Twelve Proofs that Muhammad is a True Prophet

[h12]

Twelve Proofs that Muhammad is a True Prophet
Shaykh `Abdul Rahman `Abdul Khaliq
Originally published by IANA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My brothers and sisters everywhere! With this essay, I am not singling out the adherents of Islam - to which I ascribe - but rather I am writing this essay to every man and woman throughout the whole world.

I ask Allah that He facilitates tat this essay reaches every ear, falls under the sight of every eye, and is understood by every heart...

Muhammad the son of `Abdullah is Allah's Prophet and the Final Messenger Sent by Allah to the Inhabitants of Earth.

My brothers and sisters everywhere! You should know that the Messenger, Muhammad the son of `Abdullah (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) is Allah's Messenger in reality and truth. The evidences that show his veracity are abundant. None but an infidel, who out of arrogance alone, could deny these signs.

Among these proofs:

1. Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) was raised illiterate, unable to read or write, and remained like that till his death. Among all his people, he was known as being truthful and trustworthy. Before receiving revelation, he had no prior knowledge of Religion or any previously sent Message. He remained like that for his first forty years. Revelation then came to Muhammad with the Koran that we now have between our hands. This Koran mentioned most of the accounts found in the previous scriptures, telling us about these events in the greatest detail as if he witnessed them. These accounts came precisely as they were found in the Torah sent down to Moses and in the Gospel sent down to Jesus. Neither the Jews or Christians were able to belie him regarding anything that he said.

2. Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) also foretold of everything that would occur to him and his community after him, pertaining to victory, the removal of the tyrannical kingdoms of Chosroes [the royal title for the Zoroastrian kings of Persia] and Caesar, and the establishment of the religion of Islam throughout the earth. These events occurred exactly as Muhammad foretold, as if he was reading the future from an open book.

3. Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) also brought an Arabic Koran that is the peak of eloquence and clarity. The Koran challenged those eloquent and fluent Arabs of his time, who initially belied him, to bring forth a single chapter like the Koran. The eloquent Arabs of his day were unable to contest this Koran.

Indeed, till our day, none has ever dared to claim that he has been able to compose words that equal-or even approach-the order, grace, beauty, and splendor of this Glorious Koran.

4. The life history of this Noble Prophet was a perfect example of being upright, merciful, compassionate, truthful, brave, generous, distant from all evil character, and ascetic in all worldly matters, while striving solely for the reward of the Hereafter. Moreover, in all his actions and dealings, he was ever mindful and fearful of Allah.

5. Allah instilled great love for Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) in the hearts of all who believed in and met him. This love reached such a degree that any of his companions would willingly sacrifice his (or her) self, mother or father for him.

Till today, those who believe in Muhammad honor and love him. Anyone of those who believe in him would ransom his own family and wealth to see him, even if but once.

6. All of history has not preserved the biography of any person in the manner it has preserved the life of Muhammad, who is the most influential human in history.

Nor has the entire earth known of anyone whom every morning and evening, and many times thereafter throughout the day, is thought of by those who believe in him. Upon remembering Muhammad, the believers in him will greet him and ask Allah to bless him. They do such with full hearts and true love for him.

[h12]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Nor has there every been a man on earth whom is still followed in all his doings by those who believe in him.

Those who believe in Muhammad, sleep in the manner he slept; purify themselves (through ablution and ritual washing) in the manner he purified himself; and adhere to his practice in the way they eat, drink, and clothe themselves.

Indeed in all aspects of their lives, the believers in Muhammad adhere to the teachings he spread among them and the path that he traveled upon during his life.

During every generation, from his day till our time, the believers in this Noble Prophet have fully adhered to his teachings. With some, this has reached the degree that they desire to follow and adhere to the Prophet's way in his personal matters regarding which Allah has not sought of them to adhere to in worship. For example, some will only eat those specific foods or only wear those specific garments that the Messenger liked.

Let alone all that, all those who believe in Muhammad repeat those praises of Allah, special prayers, and invocations that he would say during each of his actions during day and night, like: what he would say when he greeted people, upon entering and leaving the house, entering and leaving the mosque, entering and leaving the bathroom, going to sleep and awaking from sleep, observing the new crescent, observing the new fruit on trees, eating, drinking, dressing, riding, traveling and returning from travel, etc.

Let alone all that, all those who believe in Muhammad fully perform-even to the minute detail-every act of worship-like prayer, fasting, charity, and pilgrimage-as this Noble Messenger (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) taught and as he himself performed.

All of this allows those who believe in him, to live their lives in all aspects with this Noble Messenger as their example, as if he was standing before them, for them to follow in all their doings.

8. There has never been nor will there ever be a man anywhere upon this earth who has received such love, respect, honor, and obedience in all matters-small and large alike-as has this Noble Prophet.

9. Since his day, in every region of the earth and during every period, this Noble Prophet has been followed by individuals from all races, colors and peoples. Many of those who followed him were previously Christians, Jews, pagans, idolaters, or without any religion. Among those who chose to follow him, were those who were known for their sound judgment, wisdom, reflection, and foresight. They chose to follow this Noble Prophet after they witnessed the signs of his truthfulness and the evidences of his miracles. They did not choose to follow Muhammad out of compulsion or coercion or because they had adopted the ways of their fathers and mothers.

Indeed many of the followers of this Prophet (may Allah's blessings peace be upon him), chose to follow him during the time when Islam was weak, when there were few Muslims, and when there was severe persecution of his followers on earth. Most people who have followed this Prophet (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) have done so not to acquire some material benefits. Indeed many of his followers have suffered the greatest forms of harm and persecution as a result of following this Prophet. Despite all this harm and persecution, this did not turn them back from his religion.

My brethren! All of this clearly indicates to anyone possessing any sense, that this Prophet was truly and really Allah's messenger and that he was not just a man who claimed prophethood or spoke about Allah without knowledge.

[h12]

10. With all this, Muhammad came with a great religion in its credal and legal make-up.

Muhammad described Allah with qualities of complete perfection, and at the same time in a manner that is free of ascribing to Him any imperfection. Neither the philosophers or the wise could ever describe Allah like such. Indeed it is impossible to imagine that any human mind could conceive of an existing being that possesses such complete ability, knowledge, and greatness; Who has subdued the creation; Who has encompassed everything in the universe, small or large; and Who possesses such perfect mercy.

Nor is it in the ability of any human being to place a perfect law based upon justice, equality, mercy and objectivity for all human activity on earth like the laws that Muhammad brought for all spheres of human activity - like buying and selling, marriage and divorce, renting, testimony, custody, and all other contracts that are necessary to uphold life and civilization on earth.

11. It is impossible that any person conceive wisdom,, morals, good manners, nobleness of characters as what this honorable Prophet (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) brought.

In a full and complete manner, Muhammad spread a teaching regarding character and manners toward one' parents, relatives, fiends, family, humanity, animals, plants and inanimate objects. It is impossible for the human mind alone to grasp all of that teaching or come with a similar teaching.

All of that unequivocally indicates that this Messenger did not bring an) of this religion from his own accord, but that it was rather a teaching and inspiration that he received from the One Who created the earth and the high heavens above and created this universe in its miraculous architecture and perfection.

12. The legal and credal make-up of the religion that the Messenger, Muhammad, (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) brought resembles the engineering of the heavens and the earth. All of that indicates that He who created the heavens and the earth is the One Who sent down this great law and upright religion.

The degree of inimitability of the Divine law that was sent down upon Muhammad is to the same degree of inimitability of the Divine creation of the heavens and earth. For just as humanity cannot create this universe, in the same manner humanity cannot bring forth a law like Allah's law that He sent down upon His servant and messenger Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him).

[neo of the mind]

What?, no jibes by the forum atheists? No witty mocking with inferences of stupidity towards the poster? You only do that shtick when it comes to Christianity.


That's what I thought and this just proves it. No offense to the original poster, just wanted to point this out for future reference.

[mataj]

What?, no jibes by the forum atheists? No witty mocking with inferences of stupidity towards the poster? You only do that shtick when it comes to Christianity.As I wrote the other day- it's irrelevant whether god exists or not, and whose religious truth is more ridiculous. The main question is, who compels you to deal with such questions and why, and answer to it is purely political.

It's Christianity, that tries to make it's way into the western politics, not Islam. It's Christianity, that tries to get it's teachings & morals into our legislation, not Islam. It's Christianity, that forces it's BS down out throats, not Islam. And that's why I have only undigested Christian BS to regurgitate back, not Islamic.

[neo of the mind]

Which I begs the question, why only Christianity get's mocked on this forum.
I believe the reason is because the other religions are not a threat.

[GI Joe]

What?, no jibes by the forum atheists? No witty mocking with inferences of stupidity towards the poster? You only do that shtick when it comes to Christianity.


That's what I thought and this just proves it. No offense to the original poster, just wanted to point this out for future reference.



You get banned here if you mock Islam. Christianity is the only religion you are allowed to mock here. You can also bash Jews but only if you disguise it with Anti Zionism/Israel BS.

[Eddie]

You get banned here if you mock Islam. Christianity is the only religion you are allowed to mock here. You can also bash Jews but only if you disguise it with Anti Zionism/Israel BS.

You can also bash muslims and arabs as long as you disguise it as anti-islamism/terrorist BS... Or heck, you can even bash muslims openly as long as noone reports the post. Mocking Islam is also obviously accepted, just like mocking christianity and judaism...

[green lantern]

ok kiddies, cut the crap

[Missouri Mule]

What did he say? I don't have time to wade through this stuff.

[Eddie]

What did he say? I don't have time to wade through this stuff.

Don`t bother. It`s basicly a waste of time. But that`s just my oppinion.

[Missouri Mule]

Don`t bother. It`s basicly a waste of time. But that`s just my oppinion.

Thanks. I actually read it in a cursory manner and my eyes instantly glazed over. I thought it was just me.

[brainpan]

What?, no jibes by the forum atheists?I bashed, criticized, and mocked Islam in two other threads, but I get lazy sometimes.
No witty mocking with inferences of stupidity towards the poster? You only do that shtick when it comes to Christianity.I think it was really dumb to present illiteracy as proof that Muhammad was a "true prophet."

[Nuke the Oil]

Has anyone actually read any of the rambling text of the Koran? If this is perfection for a Muslim, I'd hate to see what imperfection is. Reading it, it doesn't surprise me that Muhammad was illiterate.

[Meek Heir]

Thanks. I actually read it in a cursory manner and my eyes instantly glazed over. I thought it was just me.

I started to read this one because I thought it would be the best of his origional twelve threads. Might be right. But I couldn't get through point one.

There's your answer by the way neo. Even atheists who are perfectly complacent with an enternity in hell can not drive themselves to read it, much less actually comment. Maybe if it was shorter I wouldn't be so intimidated.

[sub_zer0]

It's Christianity, that tries to make it's way into the western politics, not Islam.

It is people who bring values similar to Christianity into politics. I guess you forgot our nation is Christian?

It's Christianity, that tries to get it's teachings & morals into our legislation, not Islam.

That's right, cause Islam hasn't changed our way of life... Were you alive during 9/11? If you say that didn't directly effect legislation, your blind.

It's Christianity, that forces it's BS down out throats, not Islam.

Who releases tapes saying, worship Allah or die? Who is beheading people right now because they want to say no to Allah, or are innocent civilians all together? Islam apparently as the terrorists say that is their religion.

It is ironic you say "forces its BS down our throats", given the fact they would slit yours if you said no to them.

[mataj]

It is people who bring values similar to Christianity into politics. I guess you forgot our nation is Christian?This was exactly my point. If your nation is Christian, Christianity is part of your politics. It is just another political ideology, therefore it should also be mocked in the same way as any other political ideology- liberal, communist, conservative, neocon, etc.

That's right, cause Islam hasn't changed our way of life... Were you alive during 9/11? If you say that didn't directly effect legislation, your blind.Christian busheviks directly affected legislation, not Islam.

Who releases tapes saying, worship Allah or die? Who is beheading people right now because they want to say no to Allah, or are innocent civilians all together? Islam apparently as the terrorists say that is their religion.Who knows who releases that tapes. Anyone can make a tape theese days.

It is ironic you say "forces its BS down our throats", given the fact they would slit yours if you said no to them.Who knows who slits that throats. Guys on that videotapes always wear masks.


Historical experience dicates extreme skepticism at the matters like these. The more emotion-provokinkg it is, more likely it's a propaganda hoax.

[Missouri Mule]

Has anyone actually read any of the rambling text of the Koran? If this is perfection for a Muslim, I'd hate to see what imperfection is. Reading it, it doesn't surprise me that Muhammad was illiterate.

I've tried to read a little of it but as you say it seems to me to be just rambling gibberish. I can read the Bible and especially the New Testament and the NIV is exceedingly easy to read and understand. Although I am not religious nor attend church I keep one handy just to review from time to time. I keep hoping that death is not the end of everything. But I think my hope is futile.

I also don't get this business of why the "prophet" is treated in this way by Muslims. None of the "prophets" in the Bible are treated like this. They are given due respect but are not deified as is Mohammad. I thought "Allah" was supposed to be the big shot. What's the deal?

[Mirror Lake 444]

Which I begs the question, why only Christianity get's mocked on this forum.
I believe the reason is because the other religions are not a threat.

Maybe it's because they don't know enough about Islam to mock it? But I'm sure you'll come along to do so any moment. After all it's my religion or the highway right?

[Mirror Lake 444]

It is people who bring values similar to Christianity into politics. I guess you forgot our nation is Christian?



That's right, cause Islam hasn't changed our way of life... Were you alive during 9/11? If you say that didn't directly effect legislation, your blind.



Who releases tapes saying, worship Allah or die? Who is beheading people right now because they want to say no to Allah, or are innocent civilians all together? Islam apparently as the terrorists say that is their religion.

It is ironic you say "forces its BS down our throats", given the fact they would slit yours if you said no to them.

Yep what'd I tell ya! All of Islam is judged by a few extremists! Was I right? Was I right?

[Dutch]

It's Christianity, that tries to make it's way into the western politics, not Islam. It's Christianity, that tries to get it's teachings & morals into our legislation, not Islam. It's Christianity, that forces it's BS down out throats, not Islam. And that's why I have only undigested Christian BS to regurgitate back, not Islamic.

Not quite true mataj. ;)

Attempt at installing sharia law in quebec.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4236762.stm

New sharia law in nigeria
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3667515.stm

Sharia law in pakistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2956920.stm

This is a funny one, the effects of sharia law on guernsey banking system. Not much info tho.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/3713074.stm

I can get more references, but I think you get the idea.

[Eddie]

Not quite true mataj. ;)

Attempt at installing sharia law in quebec.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4236762.stm


Allowing optionable sharia law in disputes is hardly showing down laws in other peoples throats though. In fact, I would argue that allowing optionable alternatives would be the exact opposite of shoving law down somebody:s throat. And the impact any such legislation would have on non-muslims is virtually non-existant.

New sharia law in nigeria
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3667515.stm

Sharia law in pakistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2956920.stm


I think Mataj meant "us", as in us on the forum in general and those posters that complain about christian fundamentalism in particular. Do we have many posters from Nigeria or Pakistan here? ;)


This is a funny one, the effects of sharia law on guernsey banking system. Not much info tho.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/3713074.stm


It seems like they are considering to open up affiliates in countries like Nigeria and Malaysia.

[Dutch]

[QUOTE]
I think Mataj meant "us", as in us on the forum in general and those posters that complain about christian fundamentalism in particular. Do we have many posters from Nigeria or Pakistan here? ;)

Ok, do we have any canadian or british posters here? ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/19/ixportaltop.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264.stm

[Eddie]

[QUOTE=Eddie]

Ok, do we have any canadian or british posters here? ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/19/ixportaltop.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264stm


Repost:



Allowing optionable sharia law in disputes is hardly showing down laws in other peoples throats though. In fact, I would argue that allowing optionable alternatives would be the exact opposite of shoving law down somebody:s throat. And the impact any such legislation would have on non-muslims is virtually non-existant.


;)

[Dutch]

[QUOTE=Dutch]


Repost:



;)

I suggest to you once sharia law is first allowed, the "optional" part will mean about as much as in moslem countries. I still feel this qualifies under mataj's original declariation of disatisfaction with chrisianity. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. ;)

[mataj]

Not quite true mataj. ;)

Attempt at installing sharia law in quebec.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4236762.stm

New sharia law in nigeria
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3667515.stm

Sharia law in pakistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2956920.stm

This is a funny one, the effects of sharia law on guernsey banking system. Not much info tho.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/3713074.stm

I can get more references, but I think you get the idea.Yea, most of us has the idea. After all, we are well infested with catholibans already, and we don't need talibans too.

Talibans will have to overcome each & every buerocratic obstacle our beloved buerocratic state can produce before they will be allowed to build their mosque here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3590841.stm. Only then they will eventually become mockworthy.

[Eddie]

I suggest to you once sharia law is first allowed, the "optional" part will mean about as much as in moslem countries.

I don`t see why it would. There is allready alot of legislation that is subsidiary (at least in Sweden). You can negotiate away this. Marriage is allready subsidiary and can be re-negotiated.

[I I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. ;)

Ok :)

[Meek Heir]

Allowing optionable sharia law in disputes is hardly showing down laws in other peoples throats though. In fact, I would argue that allowing optionable alternatives would be the exact opposite of shoving law down somebody:s throat. And the impact any such legislation would have on non-muslims is virtually non-existant.

But it would have a huge impact on Muslim women who are treated as inferior and wouldn't be able to say no without disownment and in most cases death.

[neo of the mind]

Maybe it's because they don't know enough about Islam to mock it? But I'm sure you'll come along to do so any moment. After all it's my religion or the highway right?

You will be waiting an awfully long time, considering that I don't mock other people's beliefs even if I disagree with them 100%. I normally give others respect unless they do something that justifies otherwise and in that instance it's always better to just ignore.

[serenity]

I also don't get this business of why the "prophet" is treated in this way by Muslims. None of the "prophets" in the Bible are treated like this. They are given due respect but are not deified as is Mohammad. I thought "Allah" was supposed to be the big shot. What's the deal?

Apparently this is something of a controversial issue. Although Muhammad is held in higher esteem than prophets generally are in the other two Abrahamic Bronze Age out-of-date blood religions, an awful lot of muslims assert that he has been near-deified, in contradiction to the Koran itself.

But I'm just repeating what I heard somewhere...I'm no expert, to put it mildly.

[Eddie]

But it would have a huge impact on Muslim women who are treated as inferior and wouldn't be able to say no without disownment and in most cases death.

Aww... c`mon. If she was threatened with death to do whatever her husband whished, the ability to get a sharia ruling on a divorce would hardly matter, would it? I mean, if he could threaten her to accept a judicial framework that would give him the house or care of the children, why not just threaten her to give these things without the court ruling? :rolleyes:

[Meek Heir]

Aww... c`mon. If she was threatened with death to do whatever her husband whished, the ability to get a sharia ruling on a divorce would hardly matter, would it? I mean, if he could threaten her to accept a judicial framework that would give him the house or care of the children, why not just threaten her to give these things without the court ruling? :rolleyes:

The death part doesn't come from disobediance, it comes from "abandoning Islam" as any appeal to secular authority is viewed.

[Nuke the Oil]

I've tried to read a little of it but as you say it seems to me to be just rambling gibberish. I can read the Bible and especially the New Testament and the NIV is exceedingly easy to read and understand. Although I am not religious nor attend church I keep one handy just to review from time to time. I keep hoping that death is not the end of everything. But I think my hope is futile.

I also don't get this business of why the "prophet" is treated in this way by Muslims. None of the "prophets" in the Bible are treated like this. They are given due respect but are not deified as is Mohammad. I thought "Allah" was supposed to be the big shot. What's the deal?

In the NT the church letters ramble on with irrelevancies, and Revelation reads like an acid trip. The gospels are relatively coherent. I think (rather irrationally) that death is not the end of things, and that both the Bible and Koran won't be much help.

[Eddie]

The death part doesn't come from disobediance, it comes from "abandoning Islam" as any appeal to secular authority is viewed.

Doesn`t change the fact that the problem is that her husband has the ability and willpower to kill her (or at least threaten to kill her). Wether there is an option fo sharia or not is completly irrelevant in this case as he would control her anyway.

[Meek Heir]

Doesn`t change the fact that the problem is that her husband has the ability and willpower to kill her (or at least threaten to kill her). Wether there is an option fo sharia or not is completly irrelevant in this case as he would control her anyway.

And so what? We should just allow law that dictates her inferiority and authorizes the death penalty for human beings exercising their fundamental rights? The fact of the matter is that before Sharia law became an option some Muslim women could appeal to secular authority without being condemed to death by the community (note: not the husband, the community) And that with the introduction of Sharia law disputes that even the husband would have taken to secular authority is handled within the context of womens inferiority.

[Missouri Mule]

In the NT the church letters ramble on with irrelevancies, and Revelation reads like an acid trip. The gospels are relatively coherent. I think (rather irrationally) that death is not the end of things, and that both the Bible and Koran won't be much help.

You know, as hard as it may sound, you and I think alike on this subject.

I've read the items in question and the letters of Paul are almost the writings of a deranged person; certainly paranoid to say the least yet he is held up as a paragon by the Christian church. The Gospels are easily read but they are in contradiction to one another in certain critical passages and were written long after Jesus supposedly ascended into heaven.

But you know I was wondering and discussing just yesterday about some of the so-called predictions in Revelation regarding the "end times" and how Israel and the ME come into play. In the back of my head I have this niggling thought "could it be possible.....?" Then I snap out of it and dismiss it but the thought is always back there banging around on the corners of my brain like a wasp trying to get outside the house.

[JoeR]

Just keep in mind that predicting strife in the Middle East though is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow.

[Eddie]

And so what? We should just allow law that dictates her inferiority and authorizes the death penalty for human beings exercising their fundamental rights? The fact of the matter is that before Sharia law became an option some Muslim women could appeal to secular authority without being condemed to death by the community (note: not the husband, the community) And that with the introduction of Sharia law disputes that even the husband would have taken to secular authority is handled within the context of womens inferiority.

You seriously misunderstand what Sharia means in this context. It`s a method of arbitrating disputes. Not law itself. There are no penalties in this case. Nor do I really understand what you mean by inferiority in this case.

It doesn`t make any sense that a woman would be condemned to death by her community for not agreeing to let sharia guide her divorce case. If the community is so intolerant, why do you think it would allow her get the divorce in the first place? Or even allow her to make use of the legal system (no doubt such a community would rather be in charge of the whole process).

Does the fact that marriage exist as a legal arrangement mean that women are routinely forced to marry with the threat of death if they refuse? I mean, certainly there are religous sects and denominations that believe sex before marriage is a serious sin. Perhaps we should get rid of marriage to save all these poor women that are forced to marry their sexual partners. Or is it only muslims that are so barbaric that we cannot let them define legal arrangements inside a framework of secular legislation without them starting to opress and kill their women? :rolleyes:

[steveksux]

Which I begs the question, why only Christianity get's mocked on this forum.
I believe the reason is because the other religions are not a threat.It is not Christianity that gets mocked on this forum. It is the luddites who deny science, who believe the earth is 6000 years old, who believe in a flat earth, who believe in a twisted midieval version of Christianity who are being mocked on this board.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

It is not Christianity that gets mocked on this forum. It is the luddites who deny science, who believe the earth is 6000 years old, who believe in a flat earth, who believe in a twisted midieval version of Christianity who are being mocked on this board.

Randy

Wrong, what you claim is science which is evolutionary science is what I deny because of my belief in the Bible which is what makes me Christian. Sorry you are still mocking Christianity even though you mask it by saying you mock those believe in a 6000 year old earth.

Nobody believes in a flat earth, the Bible doesn't teach a flat earth, again it isn't a twisted form of Christianity that says the earth is 6000 years old, it is BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY.

Not only are you mocking Christianity but the Bible as well.

[::Major_Baker::]

Wrong, what you claim science which is evolutionary science is what I deny because of my belief in the Bible which is what makes me Christian. Sorry you are still mocking Christianity even though you mask it by saying you mock those believe in a 6000 year old earth.

Nobody believes in a flat earth, the Bible doesn't teach a flat earth, again it isn't a twisted form of Christianity that says the earth is 6000 years old, it is BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY.

Not only are you mocking Christianity but the Bible as well.

But sub, it's just so freakin mockable.

[Meek Heir]

You seriously misunderstand what Sharia means in this context. It`s a method of arbitrating disputes. Not law itself. There are no penalties in this case. Nor do I really understand what you mean by inferiority in this case.

No penalties? And so what do they do to settle the dispute? Give cownership of everything? The inferiority comes from the natural assumption under sharia law that women are weaker and more stupid then men and therefore the males word is worth more then a females.

It doesn`t make any sense that a woman would be condemned to death by her community for not agreeing to let sharia guide her divorce case. If the community is so intolerant, why do you think it would allow her get the divorce in the first place? Or even allow her to make use of the legal system (no doubt such a community would rather be in charge of the whole process).

A lot of things about ignorance and barbarity don't make sense. But the fact of the matter is that without the presence of Sharia law Muslim women are more free to divorce and leave then they are with. As long as Sharia law is not legally sactioned then the community can not dictate the whole process. As soon as it is then the community has justification for taking things out of the hand of the complaining party.

Does the fact that marriage exist as a legal arrangement mean that women are routinely forced to marry with the threat of death if they refuse? I mean, certainly there are religous sects and denominations that believe sex before marriage is a serious sin. Perhaps we should get rid of marriage to save all these poor women that are forced to marry their sexual partners. Or is it only muslims that are so barbaric that we cannot let them define legal arrangements inside a framework of secular legislation without them starting to opress and kill their women?

The problem is not marriage, the problem is "the community" attempting to take on the role of governing body. "Communities" are not subject to the same restrictions as actual governing bodies and so treat people unfairly. I am against all attempts to assert non governmental control over others. I would object to any similar group (like say Christians deciding to take the law into their own hands and punish homosexuals as the bible commands) asserting control for religous reasons, or a more secular and profit driven group attempting to assert internal law (eg a criminal gang).

[steveksux]

Wrong, what you claim is science which is evolutionary science is what I deny because of my belief in the Bible which is what makes me Christian. Sorry you are still mocking Christianity even though you mask it by saying you mock those believe in a 6000 year old earth.

Nobody believes in a flat earth, the Bible doesn't teach a flat earth, again it isn't a twisted form of Christianity that says the earth is 6000 years old, it is BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY.

Not only are you mocking Christianity but the Bible as well.I mock your ridiculous misinterpretation of the bible such that the bible conflicts with observable reality. 90% of the Christians in the world believe in evolution and the old earth. I do not mock them. Only you and your ilk.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

I mock your ridiculous misinterpretation of the bible such that the bible conflicts with observable reality. 90% of the Christians in the world believe in evolution and the old earth. I do not mock them. Only you and your ilk.

Randy

It is no misinterpretation, if it is please identify where I am wrong in thinking the Bible teaches a 6,000 year old earth. I'm curious, what has been observed that is so damaging to a 6,000 year old earth?

90% (a made up number) of the Christians then aren't following the Bible or Biblical teachings, obviously that is why you do not mock them.

[Eddie]

No penalties? And so what do they do to settle the dispute? Give cownership of everything?

It depends on what is disputet. If the ownership of a property is disputet, the ownership of that property will be settled. A divorce often include ownership issues and sometimes the care of children among other things. But never can someone be put in jail, be subjected to corporal punishment or be sentanced to death over a dispute settlement simply because these things cannot be contracted. Using sharia as a guide does not change this.

The inferiority comes from the natural assumption under sharia law that women are weaker and more stupid then men and therefore the males word is worth more then a females.

I don`t think that testimonies are weighted in a sharia based settlement court. But then again, I`m not an expert on how Sharia is to be read within the framework of a western democratic judicial system.

A lot of things about ignorance and barbarity don't make sense. But the fact of the matter is that without the presence of Sharia law Muslim women are more free to divorce and leave then they are with. As long as Sharia law is not legally sactioned then the community can not dictate the whole process. As soon as it is then the community has justification for taking things out of the hand of the complaining party.

Are they? Have you seen this type of system being tested?

The problem is not marriage, the problem is "the community" attempting to take on the role of governing body. "Communities" are not subject to the same restrictions as actual governing bodies and so treat people unfairly. I am against all attempts to assert non governmental control over others. I would object to any similar group (like say Christians deciding to take the law into their own hands and punish homosexuals as the bible commands) asserting control for religous reasons, or a more secular and profit driven group attempting to assert internal law (eg a criminal gang).

Exactly. the problem would not be the alternative to allow sharia as a way to settle disputes between two consenting adults. The problem would be an oppressive community. And to be honest, I haven`t heard of these types of communities in muslim minorities in western Europe. In fact, I think any such community would be even more scarce when it comes to muslims as the muslim communities are concentrated in the metropolitan areas. The only place where such an oppressive community would be able to exist for a longer period of time is where the community would be isolated from other communities in very small towns or rural areas. And even these communities get exposed sooner or later. We had an exposure of such a community just a year ago, but it was a chrisitan community and tragicly ended with two murders.

[steveksux]

It is no misinterpretation, if it is please identify where I am wrong in thinking the Bible teaches a 6,000 year old earth. I'm curious, what has been observed that is so damaging to a 6,000 year old earth?

90% (a made up number) of the Christians then aren't following the Bible or Biblical teachings, obviously that is why you do not mock them.I think the Pope and his assistants have studied the Bible more than you have. They have no problem with old earth and evolution. That covers Catholics, the majority of Christians right there. Back at the turn of the century, everyone pretty much agreed with your position. There's a reason most Christians, let alone scientists, have abandoned creationism and your 6000 year old charade to embrace evolution and the old earth.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

I think the Pope and his assistants have studied the Bible more than you have. They have no problem with old earth and evolution.

They may have studied it longer than I have, but they are not following what it or Christ teaches.

That covers Catholics, the majority of Christians right there. Back at the turn of the century, everyone pretty much agreed with your position. There's a reason most Christians, let alone scientists, have abandoned creationism and your 6000 year old charade to embrace evolution and the old earth.

Randy

Again, evolution and old earth isn't Biblical nor what Christ taught, if they dont follow those they are not Christianes in that regard. Your point doesn't count, it isn't describing Christians in that area.

[Meek Heir]

I don`t think that testimonies are weighted in a sharia based settlement court. But then again, I`m not an expert on how Sharia is to be read within the framework of a western democratic judicial system.

That is your problem, you think Sharia law is "read" differently in a western democratic judicial system then it is in Iran. It isn't. What makes it Sharia law is the same the world over, and one of those things is that women are inferior. If they were not then it would not be Sharia law.

Are they? Have you seen this type of system being tested?

A system where Sharia law is not sanctioned by the government? Like the United States? Like Canada before they started cow taoing to local majorities.

Exactly. the problem would not be the alternative to allow sharia as a way to settle disputes between two consenting adults. The problem would be an oppressive community. And to be honest, I haven`t heard of these types of communities in muslim minorities in western Europe. In fact, I think any such community would be even more scarce when it comes to muslims as the muslim communities are concentrated in the metropolitan areas. The only place where such an oppressive community would be able to exist for a longer period of time is where the community would be isolated from other communities in very small towns or rural areas. And even these communities get exposed sooner or later. We had an exposure of such a community just a year ago, but it was a chrisitan community and tragicly ended with two murders.

The problem is not "oppressive communities" the problem is giving the authority to the "community" instead of where it belongs. And before you decide that urban communities are magically immune the "oppressive communities" problem, think what makes these rural communities work that way, seclusion. Now I wonder if there is some sense of seclusion and seperation between say Chinatown and the rest of the city. I wonder if that could be mimicced at say the Muslim ghettos in France.

[Nuke the Oil]

You know, as hard as it may sound, you and I think alike on this subject.

Now there's your sign of the End Times! :lol:

I've read the items in question and the letters of Paul are almost the writings of a deranged person; certainly paranoid to say the least yet he is held up as a paragon by the Christian church. The Gospels are easily read but they are in contradiction to one another in certain critical passages and were written long after Jesus supposedly ascended into heaven.

There is quite a lot in the church letters that doesn't sound deranged, but it tends to be instructions for specific churches that are less relevant to the present than a slide rule. I think the important thing to remember is that this piece of literature is two millenia old. A lot can change in that time. Who can say how much of it is true?

But you know I was wondering and discussing just yesterday about some of the so-called predictions in Revelation regarding the "end times" and how Israel and the ME come into play. In the back of my head I have this niggling thought "could it be possible.....?" Then I snap out of it and dismiss it but the thought is always back there banging around on the corners of my brain like a wasp trying to get outside the house.

Yes. To some extent I think it is somewhat self-fulfilling. The Jewish people have always seemed prone to being attacked or discriminated against, and sometimes I wonder why them? I wonder if it is because, rather paradoxically, they are recognised in Christianity and Islam, and treated as "special". Now special is just another word for different, and there are many people on this planet that fear difference.

As for Revelation seeming to come true, it has also seemed to come true in the past because it is rather vague and there is a lot of symbolism (sort of like Nostradamus's predictions).

I have hope (maybe irrational again) that humanity will not annihilate itself from this planet. I really hope I'm right!

[Eddie]

That is your problem, you think Sharia law is "read" differently in a western democratic judicial system then it is in Iran. It isn't. What makes it Sharia law is the same the world over, and one of those things is that women are inferior. If they were not then it would not be Sharia law.


Of course it is read different. It is read within the framework of a secular, western legislative system. Nothing that would be against the law in this society will be allowed just because of using the Sharia as a guide to settle disputes. And I`m rather connfident that the treatment of testimonies falls within this framework.

A system where Sharia law is not sanctioned by the government? Like the United States? Like Canada before they started cow taoing to local majorities.

No, a system where sharia is allowed as an alternative guide to settle disputes within the framework of a secular and western judicial system.

The problem is not "oppressive communities" the problem is giving the authority to the "community" instead of where it belongs. And before you decide that urban communities are magically immune the "oppressive communities" problem, think what makes these rural communities work that way, seclusion. Now I wonder if there is some sense of seclusion and seperation between say Chinatown and the rest of the city. I wonder if that could be mimicced at say the Muslim ghettos in France.

You don`t give authority to these communities. You give authority to the individual. If the community is capable of oppressing the individual in order to force the indiviudal to chooce a certain alternative, the availiability of this alternative is not the problem. Marriage is not the problem when people force their relatives into a marriage. The forcing of the relative (and the ability and will to do so) is the problem.

[Meek Heir]

Of course it is read different. It is read within the framework of a secular, western legislative system. Nothing that would be against the law in this society will be allowed just because of using the Sharia as a guide to settle disputes. And I`m rather connfident that the treatment of testimonies falls within this framework.

It isn't read within the context of a secular western legislative system. If it were then it would not be Sharia law. By definition it must ignore the secular and western (and most of the time the legislative) to decide things differently from what would be decided in that western secular legislative structure. If they were going to make decisions that fit within the secular western legislative framework (SWLF) then you would just use that framework to make the decision rather then creating a new one. Testimonies are treated as they should under Sharia law, which is with women as inferior. Why do I know this? Because many women do manage to complain about it when they escape from their wonderful communities.

No, a system where sharia is allowed as an alternative guide to settle disputes within the framework of a secular and western judicial system.

Those don't exist. Canada has a system where communities can settle "disputes" without ever mentioning them to actual government and they can oppress women in direct violation of the SWLF that insures equality in most other circumstances.

You don`t give authority to these communities. You give authority to the individual. If the community is capable of oppressing the individual in order to force the indiviudal to chooce a certain alternative, the availiability of this alternative is not the problem. Marriage is not the problem when people force their relatives into a marriage. The forcing of the relative (and the ability and will to do so) is the problem.

You give authority to a community to make decisions regarding individuals without ever letting the government know. And then it is much less work to take your case to a Sharia ?Council? and then tell any other parties that since it is already being dealt with in a framework that is sanctioned by the Canadian government that if they go to real authorities they are just wasting time and giving up the oppurtunity to defend themselves in the Canadian sanctioned dispute settlement.

[Eddie]

It isn't read within the context of a secular western legislative system. If it were then it would not be Sharia law. By definition it must ignore the secular and western (and most of the time the legislative) to decide things differently from what would be decided in that western secular legislative structure. If they were going to make decisions that fit within the secular western legislative framework (SWLF) then you would just use that framework to make the decision rather then creating a new one.

I think you are misunderstanding the proposals regarding using Sharia law in family disputes. They are to be used as a guide within the allready existing judicial system. Not as suplements, but complements.

Why do I know this? Because many women do manage to complain about it when they escape from their wonderful communities.

What communities are that? Probably not the non-existing communities where sharia law has been adopted as a complement to the allready exisitng judicial system...

Those don't exist.

Exactly. Hence my scepsism regarding your claims regarding these systems and communities...

Canada has a system where communities can settle "disputes" without ever mentioning them to actual government and they can oppress women in direct violation of the SWLF that insures equality in most other circumstances.

Can they do this legally? If not, I don`t see the relevance of this claim.

You give authority to a community to make decisions regarding individuals without ever letting the government know. And then it is much less work to take your case to a Sharia ?Council? and then tell any other parties that since it is already being dealt with in a framework that is sanctioned by the Canadian government that if they go to real authorities they are just wasting time and giving up the oppurtunity to defend themselves in the Canadian sanctioned dispute settlement.

Naturally, these councils would be just as scrutinized as the ordinary courts and councils (if not more so due to islamophobia). And we don`t have problems with renegade courts systematicly casting judgement as they personally or their communities see fit. If nothing else, there is at least one party interested in seeing a fair settlement. and if it`s not fair, they will certainly let the authoritees know about it.

[Meek Heir]

I think you are misunderstanding the proposals regarding using Sharia law in family disputes. They are to be used as a guide within the allready existing judicial system. Not as suplements, but complements.

Something that directly contradicts existing law can not be a complement to it. You refuse to see that Sharia law contradicts the SWLF we base everything on. Would you agree to Jews getting together to settle disputes according to Leviticus?

What communities are that? Probably not the non-existing communities where sharia law has been adopted as a complement to the allready exisitng judicial system...

No, they escape from their wonderful communities where Sharia law is sanctioned by the real government and therefore can be used to opress people through "the will of the community."

Exactly. Hence my scepsism regarding your claims regarding these systems and communities...

I am trying to tell you that where Sharia law communities exist they are not beholden to anything or anyone. And that when the government sanctions them they only lend credence to institutions of opression.

Can they do this legally? If not, I don`t see the relevance of this claim.

They can do it legally defacto if the Canadian Government tells it's citizens that the decisions of the councils have legal status and then never determines what types of decisions the councils make.

Naturally, these councils would be just as scrutinized as the ordinary courts and councils (if not more so due to islamophobia). And we don`t have problems with renegade courts systematicly casting judgement as they personally or their communities see fit. If nothing else, there is at least one party interested in seeing a fair settlement. and if it`s not fair, they will certainly let the authoritees know about it.

Naturally these Councils are not scrutinized at all. They already exist. They are already sanctioned by the government in Canada and Britain. Islamophobia might keep things in check if they where in the United States, but in Canada and Britain large local Muslim majorities put pressure on the government to grant them autonomy. Autonomy that the governments unfortunately grant them.

[Eddie]

Something that directly contradicts existing law can not be a complement to it. You refuse to see that Sharia law contradicts the SWLF we base everything on.

And you refuse to see what these proposals where about. Whenever Sharia would contradict allready existing law, existing law would trump it.

I am trying to tell you that where Sharia law communities exist they are not beholden to anything or anyone. And that when the government sanctions them they only lend credence to institutions of opression.

Does this happen in Canada? Or is this refering to countries like Somalia?

They can do it legally defacto if the Canadian Government tells it's citizens that the decisions of the councils have legal status and then never determines what types of decisions the councils make.

Of course. If the Canadian law stipulates that the rulings of the council is legal, then it is legal. Is this the case?

Naturally these Councils are not scrutinized at all. They already exist. They are already sanctioned by the government in Canada and Britain. Islamophobia might keep things in check if they where in the United States, but in Canada and Britain large local Muslim majorities put pressure on the government to grant them autonomy. Autonomy that the governments unfortunately grant them.

What councils would that be in Canada? Or are you just refering to various interest organisations that have legal authority what so ever? And what type of autonomy are you refering to?

[Meek Heir]

And you refuse to see what these proposals where about. Whenever Sharia would contradict allready existing law, existing law would trump it.

Then there is no purpose to use Sharia law at all because it's very nature contradicts existing law. It stipulates that a women's testimony is less then a man's, that anyone converting away from Islam be killed, and that Allah gave the world to Muslims. The list of contradicitions to existing law is so long that any attempt at settlement through Sharia law would violate the basic tenets of either Sharia law or existing law.

Does this happen in Canada? Or is this refering to countries like Somalia?

It happens in Canada, Sharia councils make rulings that are never looked at by Canadian officials.

Of course. If the Canadian law stipulates that the rulings of the council is legal, then it is legal. Is this the case?

The Canadian government has been specifically being vague about this because of the hornet nest this issue is. But they have officially stated that where the participants agree beforehand, the Councils decisions are "binding."

What councils would that be in Canada? Or are you just refering to various interest organisations that have legal authority what so ever? And what type of autonomy are you refering to?

I am refering to various interest organisations that the Canadian government has given legal authority through it's reckless words.

[Eddie]

Then there is no purpose to use Sharia law at all because it's very nature contradicts existing law. It stipulates that a women's testimony is less then a man's, that anyone converting away from Islam be killed, and that Allah gave the world to Muslims. The list of contradicitions to existing law is so long that any attempt at settlement through Sharia law would violate the basic tenets of either Sharia law or existing law.

I`m no expert on Sharia, but I doubt this is true. How to assign inheritance or seperate communal property in the case of a divorce are examples that could be based on virtually any ideals without conflicting with western law.

It happens in Canada, Sharia councils make rulings that are never looked at by Canadian officials.


But are they legally sanctioned (not just ignored)? If not, I don`t see the relevance.

The Canadian government has been specifically being vague about this because of the hornet nest this issue is. But they have officially stated that where the participants agree beforehand, the Councils decisions are "binding."

Care to give an example?

I am refering to various interest organisations that the Canadian government has given legal authority through it's reckless words.

Since when did interest organisations have the power of courts?

[Meek Heir]

I`m no expert on Sharia, but I doubt this is true. How to assign inheritance or seperate communal property in the case of a divorce are examples that could be based on virtually any ideals without conflicting with western law.

I am sure that anything that decides that a woman needs to be under control of a man because if she is not then it is immoral is going to conflict with western law.

But are they legally sanctioned (not just ignored)? If not, I don`t see the relevance.

They are sort of legally sanctioned. The government has said that they are binding.

Since when did interest organisations have the power of courts?

Since the Canadian government says they have.

[Eddie]

I am sure that anything that decides that a woman needs to be under control of a man because if she is not then it is immoral is going to conflict with western law.


No doubt there are aspects of Sharia that isn`t compatible with western legal systems. But that wasn`t the issue.

They are sort of legally sanctioned. The government has said that they are binding.

Even if the rulings contradict Canadian criminal law? Like corporal punishment or death sentances?

Since the Canadian government says they have.

As in the above mentioned Sharia councils? Do you have a link to show how they are operated?

[lord tammerlain]

Eddie here is what the Sharia Councils would have the ability to do in Canada ( specifically Ontario. Which already allowed Catholic, and Jewish religous 'courts" to decide CIVIL law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
An unusual secular-state example was the (rejected) proposal[1] for a Sharia arbitration court to be established in Ontario, Canada. That province's 1991 arbitration court law allows disputes to be settled in alternative courts to avoid congestion and delay in the court system. The proposed sharia court would handle disputes between Muslim complainants. Critics claimed that misogyny which they held to be inherent in Sharia might influence the Canadian justice system, but proponents argued that those who do not wish to go by the court's rulings are not forced to attend it. Moreover, these sharia courts in Canada would be only orthodox in a limited way as they respect the priority of Canadian civil law. Anybody not satisfied with a ruling from the sharia court could appeal to a civil court. As such, this sharia court would be only a very pale version of Sharia.

On September 11, 2005, Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty stated in a telephone interview that religious arbitration would no longer be allowed. However, the proposed changes to the Ontario Arbitration Act[5] do not specifically mention religious arbitration, but reduce the power of private arbitration in the area of family law, and introduce other changes. Specifically, under the proposed changes family arbitrators will be regulated, participants in family law arbitration cases will not be able to give up their right to appeal an arbitrator's decision to a court, and a pre-nuptial agreement to resolve family law matters, should they arise, through an arbitrator rather than through a court will no longer be binding


So the Sharia council could decide civil matters, divorce, contracts etc. It would have no ability to decide criminal matters. Basically any decision that the Sharia council can legally make would have to be legal under Canadian civil laws. A divorce agreement in Canadian civil law can be made to mimic Sharia law, so can all other contracts. The main issue would be the discrimination regarding the legal weight of a females testimony

[Eddie]

Thank you Mr Tammelain. That certainly cleared a few things up. Aparantly the treatment of testimonies are different, but basicly everything else was how I thought it would be.

[brainpan]

And you refuse to see what these proposals where about. Whenever Sharia would contradict allready existing law, existing law would trump it.Then it's a non starter. Sharia contradicts Western law.

[Meek Heir]

Thank you Tammerlain. I am gald that they are reducing oppurtunities for forced participation in the proposed changes, and I hope they go through. Certainly without the various traps, and with the ability to appeal there is less to worry about. I hope these changes go through and they effect the other courts.

[Eddie]

Then it's a non starter. Sharia contradicts Western law.

You didn`t read the rest of the exchange I pressume :rolleyes:

[brainpan]

You didn`t read the rest of the exchange I pressume :rolleyes:Sharia is incompatible with Western society. If we prohibit the parts of Sharia that contradict Western law--which in principle would be all of it--then we are left with an empty shell.

The formation of Sharia courts, formal or not, should not be allowed. There has to be a point where we say "enough."

[lord tammerlain]

Sharia is incompatible with Western society. If we prohibit the parts of Sharia that contradict Western law--which in principle would be all of it--then we are left with an empty shell.

The formation of Sharia courts, formal or not, should not be allowed. There has to be a point where we say "enough."

Do you feel the same about Jewish courts and Catholic courts that exist in Canada? Any Sharia courts would have to follow the exact same regulations, and I do believe that some Catholic rules would contradict Western Law as well.

[Meek Heir]

Do you feel the same about Jewish courts and Catholic courts that exist in Canada? Any Sharia courts would have to follow the exact same regulations, and I do believe that some Catholic rules would contradict Western Law as well.

Which makes them equally as foolish as far as ventures go. What is wrong with creating a few more officail courts that don't start with assumptions that violate the law?

[lord tammerlain]

Which makes them equally as foolish as far as ventures go. What is wrong with creating a few more officail courts that don't start with assumptions that violate the law?


I am guessing costs, and pandering to local special interest groups

I would think the religous courts, Catholic, Jewish and Sharia would not cost the taxpayers any money as they would be decided by religous persons associated with the specific religion. A boon for the provincial coffers.

Then you have the pandering.


Politician gets to state what a wonderfull thing he/she has done for the Catholics/Jews/Muslims in supporting their specific religous court. Recieve a few vote's in the process.

When the Ontario government decided in the uproar over Sharia courts decided to get rid of all religous courts ( going by memory ) people were upset that the Catholic and Jewish courts were going to be tossed as well.