Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Distaseful is not actually a real word. You are still e-stuttering. Lay off the coffee. I was not talking to you anyway. You have posts way back that were addressed to you but you have chosen to ignore them and have injected unwelcome information of zero value into what was a polite discussion.

And you are still attempting to divert attention away from the fact that your deity, your prophet, and Mohammedans across the globe continue the perverse practice of prepubescent marriage and consummation of that marriage. You admit that it is “distasteful” but continue to defend the practice. What does that say about you?

I have ignored nothing. You simply want to create straw man arguments that are pointless. They are pointless because they have no moral equivalency to what is codified within your religion. Do you believe your prophet is the spokesman for your god? Are his teachings the “word of your god”? Are the cultural traditions and human governments equivalently the same “word of god” for you?
If you believe your prophet is the spokesperson for your deity and that his teachings are considered “divinely inspired” and if you believe human governments and traditions/cultures are not equivalent to your prophets teachings then you acknowledge the fact that there is no moral equivalence.

If, on the other hand, you accept human governments and cultures/traditions are equivalently the “word of your god” then you have relegated your faith to the depravity of mankind.

We both know muslims look to the life and teachings of Muhammad as being directly inspired by their god. It is for this reason that muslim clerics complain whenever anyone suggests that the marriage age should be increased from 9 years old to any older age. They correctly understand that it puts Muhammad in a bad light. What they refuse to acknowledge, as you have demonstrated here, is that he is already seen in a bad light by anyone with common sense.

Truth is unwelcome information to you. ROTFL

Not unexpected at all…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

While I supplied specific references from the book of Numbers where it was specifically condoned and even commanded I will not accept unrelated passages from you that have nothing to do with those specific commands.

LOL! You apparently know nothing of hermeneutics or exegesis if you think you gave a Biblical passage that condones the perversity of your religion.

Here let’s show the fallacy of your absurd “specific reference”.

(Num 31:7 KJV) And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
(Num 31:8 KJV) And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
(Num 31:9 KJV) And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
(Num 31:10 KJV) And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
(Num 31:11 KJV) And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
(Num 31:12 KJV) And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.


(Num 31:15 KJV) And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
(Num 31:16 KJV) Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
(Num 31:17 KJV) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
(Num 31:18 KJV) But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I have looked and nowhere is there the mentioning of marrying prepubescent girls or consummating that “marriage”. That is called eisegesis. LOL! Congratulations! You have proven that you cannot objectively read a passage without trying to torture the text to make it say what you want. Hint, get rid of your paradigm and stop drinking the Kool Aid of islam.

I was even generous and looked at the Septuagint, looking for your fabrication. Guess what? It’s not there either.
(Num 31:18 Brenton) And as for all the captivity of women, who have not known the lying with man, save ye them alive.

The Biblical marriage is a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. The very fact that it is a “covenant” demands that both parties be mature enough to enter into that covenant. Hence, the reason why there was a contractual writing of divorcement required to break that covenant relationship. A 9 year old does not meet that standard.

You also mention Rebekah and it was shown conclusively that she was a mature young woman when she married Isaac.

The “little one’s” here were taken as captives and later in life, when they reached the age for entering into covenants, they were probably married into Judaism.

Please don’t try to impose upon a Biblical text a perversion that is well known and propagated by islam. It only makes you look foolish and intellectually dishonest.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You were actually tasked with providing information that you have failed to provide. Now you are reaching for any unrelated passage you can find to justify applying your personal definition of sin to all of history.

That's pathetic.

You personally stated, publicly, that marriage to a prepubescent girl and consummation of that marriage is “distasteful”. By your own admission the word of God will judge you to be a sinner. That is a question that you have asked and I answered it forthrightly. You don’t like the answer. Too bad, it’s the truth.

Also, I have demonstrated that every time you attempt to use the bible you use it to your own embarrassment. Biblical marriage is a covenant/contract between one man and one woman. That in and of itself demands maturity. Rebekah was a young woman when she was married. In fact you cannot demonstrate, from the Bible, any place or any time in which God condoned the marriage to a prepubescent girl much less the consummation of that marriage.

On the other hand we can go directly to the example of your prophet and his teachings that not only is it condoned but is considered a “blessing”. Now THAT is pathetic. And worse yet, you continue to defend what you say is “distasteful”. It is a sinful act and sinful to you personally to continue to defend such an abhorrent act.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Your insults minus the information you were tasked to bring back and share mean nothing here. It does not take a whole bible study to answer the very direct and simple questions that have been asked of you. You are right about one thing. I did care, but that was when I thought I would learn something new. Now I do not.

You have proven over and over that you care less about truth. This is demonstrated in your lack of intellectual honesty, when attempting to exegete a passage. Instead you torture the text to read what you want to read. You demonstrate your contempt for truth whenever you try to build straw man arguments that have no moral equivalency, such as trying to equate human governments or various cultures with the example of your prophet and his teachings. They are not the same because human governments and cultures originate from man. Your religion is supposed to originate from a deity somewhere. You have consistently closed your eyes to the truth. The only thing you wanted to do is justify yourself because deep down you know your prophet was a disgusting man and his deity is equally disgusting. Mohammedans that follow his example are equally disgusting.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I did not ask for stories of a Shia Ayatollah and I did not ask you about "common sense". You have nothing to teach here except that you are another apostolic who feels qualified to judge in place of God. Yawn. There are many of you. Get back in line. You spoke out of turn.

ROTFL! Now you want to try and make a difference between the sects of islam. LOL! The Mohammedan, Ayatollah, simply followed the example of your prophet and his teachings! Once again you have proven that you cannot be honest when presented with the truth. Khomeini did not establish his marriage to a 10 year old girl with Shia teaching but with the fundamental example and teachings of your prophet. That is also “common sense”. Continue to defend such a wretched act. It only reveals to the world the depravity of islam.

When will you repent?
When will you seek Jesus Christ?
When will see the difference between Jesus Christ and Muhammad?
When will you allow God to change you from being a Mohammedan to a Christian?

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pliny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD-L0RrioRk

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Of course. Line up and butcher every single soul, including the parents of these young children, and keep them based on no criteria other than their sexual status.

This is the word of God from your bible.

When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

How beautiful "covenant marriages between one man and one woman" can be. I am touched and you of course have not succeeded in running the sword of truth right through my conscience.

"One man and one woman". You sound like a good white conservative and of course I am sure you always have the proper haircut.

Except:

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

Your beautiful and sacred version of Biblical marriage is defined as a contract between who again? There is actual law written to cover more than "one man and one woman" marriages.

The “little one’s” here were taken as captives and later in life, when they reached the age for entering into covenants, they were probably married into Judaism.

In your "probably" dreams. Hebrew scholars abound even on the internet. The interpretation of which one matches yours?

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Maybe this one does. Look at this. A beautiful example of an upstanding biblical marriage by covenant between two (were you going to say <cough>lie<cough> next that both people must consent to this contract) people.

From the original text that you "probablied" away "Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves"

Ask yourself: How are those men who were told to take pre-pubescent girls for themselves supposed to know who was or was not a virgin?

Which one of us practices a religion of lies again? There are only two sources of code that you have in your bible that are directly attributed to God (capitalizations and everything woohoo THUS SAITH and ho hum) and this is from one of those codes. The other source that you have is the teaching of Jesus which is silent on this issue.

(Php 4:8) Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Actually did not come (directly) from God but though you revere it more than the passages that did you seem to have difficulty practicing it. I do not revere it but you cheerfully sent it 12,000 miles to suggest that I practice it too.

Though you feel that though I should, you seem to believe that you are exempt and have replaced all of that good stuff with a morbid, unhealthy, suspicious fascination with sex and underage girls. In this please join the line with your hypocritical colleagues who will point out the conditions for lying in Islam as proof that Islam is of the devil while clapping and cheering your leadership for lying about a Muslim from his "anointed" pulpit.

Let me summarize for you in case you don't get it because truly I have grown tired of your tirade of insults:

The Biblical marriage is a covenant relationship between one man and one woman.

That is a lie. Fill in the blank: That statement makes me a _______.

Then go read Rev 21:8

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things

You impose that on me but do not practice it. Fill in the blank: That makes me a __________.

Then go read Matthew 23:3 (well if you have time, the whole chapter). How cool is it that you get an automatic link!

Good luck with your pop quiz!

[Walks_in_islam]

After you have completed your bible study then YOU go repent. Truly God has boundless mercy and I know for sure that He will forgive you.

When you come back, please come back and discuss wholesome things in a respectful manner and practice what you preach while you are doing it.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Do you believe all (or the majority) of apostolics speak "in place of God"? I am not wading into your conversation with Pliny but I am always grieved when someone makes a generalized claim about apostolics that they are intellectually dishonest. While the dishonest may be found in every sect and every religion, is it not unwise to lump an entire group in with a perceived character defect, as if we all were a bunch of traditionalists who actually don't care what the Word of God says? (Again, I am not speaking to the immediate disputatious issues between Pliny and yourself. On THAT topic I shared what seems to be the Biblical standard for marriage - puberty. What cultures and societies do, or how close to the divine ideal they come, is another issue imo.)

You are right, it is not only unwise but improper to lump an entire group in with a perceived character defect.

Based on what I have seen and read it APPEARS that the majority of apostolics do speak in place of God and do follow practices that are not to be found within the bible and do impose judgment on others based on those practices.

If this is the exception and not the rule then it is my error and an apology is offered and owed.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

"You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the
Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do you."

Good save. So you are concerned about my "heart and ears".

My answer:

But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk.
Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

I Cor 7

Seems you are concerned about nothing. I believe I will let you let me walk leaving you free to take your own path. Thanks.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Pliny

When will you repent?
When will you seek Jesus Christ?
When will see the difference between Jesus Christ and Muhammad?
When will you allow God to change you from being a Mohammedan to a Christian?

when will you wake up, and see that you do the devil's work here?
when will you stop accusing?
when will you find Grace?
when will you allow God to change you from being religious to being a follower?
see, easy! but i don't even blame you; i know that a lifetime of programming is hard to overcome, and i pray that all eyes will be opened.

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by shazeep

when will you wake up, and see that you do the devil's work here?
when will you stop accusing?
when will you find Grace?
when will you allow God to change you from being religious to being a follower?
see, easy! but i don't even blame you; i know that a lifetime of programming is hard to overcome, and i pray that all eyes will be opened.

Agreed!

How does the adage go? A man convinced AGAINST his will is "unconvinced" still?

It is my opinion that one is NOT able to assist his fellow to recognize the error of his ways (aka, beliefs) by mounting an attack against those beliefs, rather they must do as Paul said was his "modus operandi":

"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, DECLARING UNTO YOU THE TESTIMONY OF GOD. For I determined NOT to know any thing among you, SAVE JESUS CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED." (I Corintihians 2:2).

I think the record of the actions of the Apostles is clear: they sought NOT to attack the beliefs of others, corrupt though they were, rather they always sought to "declare ... the testimony of God," which is (it hasn't changed) "Jesus Christ and him crucified" (i.e., that which was accomplished for sinful's man's reconciliation to God by means of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ). We MUST follow their example!

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Of course. Line up and butcher every single soul, including the parents of these young children, and keep them based on no criteria other than their sexual status.

Typical of critics who don’t care about truth. A classic example of someone who knows nothing of exegesis or the science of hermeneutics. It is well understood that Israel was not allowed to go to the Promised Land until a particular time (Gen. 15:16).

BTW you have once again revealed your utter lack of being able to cite anything properly. If you are going to cite something, intellectual honesty requires you let the reader know where the citation comes from. So when you quote the Bible as a source let the reader know what passage and translation the verse comes from. I am just trying to help you to keep from looking foolish.

God has the right to condemn sin. He did this with the flood and confusion of languages. He did this with Sodom and Gomorrah and He did it through the children of Israel when entering the Promised Land. He will do so once again in the future.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

This is the word of God from your bible.

When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

Once again you have failed to establish where the citation comes from. You say the Bible but not where in the Bible it’s found. Extremely sloppy on your part. That’s okay I can help you again:

(Deu 21:10 KJV) When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
(Deu 21:11 KJV) And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
(Deu 21:12 KJV) Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
(Deu 21:13 KJV) And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

And your point is what exactly?

Here once again I will help you. Even that carnal man known as Josephus speaks of this passage in these terms:
“But now, if any man take captive, either a virgin, or one that hath been married, and has a mind to marry her (see note below), let him not be allowed to bring her to bed to him, or to live with her as his wife, before she hath her head shaven, and hath put on her mourning habit, and lamented her relations and friends that were slain in the battle, that by this means she may give vent to her sorrow for them, and after that may betake herself to feasting and matrimony; for it is good for him that takes a woman, in order to have children by her, to be complaisant to her inclinations…”
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 4, Chapter 8, Section 23 (BTW this is called documentation)

Note: Here it is supposed that this captive's husband, if she were before a married woman, was dead before, or rather was slain in this very battle, otherwise it would have been adultery in him that married her.

Any intellectually honest person will see that the man was not allowed to “know” her like we see with muslims across the globe. Like ISIS who have setup brothels from the captives they have taken.

After she has mourned she can marry, indicating she wants to be married and not forced or coerced like we see today by, you guessed it – muslims.
“The world reacted in horror and revulsion at the kidnapping of 276 Nigerian schoolgirls in April. But twice as many Coptic Christian schoolgirls in Egypt have vanished slowly, one-by-one, in kidnappings that remain unsolved.

Since January, 2011 through March, 2014, over 550 Christian girls were kidnapped by Muslim men and forced to convert and marry their abductors, often after suffering violence at the hands of their kidnappers, according to the Association of Victims of Abduction and Forced Disappearance (AVAFD).”
http://blog.godreports.com/2014/06/o...pt-since-2011/

Oh yeah, one more thing. Muslims are doing this TODAY not thousands of years ago.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

How beautiful "covenant marriages between one man and one woman" can be. I am touched and you of course have not succeeded in running the sword of truth right through my conscience.

Not surprising:
(2Th 2:7 KJV) For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
(2Th 2:8 KJV) And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
(2Th 2:9 KJV) Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
(2Th 2:10 KJV) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
(2Th 2:11 KJV) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(2Th 2:12 KJV) That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

You have spent a lot of time defending the manipulation and exploitation of prepubescent girls. How sick and deceived you must be. You should spend as much time telling you imams to stop teaching sharia. LOL! See how that works for you since sharia is based on the example and teachings of Muhammad.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

"One man and one woman". You sound like a good white conservative and of course I am sure you always have the proper haircut.

What an utterly ignorant statement. Revealing the desperate need you seem to have to validate your perverted prophet. LOL!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Except:
If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

Here allow me to help you once again with your citation. LOL!
(Deu 21:15 KJV) If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

Moses is speaking and Moses allowed divorce as well.
Jesus corrected the rabbinic views when He said:
(Mat 19:3 KJV) The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
(Mat 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
(Mat 19:5 KJV) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
(Mat 19:6 KJV) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus clearly pointed back to the original created order of man. In the beginning God created one man and one woman in full maturity. They were a couple. This is the created order and what God has ordained as good and holy. Because, of the hardness of their heart Moses allowed divorce:
(Mat 19:7 KJV) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
(Mat 19:8 KJV) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
(Mat 19:9 KJV) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Likewise, Moses is speaking to Israel and due to the hardness of their heart, remember them wandering around the wilderness for forty years, allowed this. God did not approve it and we see Jesus addressing a very similar issue later and pointing men back to the beginning for what God approves. In fact Gill’s commentary puts it this way:

Gill:
“If a man have two wives,.... Which is supposed, but not approved of, though permitted because of the hardness of men's hearts; for it was not so from the beginning, when only one man and one woman were created, and joined together in marriage;”

It never ceases to amaze me. The lengths people will go to justify themselves.

TBC

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Your beautiful and sacred version of Biblical marriage is defined as a contract between who again? There is actual law written to cover more than "one man and one woman" marriages.

Thank you for once again demonstrating 2 Tim. 3:7 is relevant today.
That’s right! The beautiful and sacred version of Biblical marriage is defined as Jesus said:
(Mat 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
(Mat 19:5 KJV) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

The created order of marriage is between one man and one woman. A single man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife. Please note the singular wife.

Were the Jews hard hearted? They sure were.
Did Moses (not God) allow them things out of that created order? He sure did.

BTW how many wives and concubines did your prophet have?

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

The “little one’s” here were taken as captives and later in life, when they reached the age for entering into covenants, they were probably married into Judaism.

In your "probably" dreams. Hebrew scholars abound even on the internet. The interpretation of which one matches yours?

I don’t look to Rabbi’s for divine inspiration. The Bible is in perfect harmony with itself. It needs no other standard. The Bible is clear that marriage is between a single man and a single woman. This is God’s created order. Also, because marriage is a legal covenant between that man and woman they must be of an age to enter into that legal covenant. A perfect harmony exists.

You, on the other hand, prefer to torture the text to make it say what you want to say in order to justify the example of your miserable prophet. Something you even admit is “distasteful”. How ludicrous is your position!

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Maybe this one does. Look at this. A beautiful example of an upstanding biblical marriage by covenant between two (were you going to say <cough>lie<cough> next that both people must consent to this contract) people.

Another in the long list of citation failures and amateurish interpretations to torture the text to make it say what you want instead of what it clearly states – eisegesis once again. LOL!

One of the first principles of hermeneutics is context. You forgot:
(Deu 22:25 KJV) But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
(Deu 22:26 KJV) But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

Here is a clear case of forced rape. The woman is freed while the man forfeits his life.
Now in islam a woman is only considered half a person legally. If and when she is raped she must present to the court four male witnesses that state she was raped. Otherwise, she is admitting to adultery and is murdered. Thus, in islam women are raped and forced to keep their mouths shut because of the lack of male witnesses.

Testimony of a woman before a judge is worth half that of a man: “And get two witnesses, not of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose for witnesses.” (Q 2:282)

Women are to receive just one half the inheritance of a male: “Allah thus directs you as regards your children’s inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females….” (Q 4:11)

Under shariah, to bring a claim of rape, a Muslim woman must present four male Muslim witnesses in good standing. Islam thus places the burden of avoiding illicit sexual encounters entirely on the woman. In effect, under shariah, women who bring a claim of rape without being able to produce the requisite four male Muslim witnesses are admitting to having had illicit sex. If she or the man is married, this amounts to an admission of adultery. The following Quranic passages, while explicitly applying to men are cited by shariah authorities and judges in adjudicating rape cases: “And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses (to adultery), flog them...” Q 24:4) “Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah, stand forth themselves as liars!” (Q 24:13)

Here is more documentation on islam:
Muslim men are given permission by Allah to commit marital rape, as they please: “Your wives are as a tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when or how ye will….” (Q 2: 223)

Muslim men are permitted to marry up to four wives and to keep concubines in any number: “…Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive that your right hands possess…” (Q 4:3)

Muslim men are given permission by Allah in the Quran to beat their wives: “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last, beat them.” (Q 4:34)


Great religion you have there. Of course you’re a man…

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Ask yourself: How are those men who were told to take pre-pubescent girls for themselves supposed to know who was or was not a virgin?

Which one of us practices a religion of lies again? There are only two sources of code that you have in your bible that are directly attributed to God (capitalizations and everything woohoo THUS SAITH and ho hum) and this is from one of those codes. The other source that you have is the teaching of Jesus which is silent on this issue.

To answer your question about how they knew prepubescent girls were not “active” that’s easy. Your perverted prophet had not yet come upon the stage of history to codify it in law and bless it through his deity. Common sense would tell them that a 6 year old girl was not marriageable age.

Who practices a religion of lies? That’s easy as well. You do.
“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” (Bukhari vol. 3:857 p.533)

Neither the Bible nor Jesus are silent on the issue. It is firmly established and seen by any intellectually honest person. Jesus made it clear that marriage is between a single man and a single woman (Mtt. 19).

Oh well, I suppose you can continue to “invent” things to justify yourself rather than accept the truth.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

(Php 4:8) Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Actually did not come (directly) from God but though you revere it more than the passages that did you seem to have difficulty practicing it. I do not revere it but you cheerfully sent it 12,000 miles to suggest that I practice it too.

Oh no, I did not send it 12,000 miles suggesting you practice it. It’s very evident you don’t! Thank you for your affirmation that you do not think on things that are true, honorable, just, pure, lovely or commendable. Although it was already self evident.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Though you feel that though I should, you seem to believe that you are exempt and have replaced all of that good stuff with a morbid, unhealthy, suspicious fascination with sex and underage girls. In this please join the line with your hypocritical colleagues who will point out the conditions for lying in Islam as proof that Islam is of the devil while clapping and cheering your leadership for lying about a Muslim from his "anointed" pulpit.

ROTFL! You are now “projecting”… LOL!
Here this might help you:
http://psychology.about.com/od/theor...ensemech_7.htm

There is no suspicion or fascination about anything Islamic. It is a fact that islam has made marriages to prepubescent girls part of its doctrines and tenets. It’s considered a “blessing” for Mohammedans to emulate Muhammad. The sick fascination with this subject lands squarely with Mohammedans. That would include all who try to justify the act.

Ibn ‘Abd al..Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The scholars are unanimously agreed that the father may arrange a marriage for his young daughter without consulting her. The messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) married Aa’ishah when she was six years old.

As the saying goes, that dog don’t hunt.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

The Biblical marriage is a covenant relationship between one man and one woman.

That is a lie. Fill in the blank: That statement makes me a _______.

Then go read Rev 21:8

As has been pointed out, Jesus referenced the created order (Mtt. 19) which references the God ordained family to be between one man and one woman. So simple even a cave man can understand it. However, there are those who prefer to ignore facts and invent things that are not there to justify themselves and worse, their religious ideology.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things

You impose that on me but do not practice it. Fill in the blank: That makes me a __________.

Oh it is no imposition at all upon you. You have clearly stated that you don’t care about this. BTW that was self evident.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

After you have completed your bible study then YOU go repent. Truly God has boundless mercy and I know for sure that He will forgive you.

When you come back, please come back and discuss wholesome things in a respectful manner and practice what you preach while you are doing it.

When will you be ready to accept truth?
When will you leave that ideology for something good?
BTW you really should learn not to "project" your moral failings upon others.