₦airaland Forum

SIRTee15:
Guy defend your Qur'an. Even if Christianity is false doesn't make Islam true.
I started this conversation bocs I wanted to prove to U that Qur'an can't be from God.
This isnt about validity of Christianity.

Where did the ebionites get the message that Jesus died and resurrected on the 3rd day?
Did Allah convey the message to ISA companions that Jews didn't crucify ISA but he rescued him?
Did he tell Muslims in the first century that ISA didn't die or he waited for 600 yrs to tell Muslims.
Did ISA tell any of his companions that he is the son of GOD- metaphorical, begotten or adopted.
That's what I want to know. If Ebionites or seven sleepers are believers according to Qur'an where did they got their erroneous believe from?

If U don't have the answer, just say so and end the discussion.
Bringing Christianity to defend Islam makes no sense because U guys already said it's a false religion.
I will never use another religion to defend validity of Christianity. Straight up the bible and nothing else.

The Ebionites could have picked that up from anywhere.
Qur'an does not say a crucifixion did not take place, what Qur'an is saying is Jesus was not the one on the cross and those who differ over it are in doubt about it, that they have no certain knowledge of what happened but they were just following conjectures. And with the disparities among the gospels it is evidently clear that the writers were not eye witness to the crucifixion.

So a crucifixion did happen, but God saved him from the crucifixion just as psalm 91 prophesied.

Believing or not believing in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ for Christians before the coming of Prophet Muhammad is not what takes one out of the fold of true faith.

What we can deduce even from the pages of the new testament is that Jesus inner circle continue to follow the law which shouldn't have been the case if following the law would have meant Christ died in vain. So they did not believe in the vicarious atonement hogwash and that also reflected on the Ebionites.

For the son of God, the evidence is there in John 10. He used the term to counter the accusation of blasphemy.

SIRTee15:
Guy the argument here is prepubertal sex!!!
I agree things of the past should be left to the past.
But Quran claim to be eternal and that's the problem.
That's why it can't be from God. At least that surah on divorce can't be from God.
Prepubertal sex is evil.

Now let me explain why prepubertal sex is evil.

The woman is only ready for sexual intercourse when the vaginal wall has received enough estrogen to help relax the muscles and keep the environment moist, this will allow for adequate expansion and elasticity during penetrations.
Now surge of estrogen comes from the ovary with the onset of puberty.
Without the actions of this hormone, sex will be very painful to a girl, the vaginal wall may bruise or even bleed.

Same reason some menopausal women also have painful sex cos the aged ovary has stopped producing estrogen.

God in his infinite wisdom will never approve such painful action on a child just because an adult wants to derive pleasure.

Alaye you have used the fact that Jesus called a 12 years old talitha to counter the claim that Mary was around 12 when she became pregnant in our past discussion. Your argument then was Elizabeth called her woman. When we know in ancient Israel girls get betrothed around 12 and usually get married in a year or 2 after their betrothal.

Qur'an 64:5 used the word women and not girls, and we know there is marriageable age which have to do with having sound judgement and able to manage wealth. so I don't understand where this your 'it can't be from God' is coming from.
And I also don't understand why you are lecturing me on why prepubertal sex is evil. U can shove your lecture down your throat.

So if the Qur'an claim to be eternal it should not cater for divorce of matured women that are not seeing their periods abi wat are you talking about?

SIRTee15:
👍👍👍👍
This is what I want, bring evidence so we can learn.
If I reject it, I will bring my own counter evidence.
This is the strength of argument, not just rejecting because it doesn't suit your narrative.

15 is not too young get married in ancient civilization.
Most 15 yr old girls in the west already have boyfriends and some are even having sex.

However prepubertal marriage is not allowed in Jewish antiquity irrespective of circumstances.

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10435-marriage-laws

Suddenly, girls below age 15 that have reached puberty fall into your category of women in the ancient world.

At least we can both agree now that reaching puberty was the thin line between a girl and a woman in the ancient/mediaeval times. And we can stop our anachronistic judgemental of people of the past.

SIRTee15:
No girl complete puberty at 10 except she has precocious puberty and that's a medical condition.

Ok

And do you think what they were doing giving out "matured women" in marriage before age 15 at the start of their puberty in ancient Israel was wrong

SIRTee15:
Guy, girls don't get married in the bible. U have to be a woman to be married.

Woman means someone who has completed puberty.

Then tell us the age of these women or what we should look for na with Bible passage you are using as reference

If a woman completed puberty lets say at age 10, are they ready for marriage?

And do you think what they were doing giving out "matured women" in marriage before age 15 at the start of their puberty in ancient Israel was wrong

SIRTee15:
Yinmu🥱🥱🥱
Be lying to yourself.
As if U better than Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas's and Jalalayn who all confirmed the verse is about prepubertal girls who are yet to menstruate.
If U like, reject the writings in your tafsir, it's your cup of tea.
Ancient Jews cannot be trusted.
Bible scholars cannot be trusted
Dead sea scrolls cannot be trusted.
Now it's your tafsir that's corrupted and should be rejected.
Your case is irredeemable.


Now this is getting more confusing...
This is not I will never understand about islam.
The Qur'an says Allah has brought a clear book for guidance but if anything I've learnt today is that the Qur'an is not clear even to Muslims.

According to Qasim, the verse is talking about matured girls who are yet to menstruate
According to honesttalk and antiChristian the verse is talking about young girls but they haven't had sex and iddah mean reconciliation.
According to the Tafsir, the verse is about young girls who are yet to menstruate and waiting for 3 months to be sure they are not pregnant.

So the question is who should I believe. Qasim who amongst U 3 is correct ?

Q4:6 Test the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them. And do not consume it wastefully and hastily before they grow up. If the guardian is well-off, they should not take compensation; but if the guardian is poor, let them take a reasonable provision. When you give orphans back their property, call in witnesses. And sufficient is Allah as a Reckoner.

This verse is literarily telling us there is a marriageable age/intercourse age and that age is when one is capable of sound judgement and that age also coincide with when one is able to some extent manage wealth.



What U quote up there is talking about mental competence. It has nothing to do with sexual intercourse in prepubertal age.

Test the intelligence of all orphans until they reach marriageable age( which we don't know).
Then if they are competent- give them their wealth.
This has nothing to do with prepubertal sex and divorce.
U could reach the age of marriage and not be competent enough to manage your wealth- and this can be at any age anyway.
And above is what my question is all about. Are there females who had reached the age of marriage according to the Qur'an but are not mentally and physically competent enough to handle the responsibility. That's what we are trying to investiagte in surah 65.4

I can bring the Tafsir of surah 4.6 if U want me to.....provided U don't reject it like you have done for Tafsir on divorce.

What do you even think Tafsir is? Maybe we should start from there.

SIRTee15:
Marriage is for adult women.
read proverbs 31. 10-31. That's the expectation for a wife in the bible.
If u think a prepubescent girl can meet those expectation, then I dont think we should be having this discussion in the first place.

I checked proverbs 31. It doesn't seems to answer my question. I can only find therein quality of a good wife.

My question is what is the Objective morality of God in Christainity concerning marriageable age for girls? and what has it been over the centuries?

SIRTee15:
You are not answering my question.
Just forget it.

I also noticed U carefully avoided the prepubertal question.
That's fine by me.
Better be silent than open your mouth and make an embarrassment of yourself.
Your colleagues have started redefining iddah here....
I find that very dishonest.

U will never see a Christian redefine 1 Samuel 15 even if we deem it very uncomfortable.

Your problem is you are thinking you are having a got ya moment with Q 64:5 but you have nothing.
Sexual intercourse is not permissible with prepubescent girls in Islam. So rest!

The word used in the verse is Nisa which means women and not girls, so that verse is referring to women that have matured in age and physicality but for some reason are not seeing their periods

If we are to take your meaning that the verse is referring to prepubescent girls what that would mean is there won't be minimum age of marriage/intercourse. But we know from Qur'an 4:6 that there is minimum age of marriage/intercourse

Q4:6 Test the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them. And do not consume it wastefully and hastily before they grow up. If the guardian is well-off, they should not take compensation; but if the guardian is poor, let them take a reasonable provision. When you give orphans back their property, call in witnesses. And sufficient is Allah as a Reckoner.

This verse is literarily telling us there is a marriageable age/intercourse age and that age is when one is capable of sound judgement and that age also coincide with when one is able to some extent manage wealth.

SIRTee15:
Guy defend your Qur'an. Even if Christianity is false doesn't make Islam true.
I started this conversation bocs I wanted to prove to U that Qur'an can't be from God.
This isnt about validity of Christianity.

Where did the ebionites get the message that Jesus died and resurrected on the 3rd day?
Did Allah convey the message to ISA companions that Jews didn't crucify ISA but he rescued him?
Did he tell Muslims in the first century that ISA didn't die or he waited for 600 yrs to tell Muslims.
Did ISA tell any of his companions that he is the son of GOD- metaphorical, begotten or adopted.
That's what I want to know. If Ebionites or seven sleepers are believers according to Qur'an where did they got their erroneous believe from?

If U don't have the answer, just say so and end the discussion.
Bringing Christianity to defend Islam makes no sense because U guys already said it's a false religion.
I will never use another religion to defend validity of Christianity. Straight up the bible and nothing else.

Where did u get the Idea that I am using their beliefs to validate Islam from?

I'm just showing you these are first century Christians that scholars believed held a view about Jesus that would have been closer to what the Original apostles that walk with him during his ministries held

They literally believed your God is a mere man. That is your problem not mine.

SIRTee15:
Who are the Essenes?
Read about them, come back and we will talk about their believes.
I actually took time to explain who the Essenes were in the previous thread.
But of course u didn't read.

Go and read about them yourself, then come back and we will discuss their believes.

I know who the Essenes were.

And don't even think about coming here with John the Baptist have something to do with them. Because I saw you pushing the narrative the last time, I just decided to ignore your erroneous assumption.

SIRTee15:
Hahaha....
I brought tons of evidence on how ancient Jews interpreted Daniel 7.
U brought none. All U did was reject evidence upon evidence until U went mute.

Initially u wanted to run to ancient Jews to argue your case, when U saw evidence against U...U quickly changed gear and said ancient Jews cannot be trusted in the way they interpreted their text.
Then I brought evidence from academic bible scholars, U said they are anti Islam and cannot be
trusted
I brought dead sea scrolls as evidence, U claimed it's corrupted and cannot be trusted.
Them I asked U, who should I trust? Up till today no answer.
If U think U won that argument, U must be living in delulu land.
I successfully dislocated your ability to appeal to ancient Judaism to argue Islam is true.
I will bring some of the evidence here again for all to see.....
Did ancient Judaism see Son of Man in Daniel 7.13 as divine.....

Alright, no problem.

I want you to bring back those ancient Jewish writings and demonstrate how the Messiah fulfilled or is going to fulfill the Daniel prophecy and I will also demonstrate how prophet Muhammad fulfilled the prophecy.

And we will see if you won't run into problem of a failed prophecy.

Shey u talk say u get agidi ni

SIRTee15:
I can give U the link if U want to...
If I bring the link, will U read it?

I will continue to ignore your John 10 argument because it makes no sense.
If U want to die in top the chapter that's up to U.

You seems not to be getting it

We don't do blind faith here, I don't just believe things like a zombie.

What you are going to share, is it a Bible prophecy or is it in line with a prophecy and it doesn't need any wuru-wuru to the answer? If not you can keep it. Don't bring me writings of People that have no authority from God.

SIRTee15:
If Ebionites were the true Muslim in the first century, that means they were the followers of Isa teaching.

So who told them Jesus was crucified and resurrected on the 3rd day.
Who told them there was a time Jesus wasn't the Son of God, then after a while became Son of God by adoption.
Where did they get this teaching from? Was it from ISA or from the injil.

Did Isa tell them he was adopted son of God.

Stop making this about Paul. This isn't Paul but evidence of true Muslims.

because what I'm getting from U is U are a true Muslim in the first pre Islam if U are against the teaching of Paul.

That can't be correct because your Qur'an didn't even mention Paul at all. And equally rejected death and resssurection of Christ.

Keep running helter skelter like a headless chicken.

You yourself look at what the Ebionites believed then compare their beliefs to present day Christianity and Islam and tell me which of the two religions is in sync with the Ebionites.

That is only if you can be truthful with yourself for some few seconds sha.

SIRTee15:
Antichristian and honesttalk do U agree with him?
Qasim is calling Ebionites Muslims.
People who believed in the death and resssurection of Jesus can be called Muslims.
I thought the Qur'an is the eternal word of God, So U mean the definition of Muslim was different during the time of Jesus.
So are U saying during the time of Jesus, someone who believed in the death and resssurection of Jesus, who also believed Jesus is the adopted Son of God can be called a Muslim?
what then is the usefulness of the injil that Jesus brought if this heresy abound amongst true Muslims believers who were followers of Isa.
What exactly did Isa taught? If Isa didn't teach that he's the adopted Son of God, where did the ebionites muslims learn it from? Who taught them?

Me I don't understand again, because what Qasim is arguing here is really confusing.
AntiChristian and honesttalk pls clarify.

-The Ebionites believed Jesus is a mere man, a Prophet and the Messiah
-They rejected his divinity or pre-existence
-Even though they believed Jesus was crucified and he resurrected after 3 days, they did not see his death as vicarious atonement, because they continue to follow the law.
-They believed Paul was a false apostle and apostate
-They used a different Gospel of Matthew different from the one they used today. Their version of gospel did not survive for reasons we don't know.
-They believed Jesus became son of God at his baptismal (obviously in metaphorical sense because they rejected his divinity)
-Scholars believe they held a view closer to what the Original apostles of Jesus would have held.

My brothers in Islam AntiChristian honesttalk21 are they not Muslims of their time??

U probably thought what we are rejecting is the fact that Jesus was called the son of God. No bro. It is the present day Christian understanding of the term we are rejecting.

A lot of people were called the son of God in the Bible. and Qur'an also make that known to us.
Q 21:26 And they say, “The Most Merciful has taken a son.” Exalted is He! Rather, they are [but] honored servants.

SIRTee15:
That verse U quoted has nothing to do with Jesus being the Son of God. The verse is about Jesus being God.

Let's see what Jesus himself said about being the Son of God. Directly from his mouth not some illogical or wuruwuru deduction.
Mark 14

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

In case U not aware, Jesus' statement as the Son of Man coming from the clouds is a reference to Daniel 7.13
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence
That was why the high Priest shouted blasphemy.

It's obvious some of you don't really care about the truth, you just want to win argument at all cost, even if you have to pretend to be dumb.

That incident in John 10 is killing 2 birds with a stone.

-He was refuting the claim that he is God
-We also able to deduce that the term 'son of God' was not understood to mean divinity at the time.

Have I not trashed this your argument about this 'son of man' in book of Daniel in our previous discussion? that I had to soft pedal with you cause I could sensed u wr already choking. But here you are shamelessly bringing it again.

SIRTee15:
Ok, I have heard U.
I sha know it's impossible for me to ignore evidence and be accepting illogical claims from someone who haven't brought one single evidence since this argument began.

Son of God as divine in the dead sea scrolls text.

you have brought nothing again, you are just deceiving yourself.

The scenario of what happened in John 10 already put all these ur claims of 'son of God' meaning divinity in the bin where it belongs.
Jesus clearly used the title 'son of God' to refute their claim of blasphemy.

Bring screenshot from now till tomorrow, u r just hiding like an ostrich.

Kingsempires:
about what you Quran explainedso the bible didn't explained the meaning of "son of God" is now your Quran that explained it abi

What is the meaning of "Son of God" according to the Bible?

Kingsempires:
are you serious!!!

About what?

SIRTee15:
Jesus being the Son of God has been thrashed. U failed to bring one single evidence in that debate.
Jews believed in a Son of God that's divine.


So Is there a Jesus being the Son of God that's accepted in the Quran?
Was Jesus crucified, died and resurrected according to the Qur'an.
Ebionites believed in the above so they can't be Muslims.

Stop all these deflecting choose and pick argument U like to do.
How did U get to know about the ebionites...
Was it not thru the writings of the early church fathers.
They left nothing behind for us to know who they were. Everything we know was from the church fathers.
So why do U want to choose and pick what to believe from those who wrote about them when U know nothing about the ebionites without these Christian documents.

You thrashed nothing bro, you are just deceiving yourself.

Let's go to the gospel of John where the term was used extensively.

In John 10:30 where Jesus was reported to have said "I and the Father are one" and the Jews tried to stone him he said to them “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” they said he claimed to be God and Jesus responded back that is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’? That he is only claiming to be Son of God.

Why did Jesus used that to debunk their claim of blasphemy? Was he using what they would have considered to be blasphemous title to refute their accusation of blasphemy?

And Why did they not accused him of blasphemy for calling himself son of God if what they believed that meant was he's claiming to be divine?


Of course the Qur'an let us know the meaning of the title "son of God"

Q21:26 And they say, “The Most Merciful has taken a son.” Exalted is He! Rather, they are [but] honored servants.

Even if the Ebionites believed in death and resurrection of Jesus, they did not see it as vicarious atonement. Because they continue to follow the law and Paul was apostate to them. In my book they are Muslims of their time.

SIRTee15:
Do U believe Jesus is the one that will resurrect the dead bodies because that's what the 7 sleepers believed.


And then Maximilian said to him: “Believe us, for in truth Our Lord has raised us before the day of the great resurrection. And so that you might believe firmly in the resurrection of the dead, verily we are raised as you see, and live. And like the child is in the womb of his mother without feeling harm or hurt, in the same wise we have been living and sleeping, lying here without feeling anything.”

And after giving this witness, they inclined their heads to the earth, and gave up their spirits at the command of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and so died.

No, I don't believe that

Why do you think the word Lord automatically means Jesus ?

SIRTee15:
Ebionites believed Jesus was adopted as Son of God at his baptism, then became the Messiah in order to fulfil the scriptures.
Ebionites believed Jesus was crucified, died a martyr and resurrected in a spiritual body.
Yes the rejected divine birth of Jesus and followed the gospel of Matthew as the scripture.
They also believed he was the prophet spoke about by Moses.
So they cannot be called believers according to the Qur'an. Try harder.

I repeat, no gnostic Christian ever believed Jesus was a mere prophet throughout his life time. There's always an elevation along the way- either in his life or death.

So??
You are still letting this Christianity understanding of the term "son of God" get in your head.

I also believe Jesus is son of God the way the Jews would have understood the term in the first century or how Jesus followers would have understood it while he was walking on this earth.

What we can gather about what the Ebionites believed are brought to us by their opponents i.e the gentile Christians i.e the Pauline Christians, For some reason we don't know non of their writings survive. So we can not say their opponent present them accurately.

Just so you know, the gospel of Matthew they used is not the same as the one we have now o
The one they used was written in Hebrew and it was described in way that it is different from the forged one we have now.

So what do you mean they can't be called believers by the Qur'an?

SIRTee15:
so if sleeping with a prepubescent girl is a sin, then explain why the Quran writes that husband should wait 3 months before divorcing their prepubescent wives.
If the husband is not sleeping with his prepubescent girl, why would he have to wait 3 months to be sure she's not pregnant b4 divorcing her.

It is permissible to give young girls in marriage in Islam, and that has always been the case every where in the world.

But if the girl is not matured yet for intercourse, be it she is yet to see her period or not ready physically then it is not permissible for her guardian to give her to her husband till she's able for it. as we see in the case of the prophet marriage with Aisha.

So Qur'an 65:4 that you are alluding to is not talking about prepubescent girls. because even if they have been married, they have no business in the man household as of yet.

There are cases of Women that have matured physically and in age but never see their period a condition known as Amenorrhea. are these women not deserve to be married ?.
So that verse is clearly describing women that are advanced in age, they are matured physically but they never see their period. Because prepubescent married girl wouldn't even be in the man household for a start.

SIRTee15:
irrelevant to the discussion here. The issue here is objective morality which can only come from God.
humans are free to shift the age of consent as they like. Even if they move it to 2yrs, it doesnt change the objective morality from God.
That's why I asked u, is pedophilia a sin in Islam?

So what is the Objective morality of God in Christainity concerning marriageable age for girls? and what has it been over the centuries?
Did the early church fathers not talk about it at all?
Because I really want to know your take with the way you guys are always quick to play this pedophile card against Islam and our Prophet.

SIRTee15:
U didn't answer my question. We know Allah claimed he's omnipotent and omniscience, but we need to put the claim to test to prove its credibility.
claim is not enough, the evidence backing up such claim should never be in doubt
But Allah's thinking is depicting him as he's dependent on another existence if he decides to have a son, that's the issue.
Why should Allah's ability to bring forth a son be dependent on another being if he's all powerful.
we know Allah will never have a son, but if he decides to have one, he still cannot do it; because he has no compatible spouse that WILL HELP HIM BRING FORTH THE SON.
Above is the crux of the matter.
If Allah is all powerful, why should he think he needs help from another existence to produce a son. Why is he incapable of bringing forth a Son by himself.

Note this are hypothetical statement made by Allah himself in the Quran, so dont bring up the issue of debating theoretical impossibilities.

"Allah bringing forth a son" what does that even mean.?
It will still go back to Allah willing this son into existence which simply means creating a son, how is that son different from all of his other creations?
God is telling us the Idea of him having a son is beneath him.

The only way there can be that special son you are thinking about is if we have a man God and a woman God and they procreate to give us a son God. Anything short of that you are just a creation of God.

The Idea that God is omnipotent exclude things that are beneath him
God cannot become a man
God cannot cease to exist
God cannot have a son
God cannot lie
Things like these are beneath God.

SIRTee15:
Above is a lie.
The 7 Christians believed in the 2nd coming of CHRIST AND RESSURECTION OF THE DEAD IN FLESH.
And then Maximilian said to him: “Believe us, for in truth Our Lord has raised us before the day of the great resurrection. And so that you might believe firmly in the resurrection of the dead, verily we are raised as you see, and live. And like the child is in the womb of his mother without feeling harm or hurt, in the same wise we have been living and sleeping, lying here without feeling anything.”

And after giving this witness, they inclined their heads to the earth, and gave up their spirits at the command of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and so died.

So I asked again, if u are saying these men are Christians and the Quran calls them believers....what is their believe?

So??

We Muslims believe in 2nd coming of Christ and resurrection of the dead in flesh too

The back story to that was that prior to their resurfacing, there had been argument among Christians wether there is going to be resurrection of body in the last day and they saw them as a proof.

SIRTee15:
No christian sect ever believed Jesus was a mere prophet all through his life. There is always a variation in the transformational change in the person of Jesus that made him a saviour or elevated towards divinity amongst the gnostic sect.

That's why I'm asking u what is the believe of these men in the caves the Quran call beleivers.

What exactly are you working? What do you mean no Christian sect ever believed Jesus was a mere prophet all his life?

The Ebionites which scholars believed to have held a view closer to that of the original Apostles believed Jesus was a mere man, a prophet, they denied his divinity and pre-existence. So what are you talking about?

SIRTee15:
So are u claiming these 7 sleepers were basilideans? Is that what u saying? because basilideans believe Jesus was a sinner who had his sin washed away at baptism and then became first born of God.
Look here if u want to appeal to Gnosticism to argue your case, then u need to find one whose believe align with the beliefs in the the Quran.
I asked about their believes because the Quran called them believers, and no Christian sect - gnostic or not shared same belief about Jesus as written in the Quran.

I am not saying they are necessarily Basilidians, I'm just pointing out the fact there are early Christians that believed Jesus was not the one nailed to the cross. Infact some believed it was Simon of Cyrene and it is most likely the reason why the writer of Gospel of John writing very late had to remove Simon of Cyrene from his plot to stress the narrative that Jesus was the one on the cross.

Let's leave the argument of if the New testament is corrupt or not for now.
Let's just analyse this statement of Paul

"O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified."

Who was bewitching the Galatians to think Jesus was not crucified if there are no group that believed he wasn't?

And even if the Sleepers held the view that Jesus was crucified and resurrected after 3 days that did not negate them as believers in as much as they didn't associate partner with God.

SIRTee15:
But u dont see Christians defending it as right. That Jacob or Lot did it doesnt make it right.
Mosaic law clearly forbid incestious union or intimacy and drew a clear line regarding this things- read the book of Leviticus.

Yeah, the book of leveticus did not forbid one from marrying the ex wife of one adopted son too. and Deuteronomy allowed one to marry the wife of one deceased brother which some people are still going to find absurd.

I believe we should not over worry ourselves about what people are going to say to actions that are not sins in the sight of God.

For example one is allowed to marry the wife of a deceased brother, they both want the relationship but they are worried about what people are going to say then they resolve to fornicating in secret, what that simply mean is that they fear people more than they fear God.

SIRTee15:
I dont understand your problem with David having favour with God
Yes he sinned but he realised his mistake and repented, he asked God for forgiveness and he was he forgiven.
so what's the issue.
God forgives your iniquity no matter how dirty, just dont expect him to lift the consequence of your sin just because he forgave your iniquity.
For as many he loves, he chastise.
That's the lesson in the story of David and bathsheba.

I do not have problem with David or anyone having favour from God.

Infact the story is alluded in the Qur'an, but the Qur'an does not go into full details of what happened, but I know David took something that was not his. He realised his sins and was full of repentance and he was forgiven. The main lesson of the story is if we sincerely seek forgiveness of our sins, God is always ready to welcome us back without the sacrifice of himself or his supposed son.

What we are pointing out to you is this. This is a Prophet of God that you have in your scripture to have committed adultery and murder and you want to attack the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad for marrying the ex wife of an adopted son.
-The Prophet and zayd are not related by blood
-The Prophet did not commit adultery with Zaynab.
-The Prophet did not murder Zayd to have his way
-The Prophet did not cause their separation.
So what is the fuss all about??

SIRTee15:
At the time of the kings, the nation of Israel was no longer a theocracy. The people had rejected God as their head of state and demanded for a king.
God warned them of the consequences but Israelites insisted for a king.
So affairs of the nation was no longer directly in God's hand, the Israelites managed their nation as they deem fit.
If they were happy with a murderer and an adulterer as king, that's their choice.
remember when God rejected Saul as king, he continued to be king of Israel until he was killed in battle.
When God anointed David as king, he wasn't king until may years later when the people finally accepted him after a civil war against Saul's son.
The people decide what they wanted.

That's a beautiful spin.
Same David that was anointed by Samuel (another Prophet)?
Same David that God said he will appoint to be his firstborn, and the most exalted of the kings of the earth in Psalm 89:27?
What you guys don't realise is you can not have the Bible as scripture and have the audacity to open your mouth to attack the Qur'an on moral grounds or any other ground for that matter.

SIRTee15:
That's fine, no problem. It's your religion.
But it only shows most african culture have better moral values and uphold higher moral standard than the Quran.
u may protest it but It's what it is. Fact dont lie.
A lot of people in Africa will be very uncomfortable with the idea of a man getting married to someone he previously called 'my daughter in law' and who called him father.

This can easily be thrown back at you.
Abraham marrying his half sister, Jacob marrying two sisters at the same time. Lot sleeping with his daughter. I'm not sure a lot of people in Africa would be very comfortable with these as well or what do you think?

SIRTee15:
That hadith didnt say anything about Aisha being jealous, that's a misinterpretation of the hadith by modern muslims.

Yeah, Neither did the Hadith say she's doubtful of her husband Prophethood.

SIRTee15:
Forget about the myth/legend part, I'm not talking about that this time.
since u admitted they were christians and the Quran call them believers- what was their beleive.
As christians what did they beleive in?
Did they beleive Jesus died for their sins? Did they believe Jesus was crucified, died and rose on the 3rd day.

Don't tell me you don't know there are early Christianity sects like the Basilidians that rejected the crucifixion. Basilides claimed to have been taught his doctrines by Glaucus, a disciple of Apostle Peter.

And I am of the opinion the original Apostles did not teach a crucified Jesus. Because we know they (especially James) were the enemies of Paul.
And we see Paul scolding the Galatians in one of his letters

"O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified."

We know James sent men to the Galatians to correct Paul false teachings.
Who do you think was bewitching the Galatians to think otherwise about the crucifixion?

So there are early Christ followers that did not believe the crucifixion. The companions of the cave could easily have been a follower of any of those sects.

SIRTee15:
If Allah is all powerful, why does he think he need a partner if he wants to have a Son.
If he's all knowing, how come he didnt know its possible to have a son without the need for a partner.

surah 6.101
[He is] Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.

God owns everything.
the sinner, the righteous, Satan, Jesus, Muhammad. All the planets. Everything and anything we can think of. So why is God going to need a Son?

SIRTee15:
I think u may want review your answer again. I already asked Antichristian and he said having sex with a prepubescent girl in Islam is not a sin.

No, it is a sin to have sex with young girls that are yet to reach puberty.

Would you consider having sexual relations with a girl of 17 in a country like France and the likes that have the age of consent as 16 a paedophilia act?

What was Christianity age of consent in the 2nd century?

SIRTee15:
David committed adultery and murder- He sinned and brought the wages of sin into his household.
How was he punished? - God rejected his prayer when he called on God to help him remove the burden of sin he brought into his home with his hands.

Do you have problem with God for him not to have stripped David off his Prophethood and kingship for committing adultery and murder? Because I know you will agree with me that most African culture shun at adultery and murder and in a working African community any leader that commited such crimes would have been stripped off of his leadership role.

SIRTee15:
Yeah, so it's ok to marry the wife of someone that calls u father and u call son just because u are not related? So women have finished in your locality and the only one that entered your eye is the ex wife of your adopted son.
So u don't see anything wrong with having sex with a woman who also had sex with your adopted son- a child that grew up in your home and calls u father.
in case u dont know, that's an abimnation in most african culture. Try that in Yorubaland and see tongues wagging.
In African culture, Any child that calls u father and u call him son is as good as your child.
Go and read about Okonkwo and Ikemefuna in things fall apart.
Okonkwo was told, 'do not have a hand in that boy's death because he calls u father'.
It's a pity most african culture have better morality than what is in the Quran.

Allah didnt tell Muhammed anything. He simply followed his own covetuous desires. Muhammed turned Allah into his own errand boy that gives ayah for every Muhammed's personal problem.
Even Aisha smelled a rat and had to comment 'Seems your Lord is quick to grant u your heart desire' noticed she said your Lord and not our Lord. that shows skepticism on the part of Aisha.

and Allah being the word of God is a joke.
I took u up on it the last time but u ran away. I hope u stay longer this time.
Now I will bring 3 evidence to prove that Quran cant be from God

Yeah, tongues will wag. But at the end of the day it is a relationship that is permissible in Islam, We can't be wiser than God that permits the relationship. And if you do it without committing adultery with the lady or murdering your adoptive son and not causing their separation by instigating problem between them, then you have no sin in the sight of Allah.

Yeah, Qur'an is a revelation from God of the universe, and Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet of that God. It's ok if Aisha was Jealous, it's a normal thing, She's just being a woman. You can't interpret that as she doubting the prophet hood of her husband.

SIRTee15:
1. Tell me about the men in the cave in surah Al-kahf. who are they in real history?
2. Is Allah all knowing and all powerful? according to the Quran is Allah omniscient and Omnipotent?
3. Is paedophilia a sin according to the Quran? (pls dont bring up age of Aisha here- this is not about Aisha). This is about the Quran.
According to the quran, is paedophilia a sin.
In case u dont know what paedophilia is sexual intercourse btw an adult and a prepubescent girl- a girl who is yet to attain puberty.

The men are some early Christians they happened to have lived during the time of one of the Roman persecutions, they were trying to hide out in the cave and God caused them to sleep for 300 years and they woke up at a time when Christianity had became the religion of the Roman empire. Many historical Christian documents attested to that, they are venerated in some number of churches.
But I trust you to go the way of secular historians that will treat the story as legend and myth. you have done it before, I won't be surprised if you do it again.

Allah is all knowing, all powerful and his knowledge is everywhere.

Having sex with prepubescent girl is a sin in Islam.

SIRTee15:
David was severely punished for the shameful and criminal act. But what about Muhammed?
Muhammed sleeping with his own adopted wife's son is immoral. Even the community frowned at such. Muhammed had to produce a verse to cover his indignity.
What people dont know is that the marriage of Muhammed to zainab led to the the end of adoption in the arab community. Muhammed claimed Allah told him to marry his adopted son's wife to show people that adoption illegal.
So of all ways to prove a point, the best Allah could see is covetousness.

What exactly did David do and how was he punished?

No bro, adoption is not entirely illegal in Islam. They just can't take your name as surname. Make everyone bear him papa name.

The purpose of the marriage was to stressed the fact that if you are not blood related, then you are not blood related and the prophet did not sleep with Zainab while she was married to Zaid, the prophet married Zainab after they were divorced.

And Yeah, Allah gave him permission to marry Zainab. We strongly believe the Qur'an is the word of God. Except if you can prove otherwise.

AntiisIam:
And ye will be three kinds: (First) those on the right hand; what of those on the right hand? And (then) those on the left hand; what of those on the left hand? And the foremost in the race, the foremost in the race: Those are they who will be brought nigh In gardens of delight; A multitude of those of old And a few of those of later time. On lined couches, Reclining therein face to face. There wait on them immortal youths With bowls and ewers and a cup from a pure spring Wherefrom they get no aching of the head nor any madness, And fruit that they prefer And flesh of fowls that they desire. And (there are) fair ones with wide, lovely eyes, Like unto hidden pearls, Reward for what they used to do. There hear they no vain speaking nor recrimination (Naught) but the saying: Peace, (and again) Peace. And those on the right hand; what of those on the right hand? Among thornless lote-trees And clustered plantains, And spreading shade, And water gushing, And fruit in plenty Neither out of reach nor yet forbidden, And raised couches; Lo! We have created them a (new) creation And made them virgins, Lovers, friends, For those on the right hand; A multitude of those of old And a multitude of those of later time.
Quran 56:7-40



It was narrated from Abu Umamah that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “There is no one whom Allah will admit to Paradise but Allah will marry him to seventy-two wives, two from houris and seventy from his inheritance from the people of Hell, all of whom will have desirable [شَهِيٌّ, translated here as "desirable", is used to refer to "food" that is "delicious, or sweet"] front passages [قُبُلٌ, translated here as "front passages", refers to "the anterior pudendum" or "vulva, and vagina"] and he will have a male member [ذَكَرٌ, translated here as "male member", refers to "the male organ of generation; the penis" and a an adjectival form of the word is used to describe "herbs, or leguminous plants, that are hard and thick that never becomes flaccid (i.e., soft and limp).’”
Sunan Ibn Majah 5:37:4337

I kno you will be thinking u r cooking

Do you see 72 virgins mentioned in the Qur'an verses u quoted?

The Hadith you quoted is a weak hadith that majority of Muslims don't believe in.
This is akin to me telling you Jesus killed someone in infancy Gospel of Thomas.