₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
ept this to divorce, remarriage and Safiyya's waiting period. Wine and Allah's nature need separate replies. An unverified social-media clip is not evidence, so name the claim and give the source. If you think any premise or citation above is wrong, point to it and show why.

I don't know what you mean by me erasing any post or the X link that doesn't open.

honesttalk21:
TenQ, this is my combined reply to your posts at 7:20, 7:52, 9:04, 9:05 and 10:00 pm. You keep reposting the same six questions as if repetition settles them. It doesn't. You stance on Islam is already treating it as taboo, so every difference between the texts becomes a
contradiction before any argument is made.
Did Jesus say Moses or God gave the concession?

I don't know what you mean by me erasing any post or the X link that doesn't open.

lawani:
If Ijesa were a country it would have had a government university decades ago instead of in 2022. It would be popular In the world too and the population will exceed three million. It would have an integrated steel mill and it would have at least one oil refinery. It will have a negotiated access to the sea through Lagos. Ijesa in the 1500s had access to the sea through Lagos etc etc
They had people going back and forth to Europe and America back then with no hitches

lawani:
Yes that is true but what about big groups that are bigger than most countries of the world? Why should they continue carrying the colonial identity? Germany was occupied and split between the west and the East for decades with one a communist nation and the other a free market, one saking more of Russian and the other more of English but at the end they reunited. That is what should happen in West Africa. There was nation building here before the British. I am Ijesa for instance, if we had no nation in the 1500s we would not have white people in Brazil who are from an Ijesa community. So is Nigeria bigger than that? Not n my opinion. As it is with the Ijesa, it is also with other groups. The British didn't introduce natio building to these parts

lawani:
Nigeria has damaged all groups and not only Igbos
The only thing the Yoruba gained in Nigeria is that the number one city is on their land but before the British the number one city in west Africa was also on their land.


Let everybody focus on dismantling the country so that all groups can face their land and develop it without inhibition

Ohyoudidnt:
Jesus started with God’s design that what God has joined together, let not man separate. In Matthew, he lists sexual immorality as a reason for divorce (19:9 ). Deuteronomy 24:1-4 deals with divorce but doesn't actually command it. Saying divorce happened without God’s approval stretches things too far, considering Moses spoke under God’s authority (Deut. 1:3). The better approach is that Moses allowed and regulated divorce while Jesus explained that this allowance came from hardened hearts, not God’s original plan (Matt. 19:8 ). The abomination in Deuteronomy 24:4 refers to taking back a former wife after she had remarried. It wasn't about divorce itself. Scripture also talks about separation (1 Cor. 7:10-11), and many read Paul’s statement about being not bound (7:15) as applying to abandoning the duties of a marriage covenant.

Ohyoudidnt:
You’re mixing up a change in religious law with actually going against God’s will. You ask how Muhammad pbuh could permit a woman to remarry her former husband when Deuteronomy 24:4 forbids her return after an intervening marriage. But first, establish that this Mosaic restriction was intended as a universal, eternal law binding every people.

Ohyoudidnt:
Qur’an 2:230 imposes a serious condition after a third divorce: the woman must genuinely marry another man, consummate that marriage, and then have it end independently before she may remarry her first husband by mutual agreement. A sham marriage to circumvent the rule is condemned (Abu Dawud 2076). This restrains both spouses: the husband cannot treat a third divorce as casually reversible, and the wife cannot simply return without a genuine intervening marriage. Jesus himself acknowledged that Moses permitted divorce because of hard hearts (Matthew 19:8 ), showing that biblical law can distinguish a concession from the original ideal. A difference in legislation alone does not prove contradiction.

Ohyoudidnt:
Regarding Safiyya, Bukhari 4211 says she became free of her menses before the marriage was consummated. That establishes the reported sequence, but it does not specify the complete duration or every legal detail of her waiting period. Muslim 1365e also mentions Anas’s understanding that she was being prepared and would observe her waiting period, but that does not establish the exact timeline of every event. So neither side should claim more than the reports actually say. If you allege a specific conversation about her menses, cite the exact narration and show how it supports your claim. Please answer the five questions and Safiyya’s challenge with evidence, not assumptions.

Ohyoudidnt:
Your post avoids the central question. You say an innocent Christian spouse may divorce and remarry based on conviction, yet also say the spiritual union remains unbroken until death and cite Mark 10:9. Reconcile those claims please. if the union cannot be dissolved while both live, personal conviction alone cannot make remarriage consistent with that rule.

Ohyoudidnt:
1 Corinthians 7:10–11 says a separated spouse should remain unmarried or be reconciled. Matthew 19:9 includes an exception clause, while Mark 10:11–12 states the general prohibition; Christians differ on how to harmonise them. Which passage permits remarriage, and how do you read it?

Ohyoudidnt:
Deuteronomy 24:1–4 bars a first husband from taking back his former wife after she has married another; it does not simply declare every remarriage after divorce an abomination in every circumstance. Do we agree there or not?

Ohyoudidnt:
Matthew 19:8 describes Moses’ per mission in light of hard hearts. Qur’an 2:230 concerns a third divorce. You may reject that rule, but differences between laws do not by themselves prove God changed His mind; first show the earlier rule was universal and applied identically in every community and circumstance.

Ohyoudidnt:
Bukhari 5260 says the woman could not return to her first husband until the second marriage was consummated; it does not explicitly say she must stay with an impotent husband until cured. Jurists discuss separation or annulment in some cases, with differing conditions. On Safiyya, show why the widow’s four-months and ten day rule applied to her exact circumstances; don’t assume it settles a case involving captivity and disputed legal status. Give exact evidence, not conclusions presented as facts.

Ohyoudidnt:
You’re mixing wine, polygamy, the Qur’an’s origin, Safiyya, and impotence into a debate about divorce and remarriage. That shifts focus. Please cite the text permitting an innocent spouse to remarry while the former spouse lives, and reconcile it with your claim that their spiritual union remains unbroken.

Polygamy also departs from the beginning, you say it's no sin, and 2 Samuel 12:8 has God saying He gave David his master's wives. So did God sanction what departs from the beginning, or not?

Ohyoudidnt:
Jesus started with God’s design that what God has joined together, let not man separate. In Matthew, he lists sexual immorality as a reason for divorce (19:9 ). Deuteronomy 24:1-4 deals with divorce but doesn't actually command it. Saying divorce happened without God’s approval stretches things too far, considering Moses spoke under God’s authority (Deut. 1:3). The better approach is that Moses allowed and regulated divorce while Jesus explained that this allowance came from hardened hearts, not God’s original plan (Matt. 19:8 ). The abomination in Deuteronomy 24:4 refers to taking back a former wife after she had remarried. It wasn't about divorce itself. Scripture also talks about separation (1 Cor. 7:10-11), and many read Paul’s statement about being not bound (7:15) as applying to abandoning the duties of a marriage covenant.

Ohyoudidnt:
You’re mixing up a change in religious law with actually going against God’s will. You ask how Muhammad pbuh could permit a woman to remarry her former husband when Deuteronomy 24:4 forbids her return after an intervening marriage. But first, establish that this Mosaic restriction was intended as a universal, eternal law binding every people.

Ohyoudidnt:
Qur’an 2:230 imposes a serious condition after a third divorce: the woman must genuinely marry another man, consummate that marriage, and then have it end independently before she may remarry her first husband by mutual agreement. A sham marriage to circumvent the rule is condemned (Abu Dawud 2076). This restrains both spouses: the husband cannot treat a third divorce as casually reversible, and the wife cannot simply return without a genuine intervening marriage. Jesus himself acknowledged that Moses permitted divorce because of hard hearts (Matthew 19:8 ), showing that biblical law can distinguish a concession from the original ideal. A difference in legislation alone does not prove contradiction.

Ohyoudidnt:
Regarding Safiyya, Bukhari 4211 says she became free of her menses before the marriage was consummated. That establishes the reported sequence, but it does not specify the complete duration or every legal detail of her waiting period. Muslim 1365e also mentions Anas’s understanding that she was being prepared and would observe her waiting period, but that does not establish the exact timeline of every event. So neither side should claim more than the reports actually say. If you allege a specific conversation about her menses, cite the exact narration and show how it supports your claim. Please answer the five questions and Safiyya’s challenge with evidence, not assumptions.

Historyrewrites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSJ9jnX7N0U
What are your thoughts on this heartbreaking incident? Share your views respectfully in the comment section.

Video shows the last moment a muslim man died during prayers at a mosque as other congregants continued with their prayers undisturbed. Sad! pic.twitter.com/lg1TIAel2b

— Omwamba 🇰🇪 (@omwambaKE) October 20, 2026

Ohyoudidnt:
Your post avoids the central question. You say an innocent Christian spouse may divorce and remarry based on conviction, yet also say the spiritual union remains unbroken until death and cite Mark 10:9. Reconcile those claims please. if the union cannot be dissolved while both live, personal conviction alone cannot make remarriage consistent with that rule.

Ohyoudidnt:
1 Corinthians 7:10–11 says a separated spouse should remain unmarried or be reconciled. Matthew 19:9 includes an exception clause, while Mark 10:11–12 states the general prohibition; Christians differ on how to harmonise them. Which passage permits remarriage, and how do you read it?

Ohyoudidnt:
Deuteronomy 24:1–4 bars a first husband from taking back his former wife after she has married another; it does not simply declare every remarriage after divorce an abomination in every circumstance. Do we agree there or not?

Ohyoudidnt:
Matthew 19:8 describes Moses’ per mission in light of hard hearts. Qur’an 2:230 concerns a third divorce. You may reject that rule, but differences between laws do not by themselves prove God changed His mind; first show the earlier rule was universal and applied identically in every community and circumstance.

Ohyoudidnt:
Bukhari 5260 says the woman could not return to her first husband until the second marriage was consummated; it does not explicitly say she must stay with an impotent husband until cured. Jurists discuss separation or annulment in some cases, with differing conditions. On Safiyya, show why the widow’s four-months and ten day rule applied to her exact circumstances; don’t assume it settles a case involving captivity and disputed legal status. Give exact evidence, not conclusions presented as facts.

Ohyoudidnt:
You’re mixing wine, polygamy, the Qur’an’s origin, Safiyya, and impotence into a debate about divorce and remarriage. That shifts focus. Please cite the text permitting an innocent spouse to remarry while the former spouse lives, and reconcile it with your claim that their spiritual union remains unbroken.

Polygamy also departs from the beginning, you say it's no sin, and 2 Samuel 12:8 has God saying He gave David his master's wives. So did God sanction what departs from the beginning, or not?

Ohyoudidnt:
Your latest response has exposed the inconsistencies in your position even more clearly. You demand direct answers while changing your wording, skipping inconvenient verses, and treating your interpretation as the text itself.

1. You called them rules. You cannot now retreat to options.
Your own words were The Rule of Jesus is that and Under the rule of Christ. You asked, Do you need scriptures for each of these? and called contrary conduct human flesh at work. Now you say you never called them rules.

Which is it? If these are binding rules, explain how your fourth option—divorce and remarry according to personal conviction—does not violate your claim that the first spiritual union remains unbroken. If they are merely options, stop condemning Christians who interpret the texts differently as though they have necessarily rejected Christ.

Ohyoudidnt:
2. Matthew 19:9 addresses remarriage. Answer the question.

You say Jesus never explained what a separated person should do about remarriage, yet Matthew 19:9 explicitly discusses divorce, marrying another, and adultery. So: Does Matthew 19:9 address remarriage, yes or no?

Mark 10:11–12 also calls remarriage after divorce adultery, without repeating Matthew’s exception clause. Christians debate how the passages fit together, but you cannot cite Matthew, skip Mark, and then claim your fourth option is consistent without explaining why.

If the first union remains unbroken, how can remarriage become permissible merely because someone acts according to personal conviction? State your interpretation and reconcile the passages.

Ohyoudidnt:
3. Your argument about Moses and changed rulings remains unresolved.

You cite Qur’an 3:50 against me, yet it describes Jesus confirming the Torah while making lawful some things previously forbidden. Qur’an 2:85 condemns selective observance; it does not prove that every law given to an earlier community must apply identically to all later communities.

Matthew 19:8 says Moses permitted divorce because of hard hearts, while Jesus appeals to the original ideal. You have also insisted that there was no change in ruling. If Jesus restricted what Moses permitted, explain how you reconcile those statements.

You point to Deuteronomy 24:4 and the land God gave Israel. That establishes the passage’s context; it does not, by itself, establish that every provision must operate as an identical legal code for every later community. And Deuteronomy 24:1–4 does not simply grant husbands unlimited permission to divorce and retake their wives.

Your task is to prove universal application, not merely repeat, “When did God change His mind?”

Ohyoudidnt:
4. Your polygamy argument demands the same explanation.

You say polygamy is not sinful in the Bible, although you appeal to the creation ideal of one man and one woman. Deuteronomy 25:5–10 addresses marriage to a deceased brother’s widow, while 2 Samuel 12:8 describes God giving David his master’s wives.

These texts do not prove that every polygamous arrangement was ideal. But they force you to explain your principle: Can a practice depart from the original ideal yet be permitted or regulated? If yes, why can that distinction apply to polygamy but not to Moses’ divorce concession?

Your separate debate about wine—Qur’an 16:67, 2:219, 4:43 and 5:90—does not answer these questions. Address it in its own post.

Ohyoudidnt:
5. Apply the same standard to Qur’an 2:230 and Bukhari 5260.

I have never claimed Qur’an 2:230 is perfect or painless. It concerns a third divorce, not every first or second divorce. There is also a recognised minority view, associated with Ibn Taymiyyah and others, that three pronouncements in one sitting count as one; scholars disagree about its application. The hadith tradition condemns the muhallil, the man who marries a woman merely to make her lawful again for her former husband (Abu Dawud 2076).

You cannot dismiss the Islamic rule solely because it can have painful consequences while refusing to consider its context, conditions and juristic interpretations. By your own standard, is a Christian rule that leaves an innocent divorced wife unable to remarry while her first husband lives imperfect because it imposes a cost? If not, explain the consistent standard you are applying.

Ohyoudidnt:
On Bukhari 5260, you repeatedly say the woman must stay or is trapped until her second husband is cured. But the report makes consummation relevant to returning to her former husband. Where does it say she must remain married until he is cured? Quote the words. The condition for returning to a former husband is not automatically a ruling that no dissolution or judicial remedy exists.
Marriage to an impotent man can be valid.
Wife may seek annulment/separation, depending on circumstances and school.
She isn’t automatically required to stay until he recovers. Bukhari 5260: addresses remarriage to a former husband, not a duty to stay

Ohyoudidnt:
6. Safiyya: provide the source, not an invented conversation.

You attribute to the Prophet a conversation about when Safiyya’s menstruation began, followed by words to the effect of, Perfect, we can have sex tomorrow. Give the collection and report number. I am not aware of that exact conversation in the reports cited here.

Qur’an 2:234 prescribes four months and ten days for widows; 2:228 and 65:4 address different categories of divorced women. Sahih Muslim 1456 and Abu Dawud 2157 discuss captive women and waiting requirements, while Bukhari 4211 reports details concerning Safiyya. These sources must be examined together carefully; simply quoting the ordinary widow’s rule does not establish, without further argument, exactly how it applied to Safiyya’s circumstances.

Give the source for the alleged dialogue and explain how you reconcile these reports. Calling me a jinn is not historical evidence.

Ohyoudidnt:
FOUR QUESTIONS. FOUR DIRECT ANSWERS.

1. Matthew 19:9: Does it address remarriage, yes or no? If yes, how do you reconcile its exception clause with Mark 10:11–12 and your fourth option?

Ohyoudidnt:
2. Deuteronomy 24: Where does verse 4 establish that its rule must apply identically to every later community? Where does Matthew 19:8 say Moses acted without any divine authority?

Ohyoudidnt:
3. Polygamy: If it departs from the creation ideal but is not sinful under your interpretation, what principle permits that distinction—and why can it not apply to Moses’ concession?

Ohyoudidnt:
4. Bukhari 5260: Where does the report say the woman must remain married until her second husband is cured? Quote the words.

You do not have to agree with Islam. But distinguish scripture from interpretation, apply the same standard to both religions, and answer the questions actually asked. Repeating a conclusion, changing the subject or insulting your opponent does not prove it.

grandstar:
The only wife he seems to notice is the 3rd wfe. All the others he has pushed to the sidelines.

The Quran says if you have many wives, love all equally.

In the Bible, God condemned men who divorced the wife of their youth for new wives. This really upset him. He knew the pain and bitterness they were carrying and he felt hurt in his heart.

Ohyoudidnt:
You now say there is no explicit Bible rule on whether the innocent wife may remarry and that it comes down to personal conviction. But you posted "The Rule of Jesus" as numbered points, and rule 3 says anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery. You used it to tell me we aren't in the same category. So is rule 3 binding or not? If it is, your option 4, divorce and remarry on conviction, is adultery you ask God to forgive. If it isn't, you can't hold Islam to a standard your own side says doesn't exist, or call pastors who read it differently human flesh at work.

Your options 2 and 3 are the same verse, 1 Corinthians 7:10 to 11. Mark 10:11 to 12 says a man who divorces and remarries commits adultery, and so does a woman who divorces her husband and remarries, with no exception clause. Where is option 4 in any verse? Your wine example fails too, since adultery doesn't depend on how a person feels about it.

Ohyoudidnt:
You say the Bible is inspired humans chronicling and the Quran is verbatim. Then abomination before the Lord in Deut 24:4 is a chronicler's wording, with the same standing as 24:1 to 3.Which verse makes verse 4 God's and verses 1 to 3 Moses'? And a Mosaic civil law isn't God's verbatim word, so a different Quranic rule isn't God changing His mind. Deut 24:4 also gives its own reason, in the part you highlighted. You shall not cause the land to sin which the LORD gives you for an inheritance. It is tied to Israel in its land, so Moses wasn't lying, and the Quran says each community got its own law (Quran 5:48). Even in your Bible, Deut 24:2 lets her become another man's wife and Jesus calls that adultery. The rule Israel lived under changed. And I never questioned the Torah's authorship, you did, when you said Moses had no revelation for divorce.

Ohyoudidnt:
Moses permitted it, and I've never denied that. From the beginning it was not so says the permission wasn't the original design, not that God had no part. Jesus gives the same Torah commands to Moses in Mark 7:10 and to God in Matthew 15:4. Polygamy also departs from the beginning, you say it's no sin, and 2 Samuel 12:8 has God saying He gave David his master's wives. So did God sanction what departs from the beginning, or not?

Ohyoudidnt:
On Bukhari 5260 you say she must stay until he is cured. Those words aren't in the report. It has the Prophet pbuh saying she can't return to Rifa'ah until the second husband has consummated, a condition for her return and not an order to stay. Jurists deal with impotence by judicial separation and annulment. And you say perhaps the hadith is fabricated, after citing it as proof. Pick one. If your scenario is three divorces, not necessarily in one sitting, he took her back twice before the third. That's a pattern, not one rash slip.

Ohyoudidnt:
I never called Quran 2:230 perfect, so your loaded question has a false premise. I said the burden is real. Your own answer for the innocent wife is celibacy, reconciliation, or a conviction with no rule. Is that better, and on what verse?

Ohyoudidnt:
On Safiyya, Quran 4:24 forbids married women except those the right hands possess, and Muslim 1456 connects that verse with the married captives at Awtas. Abu Dawud 2157 gives those captives one cycle, so your claim that it concerns an unmarried slave is wrong. Quran 2:234 is for widows of Muslim husbands, and Qur'an 2:228 and 65:4 are for divorced women. Show the verse for four months, or withdraw it.

Ohyoudidnt:
So three plain answers, one line each. Is rule 3 binding, yes or no? Is remarriage after divorce adultery under Mark 10:11 to 12, yes or no? Which verse makes Deut 24:4 God's and 24:1 to 3 Moses'? You asked and I answered. Now it's your turn. If rule 3 isn't binding, name one rule of Christ on remarriage that is.

doffman:
I can see Jacob Ajala is crying , the spiritual seller himself ahaaa.



Oya , o ye unbelievers see how your fellow kpai .

God judgement don start on you guys o

Lobatan ahaaaa


Even you god cannot even save him o

Ohyoudidnt:
TenQ, you answered my yes or no question by saying each Christian decides according to their faith. That describes personal conviction, not the biblical rule. So please answer directly.

Ohyoudidnt:
On Safiyya's waiting period, Bukhari 5085 reports consummation after the three-day stay between Khaybar and Medina. Anas's account in Bukhari 4211 says that at Sadd al-Sahba' she became clean from her menses, and then he married her. Abu Dawud 2157 gives a one-menstrual-cycle waiting period for a non-pregnant captive, while Muslim 1456 addresses captivity and a prior marriage. Egypt's Dar al-Ifta applies the one-cycle rule to Safiyya's case. Bukhari 5086 confirms her emancipation and dowry but does not itself state her waiting period. These sources do not establish a three-month wait. Show the specific source for that allegation, or withdraw it.

Ohyoudidnt:
Also, Qur'an 2:234, not 2:235, specifies that a widow waits four months and ten days. Qur'an 2:235 discusses hinting at proposals during that waiting period, so if you cited it as the widow's rule, the citation is wrong.

Ohyoudidnt:
On Qur'an 2:230, the restriction concerns returning to the first husband after a third divorce; it does not prohibit a woman from marrying someone else. Classical jurisprudence generally requires a genuine intervening marriage that is consummated and subsequently ends. A marriage arranged solely to make her lawful for her former husband is condemned in hadith (Abu Dawud 2076). If the husband is impotent, jurists discuss judicial separation, including a one-year respite reported from Ibn Masud, and annulment for certain marital defects, though the conditions differ among schools. So it is inaccurate to say she is necessarily trapped. The intervening marriage requirement is generally understood to make a third divorce final, rather than allow a husband to divorce and reclaim his wife at will.

Ohyoudidnt:
On Deuteronomy 24:4 and Qur'an 2:230: Deuteronomy 24:4 prohibits a former husband from taking back a woman after the specified intervening marriage. Qur'an 2:230 permits reunion under its stated conditions. These are different legal rules, and Qur'an 5:48 speaks of distinct laws for different communities. Jesus attributes a commandment to God in Matthew 15:4 and to Moses in Mark 7:10, so saying Moses permitted something does not, by itself, prove that God had no part in the law.

Ohyoudidnt:
On polygamy the Bible has Hebrews 13:4 say marriage is honourable and warns that God will judge fornicators and adulterers. A text condemning adultery is not automatically a text prohibiting a man from having more than one wife. If you maintain that the Bible categorically prohibits it, cite the passage.

Ohyoudidnt:
On Qur'an 6:162-163, these verses record a messenger's declaration that his prayer and life are for Allah and that he is the first of those who submit. That does not make Allah human. Paul himself distinguishes between a command attributed to the Lord and his own instruction in 1 Corinthians 7:10-12. By your logic, the Bible is human too. The Qur'an also calls Abraham a Muslim (3:67) and records Jesus' disciples asking him to bear witness that they were Muslims (5:111), so first can mean first within Muhammad's community, not a claim that no one before him submitted to God.

Ohyoudidnt:
Now answer directly may an innocent wife divorce an adulterous husband and remarry while he is still alive, yes or no? Cite the passage you believe settles it, and explain your reading.

Ohyoudidnt:
You say polygamy is not a sin anywhere in the Bible, just not recommended, because Jesus said God made them man and wife. But Hebrews 13:4 condemns adultery[/b], not polygamy by name, while 2 Samuel 12:8 has Nathan telling David that God gave him his master’s house and wives. Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15 also address circumstances involving multiple wives. [b]These texts complicate the claim that every departure from the original ideal must be a human ruling independent of God. Abu Dawud 4449 also records Muhammad affirming the Torah as revelation.

Ohyoudidnt:
You told me to check your answer about the adulterer’s wife, but you still have not answered yes or no. Your stated rule is separation, not divorce; the separated spouse remains unmarried or reconciles (1 Corinthians 7:10 to 11), and only death ends the union. So under your stated position, the innocent wife may not remarry while her husband lives. If I have misunderstood, correct me plainly.

Ohyoudidnt:
On 1 Corinthians 7:15, you listed three readings and said God knows how to deal justly with such cases. Which do you hold, and where does the text say so? You said she is under no bondage not to remarry. If she may, the union ended without death, and 7:39 does not settle it. If she may not, say so and defend it. You cannot quote 7:39 as if it explains every other passage about release.

Ohyoudidnt:
You say the ball is in my court and again demand proof that Deuteronomy 24:4 is from Moses and not God. I accept that Moses stated it truthfully. The claim that verses 1 to 3 are merely his unauthorised ruling is yours, and you have not established it. You promised examples of Moses acting unilaterally, but merely saying it happened does not prove that this divorce provision was one of those cases. You also claim I questioned the Torah’s authorship. Quote the sentence where I did. If Qur’an 5:43 is your proof that Allah recognises the Torah as containing God’s judgment, you can’t also use it to say Moses made the divorce law on his own.

Ohyoudidnt:
Now to Qur’an 2:230, which you say I have avoided. I never claimed the rule was perfect, so do not put that claim in my mouth. A husband who divorces rashly has not necessarily lost his wife permanently. After the first and second divorces, reconciliation is possible under the rules in Quran 2:228 to 2:229; the third divorce is treated differently. There is also a recognised minority ruling that three pronouncements in one sitting count as one. Ibn Abbas reports in Sahih Muslim 1472 that triple pronouncements counted as one during the Prophet’s time, Abu Bakr’s time and the first two years of Umar’s caliphate. Umar then enforced them as three. Ibn Taymiyya later defended the one-divorce view. Not every school accepts it, and I have acknowledged that.

Ohyoudidnt:
Nobody is forced to marry another man, and the man who marries her only to make her lawful for her former husband is cursed, as is the former husband for whom this is done (Abu Dawud 2076). So a sham marriage is not a legitimate shortcut. I have already acknowledged that the rule imposes a real burden when both former spouses want to reunite after a valid third divorce. You may argue that burden is unjust, but you must assess the actual rule, including its distinctions, rather than treating every divorce as though it triggers the same consequence.

Ohyoudidnt:
So answer plainly. May the innocent wife of an adulterous husband remarry while he is alive, yes or no? If yes, how does that fit your claim that only death ends the union? If no, own it and say why it’s better than the rule you’re condemning.

Sirchiboy:
Some people don’t even pray or fast but things are working perfectly well for them!

Ohyoudidnt:
Calling me a lover of argument answers nothing, so test your own rule.
You say marriage is a permanent spiritual union that only death ends, so anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery. You also say divorce is allowed when a spouse can't live with an adulterer, and now that Scripture allows separation but not divorce. Take the wife of an adulterer. She separates. May she remarry while he lives, yes or no? If no, your one exception frees nobody. If yes, something other than death ended the bond.

Ohyoudidnt:
Now polygamy. May a man be one flesh with two living wives at once? Exodus 21:10, a passage you cited, speaks of a man who takes another wife and regulates it without condemning it. Deut 21:15 does the same, and in 2 Samuel 12:8 God says through Nathan that He gave David his master's wives. If polygamy is allowed, the union isn't exclusive, and your claim that a second marriage is adultery because the first union remains has nothing under it. If it isn't allowed, explain why God regulated it and even claimed to give wives. You can't say Moses did it alone, because Nathan speaks for God.

Ohyoudidnt:
Your 1 Corinthians 6:16 point makes it worse. If joining with a harlot makes one flesh until death, every man who has slept with someone is bound to her for life and every later marriage is adultery. Paul never says that.
On 1 Corinthians 7:15, you said she is under no bondage not to remarry, then offered three readings. Which do you hold? And 7:10 to 11 gives a wife who leaves two options, stay unmarried or be reconciled, which for a husband who won't change is celibacy for life. You can't plead God's mercy for your hard cases and deny it to 2:230.

Ohyoudidnt:
On the Torah, I never questioned its authorship, you did, and you said it doesn't matter whether 24:4 is Moses' or God's. The Quran affirms the Torah (5:43), says it confirms and stands over earlier scripture (5:48), and says Jesus made some forbidden things lawful (3:50). A later ruling replacing an earlier one is what you accept between Moses and Jesus. A difference is not a contradiction. And on Q2:230, nauseous is a feeling, the text says consummation, a third divorce follows two chances, and Ibn Taymiyya counts a triple in one sitting as one.

Ohyoudidnt:
So answer two things. May the innocent spouse of an adulterer remarry? And may a man be one flesh with two living wives?

Sensiblerealist:
Please leave that harbinger of bad news alone. I replied to me but the bots banned me or the mods removed my response. I ordinarily don't engage one-way traffic mofos like that.
BTW, nice exchanges with you. Disagreements on topics must not come to insults

Truthseeker10:
So if knowledge wisdom and reason is useless in Hell, How was the rich man able to communicate and remember his past life and family on earth?

Truthseeker10:
So if Ecclesiastes 9:10 is correct, how did the Rich man in Luke 16 remember his relatives and his past life since there is no Knowledge, reason and wisdom in Sheol/hades?

Truthseeker10:
So if the above verses that you quoted is describing hell, how do you explain Ecclesiastics 9:10 below?

Ohyoudidnt:
You wrote that it doesn't matter whether Deut 24:4 is from Moses or God, as long as it's true. That weakens authorship as the deciding point of your objection, since you now need to explain why a true rule that differs from Quran 2:230 is incompatible with one God giving different rulings in different ages. You accept that rulings changed between Moses and Jesus. A difference is not yet a contradiction, and saying Allah is not YHWH is the very thing you have to prove.
Your deductive reasoning also fails. Your first point adds the words not God to what I said. I said Jesus says Moses permitted divorce because of hard hearts, nothing more. The claim that Moses acted independently of God is your addition. Your fourth point says some of Moses' words and actions weren't directed by God. If so, a statement being true cannot, by itself, establish where it came from. You still haven't shown that Deut 24:1 to 3 is only Moses' unauthorised ruling. That is your claim, so the burden is yours. A verse calling something an abomination before the LORD does not prove that the verses before it have a different source.
On your marriage bond, you say the spiritual union stays unbroken even when a spouse is released, in Exodus and in 1 Corinthians 7:15, and that only death dissolves it, citing 1 Corinthians 7:39. Your rule 3 says anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery because the union remains. Yet you also said the deserted believer in 7:15 is under no bondage not to remarry, while her husband lives. If she may remarry without adultery, explain how that fits an unbroken union. If you distinguish being released from the obligation to remain from the bond itself, explain that distinction and how she can remarry without adultery under your rule 3. If she may not remarry, why did you describe her as free? And in Exodus 21:7 to 11, how do you reconcile the woman going free with your claim that only death ends the marriage? Calling it a civil law does not answer that.
You've argued that an innocent woman cannot remarry without adultery while her husband lives. Explain why that is morally better than a rule that bars reunion with the first husband unless a stated condition is met, while leaving her free to marry someone else. You can't condemn the burden in Quran 2:230 while treating the consequences of your own interpretation as beyond scrutiny.

Truthseeker10:
In the verses that you quoted, where is this weeping taking place? Is it in the same Sheol that is rendered as Hell in Ecclesiastics 9:10?

Truthseeker10:
I believe you are actually referring to yourself. femi4 and Dtruthspeaker do not even agree on this thread that Ecclesiastes 9:10 is referring to Hell where people are tormented. So I guess we now know who the Son of perdition is.

Truthseeker10:
You are obviously twisting the verse. Below is the verse again.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither thou art hastening.

If you claim that people in Hell weep, how do they do that without having reason, wisdom and knowledge in Hell according to the verse above?

WriteerNg:

---

And there was Biden before him.

Did anything significant happen during Bidens time, when he was pumping Ukraine with money recklessly? NO.

You still skipped my question. Every US president have invaded, bombed and killed thousands people.

What did the UN do about it?