, if the story happened as recorded, Mr. Mitchell has to know that not just once, not just twice, but hundreds of times, a specific Israelite soldier, wielding a specific sword or spear, thrust his weapon through a specific Amalekite infant. We can hardly imagine that all of these children and infants were killed simultaneously. The massacre was surely a sequential affair. Some were killed first, then others, then others, then others, etc., as the Israelite army passed through the civilian population. We can imagine, then, the terror of screaming children who, seeing what was happening as the soldiers advanced toward them, knew what was soon going to happen to them. How many of them were thrust through from the back as they tried to flee for their lives? We can never know, but from reports of what happened at places like My Lai, we can be reasonably sure that it did happen. So these Amalekite children were not just abstract concepts or words on paper; they were real individuals, just as real as Mr. Mitchell's children (if he has any). They had individual names and personalities, just as children today have. They were the Jasons and Brandons and the Jennifers and Lisas of their time and place--and they were all killed, individually, by specific Israelite soldiers, presumably acting on orders from the God of heaven. We can imagine too Amalekite mothers futilely trying to shield their babies from Israelite swords and spears with their own bodies, because we know from many documented cases that this routinely happens when mothers sense threats to their babies.
If Mr. Mitchell's inerrant "word of God" is truly inerrant, the scenario I have just described is exactly what happened on that day. So now I am going to state my position as emphatically as I know how. If such a scenario as this is not morally wrong, then nothing is! I will repeat it. If such a scenario as this is not morally wrong, then nothing is! And I can't wait to put Mr. Mitchell's defense of this atrocity into print, because I want the world to see the extremes to which blind allegiance to the absurd doctrine of Bible inerrancy will lead one. It requires its believers to defend the killing of children and babies for no other reason than the circumstance of national birth, and such a belief is repugnant to everything that modern civilization stands for.
To cut right to the heart of the matter, I am going to ask Mr. Mitchell a question that will let us know just how sincere his belief in the moral rightness of the Amalekite massacre really is. I will state it in the form of a true or false question:
If I, Lindell Mitchell, had been born an Israelite in the time of King Saul, I would have willingly and gladly participated in the Amalekite campaign by killing women, pregnant women, children, infants, the elderly, the sick, and the feeble.
I sincerely hope that he will answer false, but I know that he won't. To do that would raise questions highly detrimental to his inerrancy position. Why would he not willingly do the will of God? Why would he not gladly do the will of God? In all probability, he will somehow evade the question, but if he does answer it, the only answer he can give, without surrendering his position, is true. So an honest and forthright answer from him will put this issue in a crystal clear perspective for our readers. It will enable them to see that belief in Bible inerrancy will require them to defend the killing of babies.
I know that Mr. Mitchell is not completely without compassion for children, because he usually plasters his letters to me with "pro-life" stickers that say such things as, "It's a child, not a choice." Although I don't agree with his position on the issue of abortion, I do recognize that his position implies a concern for children. So now I will ask him to explain something that puzzles me. If abortion, even in the very first days of pregnancy is morally wrong (as he seems to believe), then what made morally right the abortions that the Israelite soldiers performed on Amalekite women that day? We can certainly assume that in a population of thousands (as already established) there were many pregnant women, so when the Israelite soldiers utterly destroyed "man and woman, infant and suckling," they necessarily terminated many pregnancies. Why was that morally right if abortion is wrong, period? What had those unborn Amalekite babies done to deserve death? For that matter, what had the babies already born done to deserve death? Mr. Mitchell has a lot of explaining to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now inerrantists like Mr. Mitchell would have us believe that the massacre was done upon direct orders from God, so somehow that made everything all right. You see, God can do no wrong; God knows things we cannot know, so he had special omniscient insights into the matter that enabled him to understand the necessity of the massacre, no matter how shocking it may seem to our pathetically finite minds. In the sweet by and by, however, we will understand God's ways, which are higher than our ways, so then we will know why God had to do this, and it will make perfectly good sense to us. I have debated this subject with Bible fundamentalists enough to know that we can expect to hear some kind of doublethink like this as Mr. Mitchell seeks to explain it all to us. Meanwhile, as we wait for Jesus to pass out answers to us in the great beyond, we can take solace from knowing that God actually did the Amalekite children and infants a big favor by commanding Saul to massacre them. Had they been permitted to live, they would have simply grown up to be wicked like their parents. By having them killed as children living in a state of innocence, he assured them of a place in heaven, so now they won't have to fry in hell. Yes, expect Mr. Mitchell to say such stuff as this too. If you don't believe that anyone could possibly advance an argument as asinine as this, see page 6 of Clarence Lavender's article ("Was It Morally Right for God to Order the Killing of the Canaanites?" TSR, Winter 1993), where he actually said that the Israelite massacre of Canaanite children was the "best thing that could have happened." I don't make this stuff up, readers. I just encounter it in my engagements with fundamentalists and pass it along to you. So you can expect to see some kind of rebuttal from Mr. Mitchell that is based on the premise that God did it, so it had to be all right. He will expect us to believe that, somehow, a deity whom the Bible describes as the "Father of mercies and God of all comfort" (1 Cor. 1:3 ), "merciful and gracious" (Ex. 34:6 ), and who is "abundant in lovingkindness" (Ibid.), and who is praised with various other descriptions intended to convey qualities of goodness and righteousness, was simply manifesting his supreme moral excellence when he ordered the slaughter of the Amalekites. I have yet to see a logically coherent defense based on this premise, so I don't expect one from Mr. Mitchell either. Whatever he says, I will respond to it in our next exchange.
Allah Knows Best...
Peace Yall... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too long man. nobody will read, not even you aenemy7. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I already read long before i post it....if u don't want to read it,that's fine!!:lol ..yeah it's long but worth to read,take your time.....:lol
Allah Knows Best...
Peace Yall... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
URL= http://www.angelfire.com/fl/religions/jesus.html
Jesus Christ In Bible & Quran
Jesus as seen in Christianity and Islam, the sources are mainly the Bible, and Quran.
Creation of Adam and Jesus!
"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
Genesis 1:27
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be": and he was."
Quran 3:59
The Birth
..."the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger"...
Luke 1:6-7
"So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: she cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight! But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree) :"Do not grieve! for your Lord has provided a rivulet beneath you; "And shake toward yourself the trunk of the palm-tree: it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon you. "
Quran 19:22-5
The Other Mircales of Jesus in the Quran
"So eat and drink and cool (your) eye. And if you see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to (Allah) Most Gracious, and this day I will not enter into any talk with any human being.' At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing you have brought! "O sister of Aaron! your father was not a man of evil, nor your mother an unchaste woman!" But she pointed to the babe. They said: "how can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He has given me Revelation and made me a prophet; "And He has made me blessed wheresoever I be, and has enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; "(He) has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable."
Quran 19:26-32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Author
Post time 13-12-2004 08:40 PM
![[Netflix 2025] Melo Movie - Choi Woo Shik, Park Bo Young (Akan Datang 14 Feb 2025)](https://uf.cari.com.my/forumx/mforum/block/e1/e18e5bdd9a8a779a016fd931341c872e.jpg)
