Whitewashing Islam: Qasim Rashid on Women in the Quran

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

The Pericope de Adultera was always in the providentially preserved bible

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Mohammed commands the Jews to believe in him even though he was teaching and commanding things that were forbidden under the law of Moses. This shows that Mohammed was either ignorant of the OT or he was deliberately provoking the Jews so he would have occasion to attack them, as in the case of the Qiblah which he changed from Jerusalem to Mecca

(1) Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses (menstruation), he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).  (Book #6, Hadith #298)

” Narrated Abdullah ibn Sa’d al-Ansari: Abdullah asked the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): What is lawful for me to do with my wife when she is menstruating? He replied: What is above the waist-wrapper is lawful for you.

The narrator also mentioned (the lawfulness of) eating with a woman in menstruation, and he transmitted the tradition in full.” (Abu Dawud)

“Narrated Um `Atiya: We were ordered to bring out our menstruating women and veiled women in the religious gatherings and invocation of Muslims on the two `Id festivals. These menstruating women were to keep away from their Musalla. A woman asked, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) ‘ What about one who does not have a veil?” He said, “Let her share the veil of her companion.”” (Bukhari)

The law of Moses on the other hand prohibits the touching of a menstruous woman, and she must be quarantined for a period of seven days:

The Uncleanness of Women

Leviticus 15 v 19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. 20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. 21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. 24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Graphic video from Egypt: Muslim chases, stabs Coptic bishop to death, authorities claim killer “mentally ill”, a post from JihadWatch.org

Yesterday Jihad Watch reported on the murder of Samaan Shehata, but the initial report was light on detail, and had some of the facts wrong. This account is much fuller.

Warning: this video is graphic. A persecuted Christian from Egypt sent it to me with the note: “It is heartbreaking, not for the faint hearted.”

Indeed it is.

Meanwhile, Egyptian authorities appear to have taken a page from their counterparts in the West, claiming that the jihad murderer who killed Bishop Samaan was “mentally ill.” This is an extraordinarily common excuse for jihad activity in the West, but it is rare to see it trotted out in a Muslim country.

“Coptic Orthodox Bishop Killed outside Cairo, Egypt,” Morning Star News, October 13, 2017:

CAIRO (Morning Star News) – A Coptic Orthodox bishop from Upper Egypt was slain outside Cairo, Egypt yesterday.

The assailant struck Bishop Samaan Shehata in the head, neck and torso with a machete in the El Salam area near El Marg District on the outskirts of Cairo, according to local reports. Shehata was born in 1972.

While a security spokesman said the suspect, Ahmed Saeed Ibrahim, was mentally ill, neighbors reportedly denied this, saying he was a Muslim who had been “radicalized” a year ago. Since then, they said, Ibrahim had begun praying in the street, shouting loudly and calling Christians infidels.

The suspect walked calmly out of the warehouse after killing Shehata, according to security camera footage. Captured by people on the street and now in custody, Ibrahim had reportedly approached Shehata wielding the large knife while the bishop was waiting for another clergyman in his car.

Visiting from his Church of St. Julius Akfazi in Ezbet Girgis village, in Beni Suef Governorate, Shehata was waiting for another priest, the Rev. Beimen Moftah, when Ibrahim accosted him and attacked him, eyewitnesses told local press. Reports conflicted on whether Moftah, of the Church of the Arch Angel Malak in Ezbet Francis, Mattay village, was injured, but he did reportedly confront the assailant.

Stabbed in the neck and torso near the Virgin and Bishop Shenouda El Daeiry church, the wounded Shehata fled on foot into the warehouse, according to security camera footage obtained by El Youm el Sabe News agency, which shows the assailant following with the machete.

Police said eyewitnesses reported that the assailant had seen Shehata in his car, forcibly stopped him, ordered him out and then started to stab him in the neck and torso. Shehata fled, and the attacker followed him into the warehouse and finished his attack there with several blows to the head, they said.

Shehata’s driver, identified as Gerges Kamel, reportedly said the bishop had gotten out of the car to retrieve his cell phone at the warehouse when the assailant stopped him and stabbed him in the side, neck and skull. Kamel said the assailant used the bishop’s blood to form a cross on his forehead, according to a local newspaper.

An ambulance didn’t arrive until 90 minutes after the assault, according to Kamel, who added that the bishop was alive for half an hour after being struck and could have been saved if the ambulance had arrived timely.

He denied that the suspect was mentally ill….

Trump: Islamic Republic of Iran has “spread death, destruction and chaos all around the globe”

COMMENTS

  1. Honest Ali says

    By saying that Jihadists are “mentally ill” they are enabling Jihad and preventing any identification of the motivating ideology of Jihad… Islam. And they prevent any resistance to Jihad.

  2. Voytek Gagalka says

    Mental illness epidemic must have reached at last Mohammedan country! They should be careful with such “easy explanation,” however, lest we would suspect and assume that all of them are affected by that said “illness”: Ideology devised by their “prophet” indeed is causing their minds to explode with irrationality on the daily basis!

  3. Honest Ali says

    When I try to post this article on Facebook, instead of a proper preview that Facebook has for every article, it says “You are being redirected…”

    Facebook is deliberately blocking Jihadwatch.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Dr James white black death and Islam “Muslims are more clean”, a video by Christian Prince

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Mohammed had some bad ideas about hygiene. Can we trust his knowledge about spiritual things?

(1) Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: The people asked the Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Can we perform ablution out of the well of Buda’ah, which is a well into which menstrualclothes, dead dogs and stinking things were thrown? He replied: Water is pure and is not defiled by anything.  (Book #1, Hadith #0066)
(2) Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Water is brought for you from the well of Buda’ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.  (Book #1, Hadith #0067)
(3) Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu’minin: Bakkar ibn Yahya said that his grandmother narrated to him: I entered upon Umm Salamah. A woman from the Quraysh asked her about praying with the clothes which a woman wore while she menstruated. Umm Salamah said: We would menstruate in the lifetime of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). Then each one of us refrained (from prayer) during menstrual period. When she was purified, she would look at the clothe in which she menstruated. If it were smeared with blood, we would wash it and pray with it; if there were nothing in it, we would leave it and that would not prevent us from praying with it (the same clothe). As regards the woman who had plaited hair – sometimes each of us had plaited hair – when she washed, she would not undo the hair. She would instead pour three handfuls of water upon her head. When she felt moisture in the roots of her hair, she would rub them. Then she would pour water upon her whole body.  (Book #1, Hadith #0359)

(1) Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: The people asked the Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Can we perform ablution out of the well of Buda’ah, which is a well into which menstrual clothes, dead dogs and stinking things were thrown? He replied: Water is pure and is not defiled by anything.  (Book #1, Hadith #0066)
(2) Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Water is brought for you from the well of Buda’ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.  (Book #1, Hadith #0067)
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Mohammed gets his hair deloused. Could Allah not keep the lice from infesting the last prophet? Are the lice more powerful than Allah?

(1) Yahya related to me from Malik from Ishaq ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Talha that Anas ibn Malik had said that when the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went to Quba, he visited Umm Haram bint Milhan and she fed him. Umm Haram was the wife of Ubada ibn as-Samit. One day the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had called on her and she had fed him, and sat down to delouse his hair. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had dozed and woke up smiling. Umm Haram said, “What is making you smile, Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Some of my community were presented to me, raiding in the way of Allah. They were riding in the middle of the sea, kings on thrones, or like kings on thrones.” (Ishaq wasn’t sure). She said, “O Messenger of Allah! Ask Allah to put me among them!” So he had made a dua for her, and put his head down and slept. Then he had woken up smiling, and she said to him, “Messenger of Allah, why are you smiling?” He said, “Some of my community were presented to me, raiding in the way of Allah. They were kings on thrones or like kings on thrones,” as he had said in the first one. She said, “O Messenger of Allah! Ask Allah to put me among them!” He said, “You are among the first.” Ishaq added, “She travelled on the sea in the time of Muawiya, and when she landed, she was thrown from her mount and killed.”  (Book #21, Hadith #21.18.39)

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Koranic inheritance does not add up. A post from Answering-Islam.org

Muslim Responses by Randy Desmond
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997

I haven't responded for a while to this contradiction list and wasn't planning to anytime soon, except a Muslim from England emailed me and said that this web site's proposed contradictions had given him problems at one time. So my intent is to respond simply for the Muslims out there who may be bothered by what this web site proposes. May God protect us from the decieving promises of Satan and his followers.

I had talked to a scholar about this question a while ago. I forgot the terms the scholar had used and the exact meanings of those terms. So anyone wishing more information should seek it through those who know. I am not a scholar - just a very concerned Muslim. And eventhough I do not like putting up my answer without full knowledge, I think it is more important to stress to my fellow brothers and sisters in Islam (and in the human race) that these contradictions have no basis in reality and can easily be refuted by those who have the knowledge.

There seems to be two cases which are misunderstood by the author of this "contradiction". First, there is the case of the inheritance portions summing to less than one. Second is the misunderstood portioning of inheritance which would seem to total more than one.

The case of portions of total less than one

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 724:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:

The Prophet said, “Give the Fara’id (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur’an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased.”

The case of portions seeming to total more than one

4:11 – parents and children
4:12 – spouse and “no direct heirs”
4:176 – “no direct heirs” = neither descendants or ascendants

The unfounded assumption, based on an English translation, is that these three verses MUST be taken in tandem when calculating inheritance. However, we can equally wonder why the ordering of shares starts with children then parents then wife then indirect heirs. Could there not also be a priority here?

So as to not bore the reader by refuting every single case brought up. I will simply highlight the faults in the three examples which are used to stress this contradiction claim. Certainly the issues are not ignored in doing so.

First, notice that in the calculation of “a man dies leaving three daughters, both parents, and his wife” the total of the inheritance sums to exactly one BEFORE taking into account the wife’s share. Please also notice the wife’s share is part of the NEXT verse.

Next, for one son and one daughter, that example misinterpreted the part of 4:11 which is talking about only one child as an heir which is a daughter. Then attempts to add a son which couldn’t exist if there is only one daughter and no other child is not possible.

Next, notice that claims are put forth that when a man dies leaving only his mother, his wife, and two sisters, the total is 1/3 + 1/4 + 2/3 = 15/12. The problem is that Jochen is adding apples(mother) and oranges(sisters). The mother is a “direct heir” the sister is not. Notice the clause in 4:12 and 4:176: The person who has died has no descendants or ascendents.

Now, in anticipation of Jochen jumping on an incomplete response, I have not answered the issue of diffentiation between indirect heirs in 4:12 and 4:176. I haven't looked into it nor asked about it. I honestly do not know who Razi is either. So please give me some information if you have some. Unfortunate for the author of the contradiction, I can not presume his point is correct knowing all of the other points are baseless as is his whole list of proposed contradictions. So let me suggest that for those who want to know the truth of the matter, go seek answers from those who know better.


This response completely side-steps my proposed cases. I am not that naive. My questions were chosen very carefully.

Total summing to less than one: Giving undistributed inheritance to the nearest male relative. So, the above would mean that if I only have a daughter and a male cousin of an uncle, i.e. only one very remote male relative (and not other male relative whatsoever), this remote male relative would get half the inheritance? As much as my daughter? That is what this hadith would suggest.

According to my taste, this is not justified. [Neither do I know of any country’s civil or religious law where things are dealt with that way.] But then, maybe I am not the one to define what is justice.

More important that is not how Islamic law has decided to handle the case. I don’t know why the “Muslim responses” so often only look at a small part of my page and pick on that instead of reading all the details I provide and these details are given because they are an important part of the argument. I purposefully gave the following link and have to give it again: In Islamic Inheritance Law, #2737 (i) refutes this solution. Everything is given to the daughter which is the common sense solution of justice, but that is not what the Qur’an says.

Furthermore, it helps to answer the questions which were posed instead of inventing your own question that is easier to answer. Left-over inheritance shares can only be given to the nearest male relative if there is a nearest male relative. When I state a certain group of relatives then I mean these are the only relatives. I.e. a nearest male relative is only of relevance if there is one, and in my first case the only relative is the daughter without any other male relative, however remote. Who gets the money? The question is not answered in the Qur’an (nor the hadith as it seems) nor was it answered by the above response.

Total summing to more than one:

This is so involved that I have to quote the whole thing and answer paragraph for paragraph.

4:11 - parents and children
4:12 - spouse and "no direct heirs"
4:176 - "no direct heirs" = neither descendants or ascendants

The unfounded assumption, based on an English translation, is that these three verses MUST be taken in tandem when calculating inheritance. However, we can equally wonder why the ordering of shares starts with children then parents then wife then indirect heirs. Could there not also be a priority here?

Sure there could be a priority, if you invent one. But it is not indicated in the Qur’an. It does not say, first give to these and from what is left over give the following shares to those. Basically you accuse me, that reading the text in its plain meaning is an “unfounded assumption”. But in reality it is you who introduces invisible extra assumption to repair the problems. The most I could agree to is to allow reading the text in sequential order, i.e. give out the shares in the order they are mentioned in the verses 11 and 12. But the problem is still there as you will realize just two paragraphs down in your argument. Futhermore, if you strictly do priority ordering in the order the persons are mentioned, interpreting in each case “and from what is left, to this person the following share”, then you obviously will never use up all the inheritance and have left overs. So you do have to use group some together and there seems to be no indication of grouping nor of order explicitely mentioned in the text. Some possible groupings (parallel) and priorities (sequential order) will solve some of my problem question, but no such system solves them all.

So as to not bore the reader by refuting every single case brought up. I will simply highlight the faults in the three examples which are used to stress this contradiction claim. Certainly the issues are not ignored in doing so.

They certainly have been ignored. Please bore me with explaining the questions I brought up. And I am sure that many of the Muslim readers here would also like to see answers to the questions instead of making up your own questions. Let me now respond to your “highlights”.

First, notice that in the calculation of "a man dies leaving three daughters, both parents, and his wife" the total of the inheritance sums to exactly one BEFORE taking into account the wife's share. Please also notice the wife's share is part of the NEXT verse.

Exactly. You stated the problem, but what is your answer? After you have given the daughters and the parents their share, it already is all used up “BEFORE taking into account the wife’s share” as you aptly observe. Where then is the wife’s share going to come from?

You could say [even though you don’t], that you have to give the share of the wife first and then the rest is given to parents and children which would in this case sum to one. But you would again have to make an even more strenuous assumption, namely that you actually have to read the verses backwards, starting with 4:12 before you go to 4:11. This will help in this case, but not in all cases and is surely far from obvious. These would be two extra assumptions not stated anywhere in the text, namely that they are to be taken sequential instead of parallel and backward instead of forward in order of mentioning.

Next, for one son and one daughter, that example misinterpreted the part of 4:11 which is talking about only one child as an heir which is a daughter. Then attempts to add a son which couldn't exist if there is only one daughter and no other child is not possible.

If there are two children, one daughter and one son, then surely there is only one daughter. Or is the son also a daughter? In the original article it has already been stated that I don’t insist on this literal interpretation though and can accept the customary Muslim reading. Hence there was no need to quibble about that anyway.

Next, notice that claims are put forth that when a man dies leaving only his mother, his wife, and two sisters, the total is 1/3 + 1/4 + 2/3 = 15/12. The problem is that he is adding apples(mother) and oranges(sisters). The mother is a "direct heir" the sister is not. Notice the clause in 4:12 and 4:176: The person who has died has no descendants or ascendents.

That is not what it says. It says he has no children.

I am adding fractions, not “apples and oranges”. This response is pretty confused and even contradicting what you said in the beginning of your own response. Several points: As we find in 4:11, obviously the indirect heirs (in this case the brother) do influence the shares of the direct heirs (in this case the mother) since we read: “… and to his parents to each one of the two the sixth of what he leaves, if he has children; but if he has no children, and his heirs are his parents, a third to his monther, or if he has brothers, to his mother a sixth, …” [So where is this sixth from the mother going if not to the brother? This is one of the questions the Muslim who respondend didn’t want to bore us with].

Therefore, what is the problem in principle that mother and sisters can both inherit since mother and brother can both inherit at the same time?

4:176 states: “Say: ‘Allah pronounces to you concerning the indirect heirs. If a man perishes having no children, but he has a sister, she shall receive a half of what he leaves, …” Now, this verse is about the indirect heirs. It does not say [this is the unfounded assumption of this Muslim response] that indirect heirs ONLY receive shares if there are NO direct heirs. With this assumption he contradicts himself in the solution he proposed to the very first problem. When there is only one daughter (a direct heir) she will get half, he wanted to give away the second half to the nearest male relative (an indirect heir). Either indirect heirs can inherit even if there are direct heirs, or they cannot. But please stick to one rule.

If we agree that indirect heirs can inherit even when direct ones are present, this is a valid reading of the verse, since the verse only talks about the share of indirect heirs in case there are no children [not: in case there are no parents]. This would actually fit in with 4:11 and the brother inheriting together with the mother if there are no children. In any case, my suggested example does not violate any of the explicitely stated conditions. And the only condition mentioned in the Qur’an so that sisters can inherit is that there are no children.

I honestly do not know who Razi is either. So please give me some information if you have some. Unfortunate for the author of the contradiction, I can not presume his point is correct knowing all of the other points are baseless as is his whole list of proposed contradictions. So let me suggest that for those who want to know the truth of the matter, go seek answers from those who know better.

Yes, I agree, do go to those who know and ask them the difficult questions. And go to your Imam and ask who Razi is. He is after all one of the most famous Qur’an commentators. And the quote mentioned in the article on inheritance is in his Qur’an commentary in the obvious place, i.e. the verses under consideration.

Given that you have sidestepped each and every one of the questions posed on this issue, I find it not very wise on your part to call “baseless” my whole list of observations on Qur’an contradictions.

I want to repeat again. Experts on Islamic law are just as intelligent as everybody else and they have found ways to distribute inheritance to the heirs in generally accepted ways. The point of contention is not the practice of the Sharia but the observation that the shares in the Qur’an do not add up correctly and it is impossible to obey the Qur’an as it is without making many further outside assumption or blatantly change the shares and disregard the fractions prescribed in the Qur’an.

This might be a good place to remind everybody of the purpose in regard to these contradiction pages. I do not for a moment expect that a Muslim will forsake Islam because a few fractions don’t add up correctly. There are a number of question in regard to the Bible for which I do not know a fully satisfactory answer. And I will admit that I don’t know, should you ask me one of these. But I hate pretense of having answers if there are none. And I hate the often pridefully displayed and claimed superiority of the Qur’an over the Bible. If these contradictions pages help Muslims to become more humble and realistic and especially stop claiming the corruption of the Bible because they found a few difficult passages, then the goal of this page has been reached. If we all realize that we are finite human beings and that we might not understand everything about God and his word, and begin with openess and humility to listen to each other, then this would be a great success.

May God bless you all in your search for truth and quest to understand and worship the one true God. I seek to follow and obey the truth as I perceive it. I am willing to listen to you. I pray for willingness on the side of Muslims to also listen to the Christians and not dismiss everything because “something doesn’t add up”.



Muslim Response by Randy Desmond
Date: Thurs, 13 Mar 1997

Your response to my response to your proposed contradiction (whew!) is asking me to respond once more. I cannot refuse seeing that (1) you have accused me of answering my own question instead of your original proposed contradiction, and (2) you have misunderstood the response to your questions, and (3) I just got a new Arabic dictionary which sheds some light on some of the words in the verses.

If my original response "completely side-steps" the contradiction you are proposing, tell me how? You didn't tell how, but you did responded to my points. So let's try to establish some common ground. Aren't you proposing that the verses on inheritance are contradictory? Yes or no? Don't we have to establish that "fact" first before we entertain any other questions? Yes or no?

Assuming you agree that a contradiction of these verses must be established first, I want to show you that, in reality, they do not.

But before I dive in, I just want to say that eventhough I do not like your approach (just as you do not like some Muslims' approach to the Bible), you have raised some interesting questions owing to the translation of the Qur'an in English and lack of explanations in those translations. These questions have really helped me in my faith as a Muslim. They have made me do research which has given me greater conviction in the way of life of Islam as revealed by Allah to Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).

Let me re-write portions of the verses subsituting Arabic words next to the English translations.

4:11
...Your fathers or your sons; you know not which out of them is nearer in profit to you. Fariidatin from Allah; surely Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
4:12
...If a man or woman have no heir direct [i.e. children or parents],
but have a brother or a sister, to each of the two a sixth;
but if they are more numerous than that, they share equally a third,
after any bequest they may bequeath, or any debt not prejudicial;
Wasiyatin from Allah. Allah is All-knowing, All-clement.

I subsituted the Arabic words in for a reason: the Qur’an is in clear Arabic (not English). It is the Arabic from which the meanings are derived. So let’s look at it more closesly.

Regard to me assigning a priority of the shares of 4:11 over 4:12, you had said, “Sure there could be a priority, if you invent one. But it is not indicated in the Qur’an.” I can’t blame you for that because of my lack of explanation, but I can support that claim by simply defining two terms that Allah uses in these verses. First, in 4:11, the instructions of shares to children and parents are called fariidatun. Fariidatun means an obligatory ordinace from Allah. Second, in 4:12, these instruction of shares are called wasiyatun. Wasiyatun means an order/command/recommendation. The definition is of an entirely different semantic feel. Hence, a priority is implied (if not outright stated).

Again, it is the Arabic which needs to be understood, not the (mis)translations.

Please don’t think I am side-stepping your original questions about the distribution of shares. If you look back at those questions, they have presuppositions. Namely, (1) that the Qur’an explicitly says what to do with all the inheritance of one who dies and (2) that the Qur’an says how to aportion all the shares of inheritance explicitly and (3) that The Qur’an aportions all shares in inheritance and (4) All the portions of inheritance mentioned in the Qur’an are to be taken in tandem when distribution to inheritors is taking place. There is subtlety in the difference of these presuppositions. Do you agree that your questions do, in fact, presuppose these points? If I just attempt to answer those questions, I would first have to agree to those presuppositions. And I may be able to agree with some or none of them. That is what is sometimes a problem with your proposed contradictions. I have to address the presuppositions (which seem to be false in most cases) before I can give the clear answer.

Please notice that I am not saying that the original questions with respect to shares of inheritance are invalid within the Islamic framework of the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sunnah. That is not the case, and answers can be sought. However, that is not the point of this discussion. The point is the relevency of the questions with respect to proving a contradiction within the Qur’an. Is that not true?

I admit that my response is incomplete (I don’t address the aportioning of shares to colaterals). I also admit that I don’t have requisite knowledge to answer all your concerns. But that is a limitation on me, not the Qur’an or Islam. I said what I know and try not to go talk about things I don’t know about.

Another Mulslim response was given by Misha’al Al-Kadhi.


Contradictions in the Qur’an
Answering Islam Home Page

Last edited: March 13, 1997

Posted in Uncategorized | 17 Comments

Who is the adulterer allowed to marry in Islam? He is faced with contradictory commands in the Quran

“An adulterer may only marry another adulterer or an unbeliever (24:3). But this injunction clashes with the Quran’s insistence that believers are not to marry unbelievers (Surah 2:221; 60:10). So the Quran requires a believing adulterer to marry an unbeliever(or another believing adulterer),but also forbids the believing adulterer to marry an unbeliever.”

[24.3] The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.

The fornicatress who is a believer is allowed to marry a non-Muslim but at the same time she is also not allowed because it is forbidden to the believers. Very confusing.

[2.221] And do not marry the idolatresses until they believe, and certainly a believing maid is better than an idolatress woman, even though she should please you; and do not give (believing women) in marriage to idolaters until they believe, and certainly a believing servant is better than an idolater, even though he should please you; these invite to the fire, and Allah invites to the garden and to forgiveness by His will, and makes clear His communications to men, that they may be mindful.

[60.10] O you who believe! when believing women come to you flying, then examine them; Allah knows best their faith; then if you find them to be believing women, do not send them back to the unbelievers, neither are these (women) lawful for them, nor are those (men) lawful for them, and give them what they have spent; and no blame attaches to you in marrying them when you give them their dowries; and hold not to the ties of marriage of unbelieving women, and ask for what you have spent, and let them ask for what they have spent. That is Allah’s judgment; He judges between you, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.

[5.5] This day (all) the good things are allowed to you; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them; and the chaste from among the believing women and the chaste from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you); when you have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not fornicating nor taking them for paramours in secret; and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is of no account, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

As soon as a Muslim marries a non-Muslim does that non-Muslim magically turn in to a Muslim? It would seem so! Whether he or she likes it or not!

The Muslim woman who is a fornicator has the option of marrying a non-Muslim man because she has descended to his level and made herself unclean to a Muslim man who is not a fornicator. This is Islam. Very convoluted.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

After the Jews had rejected him as a prophet Mohammed commands his men to kill any Jew that fell in to their power. Including those who had never done any harm to a Muslim

The Apostle of Allah said, “Kill any Jew who falls in to your power!” Upon hearing this Muhayyisa fell upon a jewish merchant who was a business associate and killed him. Muhayyisa’s brother was not a Muslim and asked how Muhayyisa could kill a man who had been his friend and partner in many business deals. The Muslim said if Mohammed has asked him to kill his brother he would have done it immediately. His brother said, “You mean that if Mohammed had said to cut off my head you would do it?”. “Yes”, was the reply. The older brother then said, “By Allah, any religion that brings you to this is marvelous”. And he decided then and there to become a Muslim.

We notice that Mohammed applied the principle of collective guilt to make an innocent Jew guilty and mark him out to be killed. Collective guilt is a very powerful weapon and Islam makes full use of it. In view of this Muslims should not complain that the bible makes the innocent guilty because Mohammed uses collective guilt to make sure that there are no innocents among the Jews, thus making targets of out of each and every one of them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments