Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

shafique · Mar 27, 2008

freza wrote:Shafique, get this in your head and make sure it stays there. I did not say that Islam is beautiful because of Mohammad. I said I find it beautiful in a mostly superficial way ("it photographs well"), it's visually stunning.

Islam is a religion. It was brought by Muhammad, pbuh.

You stated that you had no problem with people following Islam and asked 'why would I?'.

Therefore I took you at your words that you found the teachings of Islam as beautiful. If you meant 'Islamic architecture' or 'Islamic Men' or 'Islamic Women' as something beautiful, then you should have said so.

freza wrote:and not too superficially in this way: I find that some of what it has become does stand for good things. So I find it beautiful in spite of Mohammad and the faulty Quran which as I have said before I believe to be a combination of inventions, stories: truthful and not, things that were added to it along the years but I do not think it was inspired nor original. I see it as based on Jewish and Christian influences. (I actually think its more Jewish than Christian.) mkay, got it? So next time you want to quote my "beautiful" reference, make sure you actually know what I meant.

Methinks the lady protests too much.

You said Islam is beautiful - I agree with you.

You don't believe in the Quran and look down on Muhammad, pbuh. You have the right to hold those opinions. I don't share those and am willing to put my case.

freza wrote:
shafique wrote:Your criteria of only accepting a prophet if he is 'enlightened' is not one I have read in the Bible - but surely a beautiful religion is a sign of enlightenment? If a person committing manslaughter and war crimes is 'enlightened' - what is an un-enlightened person?
A prophet must be enlightened to the message of God in order to pass them on to people.

Agreed. Muhammad, pbuh, passes this test.

freza wrote: What messages did Moses get from God that he kept for his own benefit? And why don't you tell us why God saw fit to punish some of the Hebrew prophets?

I have respect for all prophets of God - even the ones you consider are not real prophets (such as Abraham, Lot, David and Solomon).

freza wrote:Repeat after me: Because they committed offenses. David actually said "“I have sinned against the Lord!”" He admitted his sins and repented sincerely (it took him a year but he finally did). God forgave him BUT he didn't go unpunished.

This is one aspect where the Quran differs from the Bible - it exonerates Prophets what Muslims consider as slander. This is one reason why your assertion that the Quran copied the Bible rings hollow.

freza wrote:God punished Moses on more than one occasion and sometimes for what can be considered a very small offense (for what amounted to losing his temper). Mohammad never admitted his sins! So we're to believe that towards Mohammad God was completely different - not only didn't God point out Mohammad's sins, he didn't punish him but actually encouraged and found excuses for his sins. Yeah, right.

You really should get off the high horse some time.

We don't believe any prophets committed sins. It seems hypocritical to me to criticise Muhammad, pbuh, for alleged lapses which are much less than what is attributed to Biblical prophets (eg. Lot slept with his daughters allegedly, Solomon had a thousand wives etc)

freza wrote:
shafique wrote:That said, freza has said she does not consider Abraham, David, Solomon, Lot etc as prophets - so that is another part of the Bible she does not take literally.
say whaaaaat? lol! WHERE DID I STATE THIS? Lot - I don't consider a prophet but the rest I do of course! Please show me where I stated these things so I can reprimand myself! Unless you seriously took my words out of context...again.

My fault - apologies for this mistake. It was ebonics who said that he only considered Jesus and Moses to be true prophets. Sorry, I should have checked more carefully (it was in this thread he said this a few pages back).

We at least agree that Prophets in the Bible include OT prophets, such as Lot, David, Solomon and Abraham.

freza wrote:Matthew 7, 12 "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets. Did Mohammad treat everyone the way he wanted to be treated himself?

Yes.

freza wrote:You ignore what really counts against Mohammad's prophethood: 1 John 2:18-19 Says that that there will be wanna-be prophets who will take things from the Bible and make them their own, who will not accept Jesus as the true Messiah. This applies to Mohammad! I mean, how much more clearer do you want things to get?

He accepted Jesus as the Messiah. As do I. He and I both rejected the teachings of Paul though.

freza wrote:The Bible also states that the Prophets know the Law. Mohammad bungled the OT and didn't even know enough of the NT. He got Mary and the Holy Spirit confused!! Mohammad who claimed to be of Abrahamic descent should have known the laws. And should have known that they had been fulfilled in the NT.

Which Bible are you referring to?

You have argued until you were blue in the face that the Bible needs interpretation and that 'hear' can mean 'understand' to resolve a contradiction. The Quran is internally consistent and corrects many a mistake in the Bible - eg that Lot's wife chose to stay behind rather than turning into a pillar of salt.

He was not a Jew and was not subject to Judaic laws - or did that fact escape you?

Anyway, I'm glad you raised some Biblical criteria that Muhammad, pbuh, passed with flying colours.

However, I note with interest you ignored my direct question:

According to Deut 18 - can a false prophet make a prophecy in the name of God and have that prophecy come true?

If a Prophet claims to be from God, makes prophecies in the name of God and that prophecy comes true, according to Deut 18 do we not have to accept him as a true prophet?

I'll keep asking the question until you answer.

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

If a Prophet claims to be from God, makes prophecies in the name of God and that prophecy comes true, according to Deut 18 do we not have to accept him as a true prophet?

so if someone came up to you and went:
behold shafique, for i am a prophet from God

i prophecise that you will sleep tonight and you will rise, go to the mosque and pray with your fellow men.

tommorrow that person maybe a prophet, if those prophecies came true.... according to your logic of again, taking the bible how you want to take it.

here you go shafique, in answer to your question.

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" (Deut. 18:18).

What It Means To Be Prophet Like Unto Moses
There are five outstanding characteristics that have to be met. The Bible teaches that Moses is different than all the other Old Testament prophets. To be the prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy 18, these five characteristics have to be met. These requirements follow:

1. God spoke directly to Moses. All other prophets received their revelation by visions or dreams. Moses' revelation was directly from the mouth of God. "And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" (Num. 12:6-8).

2. Moses was in the direct presence of God. He saw the similitude or form of the LORD. Moses glowed from being in direct presence of God's glory. "And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him" (Exod. 34:29-30).

3. Moses brought in a blood covenant relationship with God. The other prophets built upon this covenant, but no other Old Testament prophet brought in a different covenant. "And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words. Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness" (Exod. 24:8-10).

4. Moses did mighty signs and wonders. God used Moses to split the Red Sea. " And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left" (Exod. 14:21-22).

5. Moses prophesied of the future. Moses gave entire chapters of prophecy. His prophecy centered on the people and nation of Israel. "Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. ... And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD" (Lev. 26:42,44-45).

6. The prophet has to be a Jew. The Prophet like Moses will have to come from one of the tribes of Israel. The context of Deutromony 18 makes it clear that the brethren means someone from one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Deuteronomy 18:1,2,7,15 The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel... 2 Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them. 7 Then he shall minister in the name of the LORD his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, which stand there before the LORD. 15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

The Test of Muhammad as the Prophet Like unto Moses
Using the five criteria of Moses being a special prophet, let's test the Muslim's claim that Muhammad is the special prophet like Moses which the Koran claims.

1. God spoke directly with Moses. Muhammad fails because the Koran shows he received his message from an angel. "Then I swear by the angels who bring down the revelation" (Sura 77:5). "Say: Whoever is the enemy of Jibreel- for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah's command, verifying that which is before it and guidance and good news for the believers" (Sura 2:97).

2. The Koran never reported that Muhammad was literally in the direct presence of God.

3. Muhammad never brought in a blood covenant with God, but his message went directly against the revealed word of God. Muhammad denied the basis for the New Testament covenant which is the death of the Lord Jesus on the cross. "And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa (Jesus) son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so" (Sura 4:157).

4. The Koran reports no signs and wonders of Muhammad.

5. Muhammad made no prophecies in the Koran. The Muslims call Sura 30 the Great Prophecy: This Sura is often used as proof Muhammad was a prophet. "The Romans are vanquished, In a near land, and they, after being vanquished, shall overcome, Within a few years. Allah's is the command before and after; and on that day the believers shall rejoice" (Sura 30:2-4). Sura 30 is not a valid prophecy: The Romans, who were the Byzantines, were always at war. A near land is not identified. The location to judge the near land is not identified in the Koran. Is it Jerusalem, Mecca, or Medina etc.? What is a few years? No date is give for this prophecy so within a few years can be identified. The fulfillment is not recorded in the Koran. It is impossible to verify that Sura 30:2-4 is a valid prophecy.

6. Muhammad was not a Jew. This just by itself eliminates Muhammad from being the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18.

Muhammad fails the test of prophet in general and specifically he is not the prophet like unto Moses. Therefore his message as written in the Koran is to be totally rejected. He cannot be classified as a prophet because he made no prophecy which could be tested.

The Muslim's claim that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets has no authority as there is no proof in the Koran that Muhammad was a true prophet of God.

The Lord Jesus Meets the Criteria To Be the Prophet Like Unto Moses.
The Bible says that the Lord Jesus is the Prophet like unto Moses. "And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: . . . For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people (Acts 3:20,22-23).

1. God spoke directly to Moses. God spoke directly through the Lord Jesus. "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10).

2. Moses was in the direct presence of God and glowed from God's presence. Jesus was the direct presence of God, and He manifested the glory of God! "And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light" (Matt. 17:1-2).

3. Moses brought in a blood covenant relationship with God. The Lord Jesus brought in a better blood covenant with God. The better covenant gives the assurance of eternal life to all that believe. "For this is my blood of the new testament [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28). "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (Heb. 8:6).

4. Moses did mighty signs and wonders. Jesus did mighty signs and wonders. The Lord Jesus raised a man from the dead after he was four days in the grave. The Bible reported only a few of the awesome miracles that the Lord Jesus did. These miracles were a sign of Him being the Son of God. "Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. ... And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go" (John 11:39,43-44).

5. Moses prophesied of the future, as did Jesus. Like Moses, the Lord Jesus focused His prophecy on the Jews and their dispersion and restoration. The restoration of Israel and Jerusalem would occur just before His second coming. Just as the Lord prophesied, exactly happened to the Jews. Israel is once again a nation with Jerusalem as its capital. "And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? . . . But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land [Israel], and wrath upon this people [Jews]. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:7,23-24).

6. Moses was a Jew and the Lord Jesus was a Jew. Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

to liken muhammad to moses is rather laughable in my opinion... God talked to moses directly, and when moses asked to see God, God revealed himself to moses..... muhammad had "dreams"...... validated or not, is personal debatable opinion, as freza already outlined.

id say nostradamus is on a far higher level of prophet than muhammad, even though he wasnt a prophet of God, he was a prophet all the same.

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

ebonics - nostradamus didn't claim to be a prophet of God.

According to Deut 18 - only true prophets who make prophecies in the name of God have the prophecies come true. I know you don't believe in the Bible, but that is what it says.

As for Moses and Muhammad, pbuh - in two important aspects they were similar. Both brought new laws and both fought wars.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

Flying Dutchman wrote: Didn´t Mohammed break the peace treaty? Thereby coming back from a previous oath? Would a prophet do that?

I stated earlier that I did not think Muhammad, pbuh, ordered the raid that broke the treaty.

I went and refreshed my memory of the situation and I quote from the book:
Muhammad, A Biography of the Prophet by Karen Armstrong

pg 240-241

"At the end of the year, the Meccans broke the Treaty of Hudaybiyah and were newly vulnerable. The tribe of Bakr had remained confederates of the Quraysh but they had for decades been the sworn enemy of the Khuza'ah, which joined Muhammad's confederacy. In November 629 one of the clans of Bakr had attacked the Khuza'ah by night in their own territory in a surprise attack and it appears that some of the Quraysh had aided and abetted this assault: they had given weapons to Bakr and it is said that Safwan had even taken part in the fighting. Khuza'ah promptly retaliated and there was even fighting between the two tribes in the Meccaan Sanctuary, so the Khuza'ah appealed to Muhammad and he agreed to come to their aid.

Immediately some of the Quraysh had second thoughts when they realised that they had handed Muhammad a perfect excuse to attack Mecca. Safwan and Ikrimah remained hawkish and defiant, but even Suhayl, whose mother had been a member of Khuza'ah, was for disowning Bakr. ....

..shortly after the breach of the armistice, Abu Sufyan arrived in Medina to ask for peace - an event that would have been unthinkable two years earlier.'

So, the above account shows it was the Meccans and not the Muslims who broke the treaty of Hudaybiyah.

Cheers,
Shafique

freza · Mar 28, 2008

shafique wrote:Agreed. Muhammad, pbuh, passes this test.

huh?? he passes the test of an imaginative and opportunistic man. does that count as "passing a test"?

shafique wrote:You really should get off the high horse some time.

Once I get on it, it's kinda hard to get off, you must know. Shaf why did God treat Mohammad so incredibly different from the other prophets? Wait. Did Mohammad actually admit to transgressions against Allah? What do Islamic scholars say about this? Do any Hadiths say anything about Mohammad's sins? How about you answer these questions instead?

shafique wrote:It seems hypocritical to me to criticise Muhammad, pbuh, for alleged lapses which are much less than what is attributed to Biblical prophets (eg. Lot slept with his daughters allegedly, Solomon had a thousand wives etc)

First of all you are talking about prophets that did not start a religion. These were prophets, some of them did bad things, sure! but they got PUNISHED. What part of this do you not get? OK, again, maybe this time it will sink in:
God did NOT advise them to be sinful, they were sinful all on their own and they admitted it! If God didn't mind that some of the prophets sinned, why did he punish them? There IS a pattern here. You can't be that blind to it. Can we imagine God's angel saying: "hey prophet, so you find your son's wife sexy? ok, I give you permission to marry her. just tell your people I said it's ok, we'll amend some laws or something." ugh, NO! He Never Advised sin to prophets. EXCEPT to Mohammad(!)

Nope. that wasn't God's messenger speaking to Mohammad...
((((COMMON SENSE WHERE ARE YOU? SHAFIQUE NEEDS YOU))))

shafique wrote:According to Deut 18 - can a false prophet make a prophecy in the name of God and have that prophecy come true?

but:

shafique wrote:He was not a Jew and was not subject to Judaic laws - or did that fact escape you?

Deuteronomy 18 refers to the lineage of Hebrew Prophets. How does Mohammad factor in here? Not a Jew, not applicable. Do you base all of your assumptions of Mohammad's prophethood on Deut. 18:18. ? And what are the prophecies in the Quran that have been fulfilled again? :bounce:

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

shafique wrote:ebonics - nostradamus didn't claim to be a prophet of God.

According to Deut 18 - only true prophets who make prophecies in the name of God have the prophecies come true. I know you don't believe in the Bible, but that is what it says.

As for Moses and Muhammad, pbuh - in two important aspects they were similar. Both brought new laws and both fought wars.

Cheers,
Shafique

i stilll consider nastrodamus a prophet, on a personal level.

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

ebonics wrote:
shafique wrote:ebonics - nostradamus didn't claim to be a prophet of God.

According to Deut 18 - only true prophets who make prophecies in the name of God have the prophecies come true. I know you don't believe in the Bible, but that is what it says.

As for Moses and Muhammad, pbuh - in two important aspects they were similar. Both brought new laws and both fought wars.

Cheers,
Shafique

i stilll consider nastrodamus a prophet, on a personal level.

Yes, I have no problem with that.

Nostradamus got more wrong than he got right, and never claimed to have divine revelations.

I can make predictions - I do it all the time. My latest one is that John McCain will be the next President of the USA.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

freza wrote: Shaf why did God treat Mohammad so incredibly different from the other prophets?

God didn't. I started the thread about Biblical criteria so that we could compare and contrast. Muhammad, pbuh, was treated as a Prophet and behaved as previous Prophets.

freza wrote:
Wait. Did Mohammad actually admit to transgressions against Allah? What do Islamic scholars say about this? Do any Hadiths say anything about Mohammad's sins? How about you answer these questions instead?

Yes the hadith record how he spent the nights praying asking for forgiveness.

freza wrote:
shafique wrote:It seems hypocritical to me to criticise Muhammad, pbuh, for alleged lapses which are much less than what is attributed to Biblical prophets (eg. Lot slept with his daughters allegedly, Solomon had a thousand wives etc)
First of all you are talking about prophets that did not start a religion. These were prophets, some of them did bad things, sure! but they got PUNISHED. What part of this do you not get?

How was Lot punished? And Solomon and David? That is the part I don't get. And Moses - how was he punished? How are these punishments different from what Muhammad, pbuh, suffered?

freza wrote:
OK, again, maybe this time it will sink in:
God did NOT advise them to be sinful, they were sinful all on their own and they admitted it! If God didn't mind that some of the prophets sinned, why did he punish them?

I keep telling you that I don't believe any prophets were sinful. Why do you keep asking me to justify sins that I don't believe they committed?

freza wrote:
There IS a pattern here. You can't be that blind to it. Can we imagine God's angel saying: "hey prophet, so you find your son's wife sexy? ok, I give you permission to marry her. just tell your people I said it's ok, we'll amend some laws or something." ugh, NO! He Never Advised sin to prophets. EXCEPT to Mohammad(!)

What sin did Muhammad, pbuh, commit? Even if we take your contention that he had a concubine - how is this different from the Biblical account of Abraham having a concubine (Hagar)? Which law of God did Muhammad, pbuh, break?

freza wrote:
Nope. that wasn't God's messenger speaking to Mohammad...
((((COMMON SENSE WHERE ARE YOU? SHAFIQUE NEEDS YOU))))

Common sense tells me that a man's imagination cannot fulfil prophecies in the Bible in such a spectacular and literal way (eg making Arabs into a great nation, fulfilling the prophecies of literal revelations of scripture, bringing a new law and leading armies like Moses etc etc).

freza wrote:
shafique wrote:According to Deut 18 - can a false prophet make a prophecy in the name of God and have that prophecy come true?
but:
shafique wrote:He was not a Jew and was not subject to Judaic laws - or did that fact escape you?
Deuteronomy 18 refers to the lineage of Hebrew Prophets. How does Mohammad factor in here? Not a Jew, not applicable. Do you base all of your assumptions of Mohammad's prophethood on Deut. 18:18. ? And what are the prophecies in the Quran that have been fulfilled again?

Nope - Deut 18.20 onwards talks about how to recognise any prophet of God, it does not say that God only sends Prophets to Jews.

It clearly states how to recognise a true prophet from a false one.

Why do you reject these words of God? Is it because Muhammad, pbuh, fulfils these criteria?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

freza - you asked what prophecies are contained in the Quran that were fulfilled.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/p ... es_muh.htm

According to the Bible, only true prophets of God can make prophecies in the name of God and they come true. So just one prophecy coming true - if made in the name of God by a claimant of prophethood - should be enough for a believer in the Bible.

This is explicit in Deuteronomy 18:

20But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

v21and 22 tells how recognise a true prophet from a false claimant - if they make a prophecy in the name of God and it does not come true, they are false.

v20 - says that any prophet who prophecises in the name of God or any other God and is false - that prophet will be killed (in conjunction with v22, it is not saying that men should kill the prophet - but can only mean that God will cause the false prophet to die an un-natural death.)

For me it is clear that Muhammad, pbuh, meets the criteria in the Bible - however, just as Jews continue to reject Jesus and state that he does not meet Biblical prophecies, I recognise that Christians also use the Bible to reject Muhammad, pbuh. Jews are entitled to their opinions, and so are Christians - I am stating my opinion.

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

shafique, i believe muslims around the world regard muhammad as a great leader and they like to mirror his life, thats where the term "sunna" comes from, mirroring muhammad's life..

would you agree that mirroring his life, coupled with severe under education would be the cause of this:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... 458B24.htm

happening today?

for those who cant be bothered opening the link

Jamila was married off when she was seven years old. Subjected to brutal beatings for nine years by her husband, she approached her father-in-law for help. For this "shame," a family member shot her in the leg.

During a rare visit to her parental home, she sought a divorce. A jirga, or assembly of local elders who act as informal dispute-resolution mechanisms in the absence of a formal justice system in many parts of Afghanistan, rejected her plea and sent her back to her marital home.

Jamila, whose real name and location cannot be revealed for her own safety, was punished once again, this time by her father-in-law, who beat her, cut off one nostril, shaved her head and tied her with a rope before throwing her outside the house.

Andre Huber, the director of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) in Afghanistan, says mistreatment and abuse of women persists because cases such as Jamila's are rarely reported.

"Violence against women exists in every continent, every country and every culture, and Afghanistan makes no exception, but the problem here in Afghanistan is that most of the cases remain unreported due to the severe restrictions women face in seeking justice," he told Al Jazeera.

"Female victims are often denied equal access to justice because traditionally they rarely register cases themselves."

Social, religious norms

An earlier report by the UN's Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) also found that the majority of women prisoners in Afghanistan were being held for violating social, behavioural and religious norms.

Christina Orguz, UNODC's country director, said that most of the "criminals" would have been considered and treated as victims elsewhere.

Najia Zewari, a senior national program officer at Unifem in Afghanistan, said there is a social intolerance towards women who do not belong to a family unit.

"Women are more vulnerable if they are not attached to a group, family or tribe," she said.

She added that any intervention on the issue of violence against women needs to be sustainable.

"We cannot create another monster by taking people out of the family."

Few options

The lack of representation of women in decision-making positions (only one cabinet minister is a woman and there are no vocal women in leadership positions), reinforces stereotypes that limit a woman's role to the household.

Women's rights advocates say this also engenders hostility to women who participate in civil society and public life.

Afghanistan has one of the world's highest
maternal mortality rates [GALLO/GETTY]
Suzana Paklar, the head of Medica Mondiale, an NGO that provides support to women in war and crises zones, told Al Jazeera: "There is systematic oppression of women based on the deep-rooted belief that women have a lesser value."

A woman is perceived as an 'it' rather than a 'she,' Paklar said, adding that the problem in addressing the issue of violence against women in Afghanistan is that "we don't have real options to offer women".

"There is nothing really functional as protection," she said.

The strong shame associated with a woman leaving her home, even if as a victim of abuse, makes reintegrating into society and family nearly impossible.

If she returns home, the victim may be killed. If she does not return home, it is likely she will face more violence as a result of being an 'unattached woman'.

Currently, Afghanistan has only short-stay provisions for emergency cases, most of which do not allow women to keep their children.

A Unifem study, based on a primary database of violence covering 21 districts over a year-and-a-half during which 1,011 cases were registered, found that most of the cases of violence were a result of forced marriages.

The report also stated that the incidence of forced marriages is as high as 70 to 80 per cent, while 57 per cent of marriages are estimated to be before the legal age of 16.

The widespread prevalence of child marriage compelled Hamid Karzai, the nation's president, to publicly address this issue on International Women's Day, calling on religious elders to end this practice and the social custom of giving away girls as a means of settling disputes and debts.

Afghanistan also suffers one of the world's highest maternal mortality rates - one woman dies every 29 minutes during child birth – and a female literacy rate that stands at 15.8 per cent, nearly half that of men.

this is congruent to the prophet's way of marrying women at an early age, and is also congruent in how muslims are allowed to marry "wa ma malakat aymanohom" - what you argued is CONSENTED marriage, clearly isnt in this case, and clearly wasnt in the cases of prisoner of war during the islamic wars - but you seem to believe otherwise, and you seem to believe otherwise when it comes to islam spreading by the sword, again i commend you on your blind faith.

you may raise the point, that islam isnt blamed on this article once, to which i reply, the source is al jazeera, of course they will not blame islam.

now back to this:

Muslim scholars hold that women and children prisoners of war cannot be killed under any circumstances, regardless of their faith,but that they may be freed or ransomed. Women who are neither freed nor ransomed by their people were to be kept in bondage and referred to as "ma malakat aymanukum."

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [Qur'an 33:50]

you're trying to tell me, that this right here, is the literal word of God? shafique, i ask you to just stop and think about what you are saying - would this be considered ok today? in all honesty.... and is God THAT incompetant to issue something that is only valid for a certain period of time?

i also raise the point:

"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one." [Al-Qur'an 4:3]

the english translation says "marry"

do you knwo what the arabic version says shafique? "ENKAHOO" is the word used, which literarly, means f.u.c.k...... again i question God's wisdom in using such a word.

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

ebonics - yes Muhammad, pbuh, is considered a model for all Muslims.

No, the examples you showed are of people not following Islam.

I'm surprised at your last argument that Islam condones s.e.x outside of marriage. I think you have some valid arguments, but when you post arguments like this it discredits you and shows that you just have a burning hatred of Islam.

Do you really think that Muslims think it is ok to go around raping or sleeping with women outside of marriage?

Can you also give us a link to an Arabic dictionary or lexicon that backs up your assertion. The verse in question says 'fankihoo' - please show that in classical arabic this does not mean marry as all the translations show.

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

shafique wrote:ebonics - yes Muhammad, pbuh, is considered a model for all Muslims.

No, the examples you showed are of people not following Islam.

I'm surprised at your last argument that Islam condones s.e.x outside of marriage. I think you have some valid arguments, but when you post arguments like this it discredits you and shows that you just have a burning hatred of Islam.

Do you really think that Muslims think it is ok to go around raping or sleeping with women outside of marriage?

Can you also give us a link to an Arabic dictionary or lexicon that backs up your assertion. The verse in question says 'fankihoo' - please show that in classical arabic this does not mean marry as all the translations show.

Cheers,
Shafique

well explain the congruency between the marriage of young women, forcing them into marriage, and muhammad's history?

and regarding the word, unfortunatly i dont have arabic here to search such a thing on my computer, nor do i have an arabic keyboard, invest some time in personal research.

i know the language, and it does not say marry.

however, the above does not condone sex outside of marriage, because another aya says you can only ENKAH who you marry (jawaz).... which further prove that they are 2 different words - but the moral of the above is that the word ENKAH is used in several verses in the quran - and it isnt the best of words to be using....... especially if its coming from god.

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

You will excuse me if I choose to believe all the translations of the verse which all say 'marry'. I'm happy to look at any evidence you can show - perhaps now the word used in the Quran has a different colloquial meaning - I don't know as I don't speak Arabic.

Islam is pretty clear about the sanctity of marriage, so your arguments seem very odd to me.

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

shafique wrote:You will excuse me if I choose to believe all the translations of the verse which all say 'marry'. I'm happy to look at any evidence you can show - perhaps now the word used in the Quran has a different colloquial meaning - I don't know as I don't speak Arabic.

Islam is pretty clear about the sanctity of marriage, so your arguments seem very odd to me.

Cheers,
Shafique

again shafique, you dismiss what you chose to dismiss, with personal choice, with no research

strike 2.

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

ebonics - as you are an Arabic speaker, I trusted you knew what you were saying.

Ankihoo/Ankiho or f'ankihu/f'ankihoo is invariably translated as 'marry' in all English translations. You say it actually means 'f....k'.

However, I find that:
The first word of this verse begins with "ankihu" (Marry!) which is an imperative form of the word nikah.

Nikah is the marriage ceremony (a noun) - i.e. the wedding, the imperative form is ankihu - i.e. Marry!.

Please clarify the apparent discrepancy between this explanation and your one.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

ebonics wrote:
again shafique, you dismiss what you chose to dismiss, with personal choice, with no research

strike 2.

It's a good thing I did some research and found that ankihoo means 'Marry!' and is the imperative form of 'Nikah', marriage.

So, I rejected your interpretation because of all the translations and also because of a specific translation of the word used.

I await your response.

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

right,

Some Arab-Islamic sources also call it nekah al-estebza’. Estebza’ means sexual gratification seeking. For example Sahih Bokhari quotes a legend about Aysheh, the Prophet’s wife, in which he regards nekah al-estebza’ as one form of sexual relations in the pre-Islamic times (jahelia’). See F. Mernissi, Beyond the veil, page 75.

this highlights what i say - the quran made the word Nekah mean marriage by tafseer.... but the literal meaning is the act of having s.e.x - and since it is illegal to have s.e.x outside of marriage,therefore it is now accepted that nekah means marriage. but that does not mean that it is the literal meaning of the word.

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

Good try ebonics - but you have been caught in a lie.

The only question now is whether it was an intentional lie or just a schoolboy mistake due to lack of research.

Nikah means marriage, the words in the Quran all say 'marry' - the imperative form of the noun Nkh.

If you are saying that Nkh was only made to mean marriage by 'tafseer' then you are making a pretty big assertion that the Arabic meaning has changed. You should be able to back this up by a lexicon - Lane is an authoritative one and I'm downloading the relevant part right now.

You are grasping at straws in your last quote - 'estebza' is not the word in question - the word is nkh and whether it means marriage or 'f..k' in Arabic. The quote you gave does not say that nikah means anything other than marriage.

What was it you said about research again?

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

i actually take offence to calling me a liar,

ask any arabic speaker what does "neek", "neyaka" , "nak" - which is used heavily in egyptian, lebanese dialects, all mean.... they all derive from the same word, that i repeat, the LITERAL meaning thereof is the act of s.e.x...

the fact that the quran then changed what the literal meaning of that word is, does not change its literal meaning.

without having the means to actually search in arabic, im having to resort to english ways of explaining it, which is no mean conclusive... but thats all im capable of.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 050AA45DEz

Neek in Arabic is also (loosely translated) a four letter curse word beginning with "F", synonymous with sexual intercourse. However, the chance of a child of your son's age knowing that definition is slim (excepting, of course, children of Arabic descent, whose parents speak the language as their primary in-home language), and therefore the word should be treated by its popular definition.

neek - derived from nekah

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

ebonics wrote:i actually take offence to calling me a liar,

ask any arabic speaker what does "neek", "neyaka" , "nak" - which is used heavily in egyptian, lebanese dialects, all mean.... they all derive from the same word, that i repeat, the LITERAL meaning thereof is the act of s.e.x...

the fact that the quran then changed what the literal meaning of that word is, does not change its literal meaning.

To say that the Quranic words mean 's.e.x' when it does not is a lie.

Please show me where the word in classical Arabic, fursa, means s.e.x and not marriage.

To argue that in Misri or lebanese dialect a word means 's.e.x' and therefore the Quran changed the meaning is a jaw-droppingly naive/stupid comment as it says that the dialects are purer than fursa.

Please show in a lexicon what you assert, and I will take back my comment.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

Here is the entry from Lane, fully referenced:

Nun-Kaf-Ha = to tie, make a knot, contract, to marry, marriage.

nakaha vb. (1)
perf. act. 4:22, 33:49
impf. act. 2:221, 2:230, 2:232, 4:22, 4:25, 4:127, 24:3, 24:3, 33:53, 60:10
impv. 4:3, 4:25
n.vb. 2:235, 2:237, 4:6, 24:33, 24:60

ankaha vb. (4)
impf. act. 2:221, 28:27
impv. 24:32

istankaha vb. (10) impf. act. 33:50
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, pages: 101, 102

For a scan of the page, including the discussion:
http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/V ... 000102.pdf

The primary meaning is marriage.

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

the primary meaning according to quran, is marriage.... prior to that, was not. shafique for a none arabic speaker you're arguing for the sake of argueing now.

it literarly means to sleep with, in the quran it means to marry and have marital affairs with - but as a word, it is considered a dirty word - i understand if you cannot accept that...

your link is about "study quran" - so of course it will say marriage...

neek is to sleep with

and thats directly derived from nekah

the fact that the quran uses that word to refer to marriage, does not make the word any better than what it is.

thank you.

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

ebonics wrote:the primary meaning according to quran, is marriage.... prior to that, was not. shafique for a none arabic speaker you're arguing for the sake of argueing now.

ebonics wrote:it literarly means to sleep with, in the quran it means to marry and have marital affairs with - but as a word, it is considered a dirty word - i understand if you cannot accept that...

Absolute rubbish. Lane is an Arabic lexicon and says what the word literally means - it means marriage.

It does not support your assertion that it 'literally means to sleep with'. It does not say it is a dirty word.

Therefore you are not telling the truth.

ebonics wrote:your link is about "study quran" - so of course it will say marriage...

The book is Lane's lexicon - did you look at it?

ebonics wrote:neek is to sleep with

and thats directly derived from nekah

But the word used in the Quran is the imperative of nikah, and means 'Marry!', and is not a dirty word.

ebonics wrote:the fact that the quran uses that word to refer to marriage, does not make the word any better than what it is.

Your contention is that 'ankihoo' which is translated as 'Marry' is considered a dirty word by Arabic speakers.

This can be either true or false. If Arabic speakers tell us that 'ankihoo' means 'marry' and is not a dirty word, then what you have written is a lie.

Do you want to take back your statement, or do you want me to gather more evidence.

I am surprised that you persist in saying that the Quran uses coarse and vulgar language, when the Lexicon contradicts you. But you are casting an aspersion against a scripture and it is not an accusation I will let go (especially as you had the cheek to say I had not done my research!).

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

do you want to explain to me why a christian priest is not allowed to use that same word if spoken about the quran?

instead he just uses silence when reading it out? if you want an example thereof, i will endevour to find you one.

i stand my ground that its not a socially accepted word, and its not a word that you would use to describe a marriage with someone. instead the word that is used is ZAWAG - which literarly means to couple...

again, literarly means to make into two, but the meaning its used for is marriage

the same as the other word, literarly meaning to sleep with, but used for its context is marriage.

you can "not let it go" all you want, doesnt change the fact that its the truth.
if it isnt the truth shafique, why isnt it used now? but instead its specifically used in nearly ALL dialects to refer to the act of sleeping with someone?

actions speak louder than words shafique - im sorry if you cannot accept that.

shafique · Mar 28, 2008

ebonics - I quoted from a lexicon, you have given no other proof.

I await the comments of other Arabic speakers as to whether they think 'ankihoo' is a dirty word or not.

Nikah is not a dirty word - it is what all Muslims call the marriage ceremony. I can't see how the imperative form of this word can be dirty. You have not explained this simple fact away and have therefore been caught out. Sad really - but did you think I'd accept your word that the Quran uses coarse language?

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

shafique

after having to go through other people to acutally type the word for me in arabic

so i can search it in arabic

http://www.islamlight.net/index.php?opt ... 50&id=4000

here you go...

this is a question, from a muslim, asking if he can "yenkah yadoho" or "ENKAH" his hand, during ramadan - meaning mast ur bation... ARE YOU ALSO GOING TO TELL ME HE IS GOING TO MARRY HIS HAND????

conclusive evidence... THIS IS WHAT THE WORD IS USED FOR SHAFIQUE, get your arabic speaker from the general forum, to come and read the above link.

i do not lie shafique, do not accuse me of such a thing, i hate liars.

for the record, the answer from the imam is no he cannot yenkah yadoho, or he cannot masturbate during ramadan...... and i believe he isnt refering to marrying his hand.

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

i hope this conversation is over, because im getting tired speaking to a none native arabic speaker about my own native language.

i will repeat that im not accusing the quran of refering to the word as s.e.x out of marriage, and i DO ADMIT it is referring to marriage.

but prior to the quran, that exact same word, is used for the act of s.e.x - and it is, to this date, considered vulgur..

the link above asserts what im saying, from a muslim website, when a man wants to "have s.e.x" with his hand..... that was the word used.

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

another

using the same word

http://www.hwazn.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78328

this one now referring to animals.. the ruling on beastiality....

i also believe no one is going to MARRY an animal.. or do you think otherwise shafique?

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

http://www.ejabh.com/arabic_article_40922.html

another,

talking about a hadith, where muhammad said, if you masturbate, its like you "nakah't omak" - or "had s.e.x with your mum"

then it goes and discusses if this hadith is accurate or not... and the ruling is there was no hadith saying so..

i dont think anyone would refer to someone marrying his own mother...

ebonics · Mar 28, 2008

shafique wrote:ebonics - I quoted from a lexicon, you have given no other proof.

I await the comments of other Arabic speakers as to whether they think 'ankihoo' is a dirty word or not.

Nikah is not a dirty word - it is what all Muslims call the marriage ceremony. I can't see how the imperative form of this word can be dirty. You have not explained this simple fact away and have therefore been caught out. Sad really - but did you think I'd accept your word that the Quran uses coarse language?

Cheers,
Shafique

in closing, im sorry that that was what you're led to believe all this time, but is as far disconnected from fact as possible.

or else, arabic speaking muslims would not use that word to refer to masturbation, or having s.e.x with an animal - in the questions that they asked muslim imams in the above websites for guidance on their behalf.

your lexicon, explains the word with referance to the quran. but the fact still remains, it is a dirty word.

so yes, the quran when it comes to that word, is in fault, and that is exactly why, when these verses are spoken about by a christian abouna or bishop, they skip over it in silence, because they would not speak such a word out of their mouth - for that in its own would be sin, to them.

Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Does Muhammad, Pbuh, Meet Biblical Test Of Prophethood?

Go To

Dubai Discussions

Dubai Expat Forums

Dubai Business

Dubai Tech Discussions

Dubai Classifieds