true2god:


You said I shut up on the issue of Hafs and Warsh inconsistencies, hope you are not responding to the wrong person. The issue of warsh and hafs have not gone away bro because you have not proved anything concerning the contradictions in the readings.

On you super heavy weight Adepoju, I will contact him again via his Facebook account and do a screenshot to you. No need of devoting much on a man who is not currently a major topic of discussion. I briefly talked about him to tell you that, despite his 'bashing for a living' (Nigerian Muslim version of David wood) activity which he lived on for over 25 years (highly experienced), he has no single experience in defending Islamic beliefs and practices, based on my last engagement with him.

true2god:
On Quran 66:1, you brought it up because I told you, based on Aisha's own testimony that Mohammed's lord always 'hasten to fulfil his wishes and desires' hence my conclusion that the Quran was nothing but the wishes and desires of Mohammed. And I equally told you that I go with the Maliki school of thought which explained that this ayah got to do with a slave girl called Mariya (a Coptic slave who later gave birth to a son named Ibrahim) who Mohammed usually slept with in Hafsat house whenever she is away. She (Hasfa) found out and, together with Aisha, confronted Mohammed about it while Mohammed promised never to do that again until Allah revealed Quran 66:1. If you read Quran 66: 1-5, you will see that it has nothing to do with honey bro. No wife will disrespect her husband because co-wife is giving him honey to retain their attention. The hadith of bukahri and the tafsir of ibn kathir on this ayah is ridiculous and untenable.

This is the hadith that support above argument and rightfully explained by your famous scholar Jalalayn:

Sunan An-Nasa'i 3411 —It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you" [66:1]

And if, for the benefit of the doubt, we are to give the tafsir of ibn kathir a thought and his supporting hadith, what does that make of the character of Aisha? A liar who deceived and lied to her husband out of jealousy but at the same time one of the largest contributor to the hadith collections? What authority can one grade an hadith by Aisha if she had been caught lying before? If hadith collected by Hafs can be rejected based on his personal integrity, why did Sunni Muslims accept his narrations in sahih bukhari (and sahih Muslim)? And this is the reason you wrote:

'There is more to this story why the verse was revealed'.

There is nothing more to any story bro, we fully understand. Whichever tafsir who chose to use, Ibn kathir or Jalalayn, it prove one fact, the Quran is contradictory based on the fact your own tafsir and hadith contradicted each other on the interpretations of a single ayah. As a matter of honesty and truthfulness, the tafsir of Jalalayn is more credible on this issue.

Asalama lekum!

true2god:
One step at a time bro.

sagenaija:

You write "epistle" on every other matter apart from the ones you are confronted with.
You will claim you have no time but are ready to spend time on deflection of the line
of argument.

You gave NO EXAMPLE or response to answer this simple question:

sagenaija:

Do we have Muhammad's Qur'an today?
Hatun discusses with a Muslim why the Qur'an Muslims have today is not the same as the one Muhammad received.

Sunan ibn Majah 1944—It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”
https://youtu.be/P66.hQUbfB4c

sagenaija:

You write "epistle" on every other matter apart from the ones you are confronted with.
You will claim you have no time but are ready to spend time on deflection of the line
of argument.

You gave NO EXAMPLE or response to answer this simple question:
Is it the same ARABIC word that is used in both Hafs and Warsh versions of the Koran in chapter 3:146 for “fought” [Hafs] and “killed” [Warsh]?

If you did then show us which page of this thread where you did so that all can see.
It appears you now know you have no answer so you are referring us to Adepoju.
You refer to extraneous matters link them with Hafs and Warsh and the shout:."I have refuted you!" when in reality you have done NOTHING.
You can simply throw in the towel and say 'Allah knows best!'. Why not do that?

Smart aleck!

true2god:
Thanks for offering your support for 'empire'. He had been doing a great job lying for Allah and his messenger. Maybe you will be a little bit truthful.

true2god:
You compare the Hafs and the warsh Quran as dialectic variants of the Quran, are you these serious or ignorant? The scholars never called it 'dialectic variant' but 'different readings of the Quran'. Have you taken time to look at the screenshots or do you follow empire's style of 'argue without analysing evidence'? What I had expected you to do is to pick up the screenshot I provided, pick the ayah one after the other and explain the reasons for the contradiction. What you however did was to 'school: me on variants in Yoruba dialects which you attempted to you as a standard to explain the apparent inconsistencies in various Quranic readings. This is strawman bro. You started aggressively but showed a lot of intellectual weakness.

true2god:
I have watched various videos, by Arab-muslims speakers (one of them a Lebanese Muslim) who also pointed out this differences but you are here telling me that 'it is dialectic issue:. Stop being ignorant bro, a simple YouTube video will clear your doubt and we have hundreds that addressed this issue. Stop making a fool of yourself.

Empiree:
There are various reports to the story. Read below. Two narrators mentioned about honey. One mentioned about a slave woman. But are telling us one thing in common as i highlighted in my previous post - not to make halal what God made haram and not to make haram what God has made halal for oneself. That's the moral of the story.


Now read below



According to Imam al-Qurtuby in his tafsir there are several narrations which are considered as the story behind these verses:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) narrated that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) used to spend time with Zainab daughter of Jahsh and drank honey at her house. She ('A'isha further) said: I and Hafsa agreed that one whom Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) would visit first should say: I notice that you have an odour of the Maghafir (gum of mimosa). He (the Holy Prophet) visited one of them and she said to him like this, whereupon he said: I have taken honey in the house of Zainab bint Jabsh and I will never do it again. It was at this (that the following verse was revealed): 'Why do you hold to be forbidden what Allah has made lawful for you... (up to). If you both ('A'isha and Hafsa) turn to Allah" up to:" And when the Prophet confided an information to one of his wives" (lxvi. 3). This refers to his saying: But I have taken honey. (This is the hadith version of sahih Muslim)
An other version where Hafsa (May Allah be pleased with her) was the woman whom gave her husband the honey. And the "conspiracy" was between 'Aisha and Sawdah (May Allah be pleased with both of them) (here a link to the version of sahih Muslim). Note in a narration of ibn Abi Malykah on the authority of ibn 'Abbas (May Allah be pleased with both of them) it was Sawdah whom gave him the honey, others narrated that it was Um Salamah.


A different story, where the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) has declared a slave (some say it's Maria al-Qibtiyah -the Coptic-) as prohibited to him. (Here a reference from sunan an-Nasa-i)

Al Qurtoby said the most sane or strongest of these narration is the first and the weakest the second and he quoted some narrations of Maliki scholars which seem to support the 3rd narration to some extent. (Here's a link to an English translation -apparently summarized- of tafsir ibn Kathir, where you may find the same narrations maybe with more details, as especially the 3rd narration quoted in tafsir al-Qurtoby is much longer than the version of sunan an-Nasa-i).

According to that either the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) declared honey as a prohibited food to him, or he has declared his slave girl as prohibited to him. Note that according the hadith he made an oath on that, and he asked the wife he was addressing when he made this oath to keep it a secrete, but she didn't keep the secrete and that is what is referred to in the verses (65:1-5).

The major meaning of the verse -you are asking about- is that one shouldn't prohibit to himself what is made lawful (halal) for him, just to get the approval of others -no matter who they are-. While the next verses are explaining what is to do if one made an oath and prohibited to himself something which is lawful to him for the same purpose (approval of others).

https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/31259/explanation-of-at-tahrim-verse-1-661

true2god:
Please note that the hadith is not only a story but the sunnah of the Islamic prophet. It is a standard, an example, for Muslims to follow. The issue is not merely what God made, or did not, halal but the gravity is the issue involved. If the issue is honey, as most Muslims want us to accept, this issue would have been closed since, but there are two contradictory hadith that tried to explain Quran 66:1. And we can only based our conclusion using 'the principle of embarrassment'.

Principle of Embarrassment: is a principle that is employed to validate the trustworthiness, authenticity, and truthfulness of any historical document. The principle is such that if there are 2 conflicting accounts of an event, the more embarrassing account is likely to be closer to the truth because the person narrating the incident has no reason to paint his hero in a bad light.

In a layman example, if a father goes to the public and say his son is a thief but his mum, almost at the same time, comes to counter his father by telling the public that he is not a thief, the more embarrassing account is usually closer to the truth.

Now back to the issue, the most and best explanation to Quran 66:1 is to follow the hadith below, and not the cook up by bukhari:

Sunan An-Nasa'i 3411 —It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you" [66:1]


Remember, he made an oath to his wives, a promise, which he couldn't keep by going back to the same slave woman his wives had created issue on. What happened next? Allah revealed Quran 66:1,

"O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."


And don't forget, I told you that the Quran is nothing but the wishes and desires of Mohammed which the second incident rightly confirmed again.

Asalama lekum!

lanrexlan:
The problem is that you think you know about Islam, whereas you are just stark ignorant. Lemme entertain your folly and enlighten you one more time.

I have looked at all your screenshots. They are laughable man. You failed to grab the examples I cited, I can't help you. Your problem is that you don't know but think you know and that's highest level of delusion. Firstly, there are certainly differences in reciting the Quran in Warsh, Hafs, Qaloon, et al but the meaning still REMAIN the same throughout these variants of reading.

The error you are committing is that you are doing layman translation of the styles of the Quran and that's where you are seeing your contractions. Lemme cite another example for you, perhaps your brain would comprehend this.
For example, if Ondo people were to ask for a book, they would say "Iwe na saa?" Ikare people would say "Iwe na Hanan? " Normal Oyo yourba is "Iwe na da? " which all translate to "Where is the book?" This is for someone who has knowledge of ALL THESE DIALECTS OF YORUBA.

But for someone who is used to Oyo Yoruba ONLY and has no knowledge of other dialects would fault Ondo Yoruba of "Iwe na saa". Because as a Yoruba man from Oyo, if I were to understand and translate the saying of "Iwe na saa", I would understand and translate to "The book is running!" and would make a whole mess of the whole stuff!

Also, Ikare people would say "Mofe lo hun" which means "I want to sleep (in their dialect)". But for someone who doesn't understand their dialect of Yoruba when making a direct layman translation of that would say it means "I want to weave!" Hun is weave in Oyo dialect of Yoruba. Bottomline is that, making a direct translation of dialect you have NO knowledge about would be calamitous.

Take that to Warsh and Hafs, some words are written differently in both styles but the meaning are the same. Where Hafs says "يعملون" which means "THEY are doing", Warsh would say "تعملون" which when translated by layman who has knowledge about ONE dialect of Arabic language would translate to "YOU are doing".

But people who are reciting Warsh do not mean "You are doing" when they are reciting their own style, they perfectly know it means "They are doing". But a layman like you who has zero knowledge of their dialect would say it is a contradiction and would translate it to "They are doing".

The same way a man with knowledge on ONE dialect of yourba (say Oyo yourba) would translate and understand "Mofe lo hun (of Ikare dialect)" to "I want to weave". But, is that what Ikare people meant when they say those words?! Absolutely NO!!!


Please, think and use your brain. Stop displaying your ignorance on a public forum.

You are committing a fallacy, you are just appealing to authority. Nobody denied that there aren't differences in the recitations and spellings, what we are telling you is that these differences of recitations and spellings NEVER connote different meanings. Get that into your skull!

true2god:
Sunan An-Nasa'i 3411 —It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you" [66:1]


Remember, he made an oath to his wives, a promise, which he couldn't keep by going back to the same slave woman his wives had created issue on. What happened next? Allah revealed Quran 66:1,

"O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."


And don't forget, I told you that the Quran is nothing but the wishes and desires of Mohammed which the second incident rightly confirmed again.

Asalama lekum!

Empiree:
Fabrication! Common sense didnt tell you that if sheep ate verse of Quran written on a paper, did sheep also eat that same verse from people's memory?. Quran was committed to memory as it was revealed before written down Use your brain.

And @bold, do you even believe in Muhammad's Quran you are asking for?. I guess not

Empiree:
Let's analyse what your problem. It is official we have put to rest Hafs and Warsh. Thats out of the way. Now we are dealing with Q66 v 1 in connection with hadith you believe is attributed to the ayah. Let's for the sake of this argument assume it is about about honey but about women.

Empiree:
see why we are not on the same page?. See why you keep going in cycle?. I told you that you quoted English and then concluded we have two versions of Quran. Scroll up to the Qur'an you cited. For ref, let me quote you

I told you that translators used choice of words but you still repeated it. I'm so bored right now. I told you to screenshot Arabic text but you brought English up again. This is why I'm reluctant to read your post. You are repeating yourself everytime

sagenaija:

When you BLATANTLY LIE I wonder what goes on in your head.

Sometimes I wonder too why you seem to be reasoning like a little child. Honestly.

Let me try and use a few questions to debunk your response.
1. Is something in the memory the same as something written in a book?
2. So, is the thing in people's memory INSIDE today's Koran?

lanrexlan:


You are committing a fallacy, you are just appealing to authority. Nobody denied that there aren't differences in the recitations and spellings, what we are telling you is that these differences of recitations and spellings NEVER connote different meanings. Get that into your skull!

Empiree:
Ask any muslim to recite surah ikhlas for you offhand. He/she will recite exactly what is in the Book. Ask he/she to recite it down in arabic, he/she won't fail to do so. I am not talking about lazy muslim. I am talking about learned ones.

sagenaija:

Ask yourself this simple question:
Does what I wrote up there ADDRESS any of the questions raised?

Are you in the comedy business?

sagenaija:



Let me try and use a few questions to debunk your response.
1. Is something in the memory the same as something written in a book?
2. So, is the thing in people's memory INSIDE today's Koran?

sagenaija:
Is there any line of Moslems that have transmitted the Koran through MEMORY ONLY without resort to the physical Koran FROM THE TIME OF MOHAMED UNTIL NOW?

sagenaija:

You will MOST PROBABLY respond to this my post with another long-winding write up. YET you couldn't answer the question on Hafs and Warsh but said until Ramadan is over and SUDDENLY what do you come up with? The following:

The question again:
Is it the same ARABIC word that is used in both Hafs and Warsh versions of the Koran in chapter 3:146 for “fought” [Hafs] and “killed” [Warsh]?

Empiree:
Ask any muslim to recite surah ikhlas for you offhand. He/she will recite exactly what is in the Book. Ask he/she to write it down in arabic, he/she won't fail to do so. I am not talking about lazy muslim. I am talking about learned ones.

Empiree:
Fabrication! Common sense didnt tell you that if sheep ate verse of Quran written on a paper, did sheep also eat that same verse from people's memory?. Quran was committed to memory as it was revealed before written down Use your brain.

And @bold, do you even believe in Muhammad's Quran you are asking for?. I guess not

true2god:
Sorry bro, during the time of Mohammed there is no any single sahaba that have all the Quran on his head, none, because the Quran had not been codified as a single book as we have today. The compilations and codification was done by Othman ibn affan (over 20 years after the death of Mohammed). In one of the hadith, an ayah was found with only ONE man (and no other person has the ayah except him) and he even threatened not to release it but did for the sake of Allah and his messenger. Not all ayah were committed to memory; some where written on Camel skin, leaves, bones, cloths, etc while some committed few random ayah to memory. And many of the sahabas that committee these few random ayah to memory were killed in the battle of yamama which galvanized the compilation of the Quran as a single text to avoid further loss of the Quran.

This informant is in your sahih bukhari (sahih bukhari 6:61:509).

Empiree:
Let's analyse what your problem. It is official we have put to rest Hafs and Warsh. Thats out of the way. Now we are dealing with Q66 v 1 in connection with hadith you believe is attributed to the ayah. Let's for the sake of this argument assume it is about about honey but about women.

Oh so you are muhadith now right?. You in the position to tell us which hadith was spoke by prophet now?...continue.




Okay, so your issue with our prophet(saw) is that he slept with a slave or kept breaking his promises?. I am trying to figure out where you stand and what you stand to gain here. Without wasting much time, regardless of what you preconceived notion is, you seem to assume that Mariyahwas his "sex object"?. Well, whatever the secret was, what is clear was that we have evidence that Muhammad(pbuh) married Mariyah. There are sources that tell us that Mariyah was married to the Prophet. So whatever they did was their business.


Here is a documented text to prove this:




The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) contracted some of his marriages for sociopolitical reasons. His principal concern was the future of Islam. He was interested in strengthening the Muslims by all bonds. That is why he married the young daughter of Abu Bakr, his First Successor, and the daughter of `Umar, his Second Successor. It was by his marriage to Juwayriyyah that he gained the support for Islam of the whole clan of Bani Al-Mustaliq and their allied tribes. It was through marriage to Safiyyah that he neutralized a great section of the hostile Jews of Arabia. By accepting Mariyah, the Copt from Egypt, as his wife, he formed a political alliance with a king of great magnitude. It was also a gesture of friendship with a neighboring king that Muhammad married Zaynab who was presented to him by the Negus of Abyssinia in whose territory the early Muslims found safe refuge





Ibn Kathir is quoted to have said:



Maria al-Qibtiyya (may Allah be pleased with her) is said to have married the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and certainly everyone gave her the same title of respect as the Prophet's wives, 'Umm al Muminin' 'Mother of the Believers'. Muhammad must have come in contact with many of these Copts and listened to their stories. Muhammad's friendship to Christians of Coptic faith is reflected in many aspects of his life. He is known to have had cordial relations with the Negus of Abyssinia, as indicated by the fact that he advised his followers at a time of persecution to flee there. He married a Coptic wife named Mariya, and he is reported to have advised his followers to be especially kind to the Copts of Egypt, considering them his in-laws.


(R.H. Charles, "Vitae Adae et Evae," The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha [Oxford, 1963] Volume 2, p. 294)



Other non Islamic sources list Mariya as the Prophets spouse:

http://users.legacyfamilytree.com/NorthernEurope/f110.htm

http://www.peterwestern.f9.co.uk/maximilia/pafg887.htm#26206



Interestingly you discarded Bukhari here because it doesn't suit you, right....continue



I am not done yet on Q66:1 since you chose to bring it up.

Empiree:
Still on Surah 66:1-5, The Hadith describing the reason for the revelation of verse 66: 4 of Quran in [url=https://www.Volume 3, Book 43, Number 648:/]Sahih Bukhari [/url] Read for yourself. This hadith is true but with understanding (Al-Ahzab 33:28-29), which has related story narrated by Umar bn Khattab(ra) which indicated wives of the prophet(saw) were astonished by luxury stuff.




"I said (to Allah's Apostle) "Invoke Allah to make your followers prosperous for the Persians and the Byzantines have been made prosperous and given worldly luxuries, though they do not worship Allah?' The Prophet was leaning then (and on hearing my speech he sat straight) and said, 'O Ibn Al-Khatttab! Do you have any doubt (that the Hereafter is better than this world)? These people have been given rewards of their good deeds in this world only.' I asked the Prophet".



So Allah SWT revealed the Ayat:

(O Prophet! Say unto thy wives: “If ye desire the world’s life and its adornment, come! I will content you and will release you with a fair release. But if ye desire Allah and His Messenger and the abode of the Hereafter, then lo! Allah hath prepared for the good among you an immense reward”) (Al-Ahzab 33:28-29).




The Prophet (SAW) wives did wish for the worldly gains, The Prophet (S) gave them the choice as stated in the Ayat above, but they always chose the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Yusuf Ali even confirms this by saying :


" We now come to the subject of the position of the Consorts of Purity, the wives of the holy Prophet. Their position was not like that of ordinary women or ordinary wives. They had special duties and responsibilities. The only youthful marriage of the Holy Prophet was his first marriage- that with Hadhrat Khadija, the best of women and the best of wives. He married her fifteen years before he received his call to Apostleship; their married life was twenty-five years and their mutual devotion was of the noblest, judged by spiritual as well as social standards. During her life he had no other wife which was unusual for a man of his standing among his people. When she died his age was 50 and but for two considerations, he would probably never have married again, as he was most abstemious in his physical life. The two considerations which governed his marriage later were : (1) compassion and clemency, as when he wanted to provide for suffering widows, who could not be provided for in any other way in that stage of society; some of them like Sauda had issue by their former marriage, requiring protection; (2) help in his duties of leadership with women who had to be instructed and kept together in the large Muslim family, where women and men had similar social rights. Hadhrat 'Aisha, daughter of Hadhrat Abu Bakr, was clever and learned, and in Hadith she is an important authority on the life of the Prophet. Hadhrat Zainab, daughter of Khuzaima was specially devoted to the poor : she was called the "Mother of the Poor: . The other Zainab, daugher of Jahsh also worked for the poor, for whom she provided from the proceeds of her manual work, as she was skilful in leather in leather work. But all the consorts in their high positions had to work and assist as Mother of the Ummat. Theirs were not idle lives, like those of Odalisques, either for their own pleasure or the pleasure of their husband. They are told here that they had no place in the sacred household if they merely wished for ease or worldly glitter. If such was the case, they would be divorced and amply provided for."




Furthermore, Yusuf Ali states:


" They(wives of the prophet) were all well-doers. But being in their exalted position they had extra responsibility, and they had to be specially careful to discharge it. In the same way their reward would be "great", for higher services bring higher spiritual satisfaction, though they were asked to deny themselves of the ordinary indulgences of this life".

Empiree:
this verse you cited is general rule. The same process applied to Adam and his progeny (sura 15:29)

worlexy:
Funny you. it's apparent that you've not read your Quran well enough.

Quran 2:28, 73 clearly states that Allah is the ONLY one that gives life and causes death and even brings the dead to life.

Quran 3:49 clearly states that Jesus gave life to a clay bird and the clay bird became a living bird

Quran 5:110 stated that Jesus Raised the Dead, Gave life to clay bird, healed the blind, healed the lepers. It also stated that Jesus was given clear proof and Holy Spirit

Note that none of this wonders and Miracle was performed by Mohammed o(yet you call him the greatest prophet and you claim that Jesus is not the son of God ) . They are exclusive to God and Jesus.

Quran 3:45 clearly started that Jesus is the Word of God(Just like in John 1:1-5)

Quran 6:73 says Allah's word(not words, which implies Jesus as stated in Q3:45) is the Truth. Compare that one with John 14:6 where Jesus said he's the way the truth and the life

If you're getting confused or doubting these words in the Quran, Allah has instructed you in Quran 10:94 that if Mohammed and Muslims are in doubt of what is revealed to you in the Quran that you should ask the Christians who have been reading the Scriptures before you.

The same Quran clearly states that it was revealed to confirm what is in the scriptures and not to abolish the Bible (Quran 2:41, 89, 91, 97 etc). So the Bible remains the reference and standard for the Quran and the Muslims.

Now to salvation, Quran 46:9 states that Mohammed is NOT something original among the messengers, neither did he know what will be done to him, as he only followed what is revealed to him.

And Mohammed didn't even know the person that revealed the Quran to him, the so called Angel Gabriel never introduced himself to Mohammed as an angel from God, it was Mohammed's wife that 'thought ' the spirit appearing to Mohammed was Angel Gabriel.

Allah never spoke to Mohammed like he spoke to Abraham, Moses and Jesus in the Quran, and even when the angel of God went to talk to Mary in the Quran, the angel introduced himself as being from God.

From these, the identity of the spirit that recited Quran to Mohammed is unknown, hence our doubt, and the good thing is that the spirit said we can confirm the authenticity of the Quran by checking the Bible, so anything in the Quran that's not in the Bible remains null and void(Quran 10:94)


On the contrary, Jesus told his followers that he knew where he was going and that he was going to prepare a place for us because in His father's house, there are mansions there (John 14:2-3) and the Quran stated that Jesus cannot lie because he was given clear proof and Pure Spirit (Quran 5:110).

The decision is yours to make now. Choose today whom you will serve.

Shalom

true2god:
I won't give much time to this propaganda and sugarcoating of facts to make Mohammed and his wives appear like a model home and family. At least, in one occasion, Abu Bakr and Umar ibn kathab (the fathers of Aisha and Hafsa) had slapped their daughters for being too troublesome and disrespectful to Mohammed. This incident is in your sahih Bukhari.

I will go with what the hadith says about their character and not with what a random Muslim apologist tells me. And if they are model wives, as you claim, both ladies (Aisha and Hafsa) will not become sworn enemies to Fatima (Mohammed's only surviving child) after the death of Mohammed. Let's leave this issue for now abeg.

true2god:
I won't call mariyya a sex object to Mohammed (out of respect) but can call her a concubine. She was a beautiful young girl, together with her sister, gifted to Mohammed by a leader of the old Byzantine Egypt, perhaps as a symbol of peace. Other materials gift, aside the two girls, were equally given to Mohammed.

Mary the copt was never listed in any Islamic source document (hadith or sirah) as one of his wives. As a matter of fact some hadith used the term 'slave for her'. The only leverage she had was bearing a son (who died shortly after) hence elevated her social status among Mohammed's wives and the society.

If she was a wife to Mohammed, Aisha and hafsa will not complain if Mohammed was sleeping with her.

true2god:
Sorry bro, during the time of Mohammed there is no any single sahaba that have all the Quran on his head, none, because the Quran had not been codified as a single book as we have today. The compilations and codification was done by Othman ibn affan (over 20 years after the death of Mohammed). In one of the hadith, an ayah was found with only ONE man (and no other person has the ayah except him) and he even threatened not to release it but did for the sake of Allah and his messenger. Not all ayah were committed to memory; some where written on Camel skin, leaves, bones, cloths, etc while some committed few random ayah to memory. And many of the sahabas that committee these few random ayah to memory were killed in the battle of yamama which galvanized the compilation of the Quran as a single text to avoid further loss of the Quran.

This informant is in your sahih bukhari (sahih bukhari 6:61:509).

true2god:
That's the issue when one don't understand the foundation of a text, he will only commit to memory without knowledge and understanding. It is nursery pupils that will recite 'A for apple', 'B for ball', etc. If one ask most of them to start writing the letters now, many of them can't. It is unfortunate this same scenario repeats itself among the adult Muslims.

Empiree:
Yes God allowed him to do it. Because Jesus is the son of God and that's what the Bible says "This is my beloved son". In fact Jesus is the one that will judge the world John 5:22
and Jesus said "I and the father are one" John 10:30.

And the Quran says he was given clear proof and Pure Spirit, meaning he can not lie, so anything he says is the truth

We believe that God allows him to do everything and that's why we pray in His name

Why didn't God permit Mohammed whom you call the greatest prophet to do all the miracles exclusive only to God?

And why didn't you comment on the other issues I raised