Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[shazeep]

"... Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy. ... Speak
up, judge righteously, and defend the cause of the oppressed..."

"... And I charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases between your brothers, and
judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien..."

but wadr, i will be sleeping fine tonight.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

My opinion is that this is criminal. There are numerous references in Islamic teaching that specifically state that you cannot force a marriage and prohibit forced marriages.

Narrated AbuHurayrah: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: An orphan virgin girl should be consulted about herself; if she says nothing that indicates her permission, but if she refuses, the authority of the guardian cannot be exercised against her will. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2088)"

"A woman without a husband (or divorced or a widow) must not be married until she is consulted, and a virgin must not be married until her permission is sought." (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3303)"

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: "A virgin came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) allowed her to exercise her choice." (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2091)

Are those who did this thing following Islamic teaching or not?

There are more, I just grabbed a sample.

From what you posted I gather not. I would also like to point out that I think you are an exception and not the rule of Islam. You do not seem to be a radical, but you have to admit that fundamentalist Muslims give Islam a bad name. I say this with respect to you of course.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

From what you posted I gather not. I would also like to point out that I think you are an exception and not the rule of Islam. You do not seem to be a radical, but you have to admit that fundamentalist Muslims give Islam a bad name. I say this with respect to you of course.

All three sources state that it is not OK to force a virgin to marry if she expresses that she does not wish to.

You are right about the fundamentalist. It is difficult to determine how the law can be twisted and violated so badly and what the justification behind such a case (referring to the young lady in the video) can be.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

Bible says "judge righteously", but you would not understand the meaning of it.

Anybody knows how long this islamic poison is allowed to waste this forum?

Actually says "judge not" but what's a twist here and a tweak there right?

[Walks_in_islam]

Well I am glad you recognize that I did not agree with the position of the islamic website. I applaud the honesty here. I do however have a “position”. It’s the same one that’s been said over and over. Jesus pointed to the created order when discussing the issue of marriage/divorce (So what? Jesus was outlining the only cause for divorce).

We are way past the Islamic website (with the definitely non-Islamic sources LOL) unless the historical rulings recorded in the Talmud or the words of the bible have become “Islamic”.

In the created order there was one man and one woman created in maturity. Also, as mentioned so many times we looked at the text YOU brought up – Rebekah’s betrothal/marriage to Isaac. A quick examination of the TEXT reveals she was a mature young woman as the ESV interpreters reveal. BTW that is not a “subjective application”. It’s called exegesis using hermeneutical principles.

Except you add “one” man and “one” woman to the passage. What's a twist here and a tweak there though right? “With the evidence of speaking in other tongues” is a famous addition to apostolic teaching, added to a popular passage that does not actually say that. Actually that is not said ANYWHERE LOL
Let’s see together what the BIBLE says about marriage then we will visit what the LAW at the time of Jesus said about marriage.

There are few laws about marriage in the bible. One of the few is here.
Deuteronomy 21:

15 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,
16 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.
17 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.
There is biblical law on bigamy. That law does not say “thou shalt not have two wives”. It says “this is the law of inheritance in a marriage to two wives”.

You are in error when you declare that a marriage defined under biblical law excludes marriage to more than one wife.

Biblical marriage says what about consent?

Same chapter:

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails
13 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.
14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

This law says nothing about obtaining the consent of the woman. This law says she WILL become your wife UNLESS the husband is displeased with her (after going in to her and consummating the “biblical marriage” whether she consents or not). Where is consent here?

You are in error when you say that a biblical marriage requires consent of both parties.

What else will you lie about?

TBC

[Walks_in_islam]

“Somehow I mistakenly believed that you had taken a position on something”. There was no mistake. I have. You just don’t like the position. Too bad. I am not going to take a different position just to please you or anyone else. The text is clear in both cases, that of the created order and the text YOU brought up. Your implied accusation that I have not taken a position leaves me with but one observation: willful ignorance on your part as to my position.

I was thinking that you might study a little bit and adjust your position. You won’t, and that’s your fail and that’s your problem. Instead, you have BUTCHERED passages out of context to twist them to fit your position and every positon you have taken and every sin you have declared will systematically be yanked right out from under your feet.

If you “forgot” I was Apostolic when YOU logged on to Apostolic Friends Forum then you have serious memory issues! LOL! Certainly you would not be trying to “insult” someone would you? No... LOL!!!

There is no greater insult than to allow oneself to be trapped in an unsupportable position. Comprehension includes, among many other things, the ability to discern sarcasm.

Oh no mistake. I have clearly declared your prophet was a pervert, a pedophile. That this sin is inherent to islam and codified within Shariah (Islamic law). And what is “right” is for one man and one woman, both mature as opposed to immature, coming together in matrimony. As an example I would use Rebekah and Isaac. You know the passage YOU brought up?

Yes one man and one woman, that is your position. The bible however conflicts your position has several other arrangements, all blessed by God. Either they were “sinful” as you say (but God and everyone else did not mention it) or they were not “sinful” and were accepted.

Law:

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

Here are all the translations, every single one of them.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/deute...8-compare.html

At least 12 versions of this scripture use the word “rape” or “seize” meaning force. She SHALL be his wife and her father will receive payment. That sound like “consent” to you?

Here are how the 12 tribes of Israel came to be. Similar to Abraham’s story, also not condemned. Let’s call this marital arrangement “a man and more than one wife + handmaidens of wives” followed by "a blessing of the seed for all time".

Genesis 29-30
32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me.
33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.
34 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi.
35 And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing.
And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.
2 And Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God’s stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?
3 And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her.
4 And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her. 5 And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a son.
6 And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan.
7 And Bilhah Rachel’s maid conceived again, and bare Jacob a second son.
8 And Rachel said, With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali.
9 When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.
10 And Zilpah Leah’s maid bare Jacob a son.
11 And Leah said, A troop cometh: and she called his name Gad.
12 And Zilpah Leah’s maid bare Jacob a second son.
13 And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher.
14 And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son’s mandrakes.
15 And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son’s mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son’s mandrakes.
16 And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son’s mandrakes. And he lay with her that night.
17 And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare Jacob the fifth son.
18 And Leah said, God hath given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband: and she called his name Issachar.
19 And Leah conceived again, and bare Jacob the sixth son.
20 And Leah said, God hath endued me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have born him six sons: and she called his name Zebulun.
21 And afterwards she bare a daughter, and called her name Dinah.
22 And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb.
23 And she conceived, and bare a son; and said, God hath taken away my reproach:
24 and she called his name Joseph; and said, The LORD shall add to me another son.
Skip to chapter 34

16 And they journeyed from Beth-el; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour.
17 And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also.
18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin.

I almost lost track, but whew they are all summarized:

23 the sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun:
24 the sons of Rachel; Joseph, and Benjamin:
25 And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali:
26 and the sons of Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid; Gad, and Asher: these are the sons of Jacob

All that “sinning”. Jacob’s reward: look it up. Nowhere was this arrangement declared a sin, in fact this is the arrangement that the nation of Israel was founded on.

Another arrangement – you can give a servant a wife, but when he is freed, the wife and children still belong to you.

Exodus 21.

2 If thou should buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
4 If his master has given him a wife, and she has born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
5 And if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free.
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him forever.

Then there is the case of being sold as a wife by a father: Same chapter.

7 And if a man should sell his daughter to be a maidslave, she shall not go out as the menslaves do.
8 If she pleases not her master, who therefore took her not unto himself to wife, then it is permitted that she be ransomed; and he may not sell her unto a strange nation when he rejects her.
9 And if he has betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10 If he takes another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, he shall not diminish.

(verse 10 is another reference to biblical law on polygamy. If you buy a maidslave, take her as a wife, you cannot diminish her clothing, food, or conjugal rights if you take another wife)

Here are all the translations of this Ace. Who knows that you and bruce (I will henceforth refer to you as SNL version of Ace and Gary ROFL) will “re-interpret” this text too?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 21&version=JUB
If polygamy is sin:

Why in the world would there be laws governing it in the bible?

Again, your position on polygamy and consent is in error with the bible.

What else are you in error on? TBC

[Walks_in_islam]

Other "marriage arrangements" in the bible:

Multiple wives:

David’s wives:
Ahinoam of Jezreel
Abigail of Carmel
Maachah the daughter of King Talmai of Geshur
Haggith
Abital,
Eglah
Bath-shua (Bathsheba) the daughter of Ammiel

You are right, David was called out for adultery. Not for having more than one wife, but for how he obtained Bathsheba. The bible, all of it, is otherwise silent (except for noting how righteous David was). Never declared a sin. You declare it so, the bible does not.

LOL!!! I have indeed taken a very clear stand. You just don’t like it. Too bad.

Yeah, that’s really bad. Not for me. But bad. Because the bible just doesn’t agree with it.

Your clear stand on marriage is in error with the scripture. Leaving you no position, other than a vague story in Ezekiel (which you do not accept for criteria of marriage) and a discussion on divorce by Jesus, which has nothing to do with marriage or requirements for marriage at all.

Okay so you wanted me to source something, again, when in fact you already knew and believed this? Just arguing for arguments sake to try to avoid the fundamental fact that Muhammad was a pervert I guess. Sorry to hear you did not finish high school. You can get a GED which could help you with employment some time down the road or perhaps a promotion where you currently work.

Do you really think so? WOW thanks how helpful you are

BTW reading what I wrote comes across sharply (yes insultingly). I apologize for that. I am trying to not be so caustic.

I'm actually not sorry for telling you to stick it when you are.

The truth is that your declaration of sins within the context of what the bible teaches is pathetic. So are your giggling little insults. No worries from my side.

Pedophilia has nothing to do with him staying married to her until he died. That is absurd logic. Perhaps you feel more at home if I used the term “radical”? Additionally, when the term was developed is just another obfuscation. The term is descriptive of an act.
Who are mature” was not added. It is clear from the text and the context. In other words it’s understood from the Lexical-syntactical analysis as well as the Contextual analysis. I will break this down a little for you.

On day three of creation God created the grass and fruit tree’s etc. In other words on day three vegetation was created.
On day four God created the sun and moon.
On day five god created sea life.
On day six God created animals and humanity.

The animals and humanity would have died if these were not created in a fully mature state, all animals and humanity require food to stay alive. For humanity this would include physical and mental maturity. Adam and Eve were created to work and keep the garden. Contextually this means they had the mental acumen to do so. Therefore, from the lexical and contextual analysis the creation was created in a mature state of existence.

See, so easy to completely and fully twist a passage into meaning anything I want it to mean a cave man can do it.

Missing: Marriage age. Definition of marriageability. But we will get to that. After all, you already said it is missing and requires “ministry” to define it. Though you brushed off the ministry in place at the time of Jesus you will read about it until this reaches a thousand pages.

Implying I “added” to the text. Which of course is wrong. An examination of the text both lexically – syntactically along with the context reveals the veracity of what I said. In fact it is you that ignore these hermeneutical principles. Apparently from a position of ignorance (used in its pure sense and not as a pejorative, ignorance in this sense has no bearing on intelligence as we are all ignorant of something).

You can use all of the syllables you want to use and you can hold on desperately to this silly comparison all you want to (since that’s all you have). “Who are mature” is not in a single passage in your bible in reference to marriage. That is a fact. Since they are not, and you say it, then you added it. Period. Was I “implying”? I am sorry let me clarify. I do not wish to be obtuse. If you teach that the bible says this in this passage then you are lying. Now I can't be accused of "implying" there can I?

Now back to the point. You whine about me adding to the text, even when I didn’t, yet here you are doing the very same thing and this time it’s true – you added to the text. Please demonstrate where Jesus referred to Shimmai… Guess what you can’t. What was the reference Jesus made? Let’s look shall we?

Hillel and Shammai were two leading sages of the last 1st century BCE and the early 1st century CE who founded opposing schools of Jewish thought, known as the House of Hillel and House of Shammai. The debate between these schools on matters of ritual practice, ethics, and theology was critical for the shaping of the Oral Law and Judaism as it is today.

Despite the many disputes that later developed between their respective Houses, only five differences are recorded between Hillel and Shammai themselves.

Admission to Torah study. The House of Shammai believed only worthy students should be admitted to study Torah. The House of Hillel believed that Torah may be taught to anyone, in the expectation that they will repent and become worthy.[5]
White lies. Whether one should tell an ugly bride that she is beautiful. Shammai said it was wrong to lie, and Hillel said that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day.[6]
Divorce. The House of Shammai held that a man may only divorce his wife for a serious transgression, but the House of Hillel allowed divorce for even trivial offenses, such as burning a meal.[7]
Hanukkah. The House of Shammai held that on the first night eight lights should be lit, and then they should decrease on each successive night, ending with one on the last night; while the House of Hillel held that one should start with one light and increase the number on each night, ending with eight.

If you do not have a single text that translates to “who are mature” in reference to marriage in the bible then you added it. Your whining (on and on and on and on) about how a creation story setting up a ruling on divorce somehow means that when it says that is as pathetic as your declaration of polygamy as sin. At LEAST (with all of my faults and flaws that you cheerfully point out) I provided chapter, verse, and context (Specific words. Not parables, not record skips from point to point, not vague assumptions that one thing MUST mean something else but actual laws) that directly contradict your points.

(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.

Have you not read that he that made them at the beginning…
Let’s stop here for a second. Who made who in the beginning? Answer - God.
What God has joined together…
Who joined them together? Answer - God.
This would be a fantastic score of argumentative points if we were talking about divorce.

Not once do I see Shammai’s name. However, it’s so clear that Jesus referred to God’s created order and Shammai remains conspicuously absent. That dog don’t hunt, as they say in the south.

Your premise is flawed and everything you build upon a flawed premise comes crashing down like a building with no foundation.
See what I mean about the house without a foundation analogy? This is a classic example of the fallacy known as a “false dichotomy”. You assume there can only be two choices, that of Hillel and Shimmai. This premise is wrong. Jesus pointed the Pharisees back to the word of God just like He did with the Devil. In the text it is clear about the created order and who the ultimate authority is, God and His word. I hear the sound of a mighty crash as the “argument” comes crashing down upon itself in a mighty roar! LOL!

You know, I believe I hear it too. The crashing started with all of that law about polygamy, examples of different types of biblical marriage, compared with your definition that “biblical marriage is between one man and one woman”.
I know that there were two schools of belief in practice from 1st century BC to 1st century AD.
I know that the two Rabbis who led those schools were Bet Shammai and Bet Hilal and that they were the two leading Rabbis during the reign of King Herod.
I know that they were deeply divided on divorce. It was one of only 5 issues that they were in disagreement on.
I know that Bet Shammai taught that the only grounds for divorce were sexual impropriety.
I know that Bet Hilal taught that anything could be defined as uncleanness, providing grounds for divorce.
Which do you think is true? That the Pharisees randomly asked this question? (OR) They wanted Jesus’ opinion about one of five issues that teachings at the time were in conflict?

Are you copying and pasting from an Islamic apologist website again? The one where they contradict themselves indicating they have no idea what they’re talking about…Yeah.

Yep, The Talmud is an Islamic apologist website. I’m exposed. Good work!

I provided the link to the written law, didn’t you read it? You DID comprehend it right?

[Walks_in_islam]

I told you earlier I don’t care what Rashi said and do not accept the Talmud, ancient cultures, or human government laws as being morally equivalent to the Bible. Those things are only “right” inasmuch as they line up with the Bible. Your logic or the logic of the Islamic apologists is full of false dichotomies, straw men and other fallacious “arguments”.

I’m sorry. Did you say that those teachings by those Rabbis do not line up with the bible? As I did, please provide specific chapter and verse which demonstrates that conflict. Otherwise, I’m sticking with the 5 different versions of directives given by Jesus to follow them. I know this: The bible sure conflicts with the fertilizer (what would that be called in the South Ace? LOL) you’re spreading in this thread.

In the passage where Jesus dealt with the Pharisees on marriage and divorce it’s clear that divorce was allowed by Moses because of their hard hearts. Jesus was clear that no man should put asunder what God has joined together; thereby, invalidating your pet ancient Jewish law on marriage and divorce. Jesus used the created order of God as the authority for His declaration. As we have seen that includes a monogamous relationship between one mature man and one mature woman.

Except that original the law allows for divorce, was unclear on grounds, and Jesus clearly defined the grounds. Means, unlike what you just said, divorce is STILL allowed and uncleanness is defined.

What we have seen is that mature is added and one is added. Otherwise, what you just said is in conflict with the ancient law that IS in the bible concerning treatment of second wives, under two different sets of circumstances and in two different locations. What’s a jot here and a tittle there? Go find “one mature” or shut up about it already. Your creation story doesn’t even get up and leave the kennel, much less hunt. But it is a very good example of where Jesus clarified what “uncleanness” is in the ancient jewish law on divorce.

Still trying to build a false moral equivalency. LOL!!! Here’s a hint. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid of the Islamic apologists. “Breaking News” David, Israel’s King, committed adultery. That also predated Jesus. Guess what. That was a sin too!

Taking another man’s wife is in the same book of laws that outline how second wives should be treated. I know it was a sin. Missing in all texts and all books is even a single comment of the other 6 wives, because he properly and legally married them. He paid dearly for number 7.

This post is an example of a Non Sequitur! Just because something predates something else does not mean it is right or that it caused something else. Also, just because Hillel or Shammai had “schools” does not mean they are right. As pointed out Jesus set the standard with: “what does God say”…

What indeed. Lemme see.
God say if a father sells his daughter as a maidservant and the owner takes her for a wife, and then takes another wife, she is not released as men are and he cannot deny her conjugal marriage rights.
God say if you like a captive, and take her home, after 30 days you can make her be your wife
God say if you have two wives, and dislike one, you cannot deny the children of the one you dislike their inheritance
God say if a man grabs hold and forces a virgin to have sex, he MUST pay her father damages and stay married to her as long as he lives
God say “I will bless your seed, all 12 of them” even if they were seeded from a pair of wives and a pair of handmaids that belong to those wives
God say nothing about 6 wives taken legally, but has a LOT to say about a 7th taken from another man
God say if a husband die, the wife belong to the brother, no matter his marital status. In fact, god say if you deliberately deny that wife children, He will execute you, as exampled in Genesis 38
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...30&version=ESV

LOL! Another “insult”! LOL!!!

Here we have yet another in the long list of fallacious “arguments”. Here it’s implied that no one could be a “pedophile” because that descriptive term had not yet come into existence. Therefore, the logic implies that the descriptive term is the root cause of the actions which of course is absurd. However, I have come to expect these absurd forms of logic from muslim apologists.

No, I directly stated that there was no sin in this case. It was not a sin, was never defined as sin, no justification to define it as sin can be found in the bible nor can it be found in early church teaching nor can it be found in any Jewish teaching. The ONLY justification that you have is adding “mature” to two or three random passages, one of which has nothing to do with marriage at all.
I then followed up with the teaching that was in place exactly when Jesus was on the earth and pointed out that Jesus did not mention, speak of, or reference this teaching in all of his ministry. With that said, there is no apology owed or due.
Now you may return to twisting the creation analogy and pretending “obey their teaching but do not follow their actions” REALLY means “they have their place but don’t obey them” with a translation not to be found on the entire list of translations of that passage, which I provided you with a clever little link.
TBC

[Walks_in_islam]

The Mishnah is part of the Talmud. So once again we see:
1) A false moral equivalency. The Talmud is not the Bible.
2) The fallacious argument of arguing from authority. Since the Jews accept it as an authority it must be right – which is actually wrong. The Talmud is only right inasmuch as it agrees with the Bible. There are many scientific authorities that declare evolution is right yet, that does not make evolution true. It doesn’t matter if the entire world rejects the Bible. It’s still true.

Not what you originally said - Ace. You said that not every sin was listed in the bible. Listing them would take volumes. So it was left to the ministry to fill in the blanks. The oral law in place at the time of Jesus reflects those filled in blanks. The religious Rabbis were the ones tasked to do it. Their names and the times they lived are not secret. Their rulings are preserved. You do not agree? That’s sort of tough schtick for you Ace. If you cannot find a place where Jesus (or God) over-ruled them, then they are what they are. I know that in the case of divorce Jesus overturned the teaching of one side and affirmed the other. There is nothing in their rulings on marriage, marriage age, or what constitutes marriage discussed by Jesus.

BTW you do know what the Mishnah is right?
The Mishnah
In the second century [A.D.], Rabbi Judah the Patriarch published a document in six primary sections, or orders, dealing with agriculture, sacred times, women and personal status, damages, holy things, and purity laws. By carefully laying out different opinions concerning Jewish law, the Mishnah presents itself more as a case book of law.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/text...lmud_101.shtml

As a book of “law” there are regulations. In the case of “niddah”, observe:
“[page xxvii] The Tractate Niddah, which comes seventh in the Mishnah editions of the Order of Tohoroth, is placed first in the editions of the Talmud, since it is the only Tractate in this order which consists of Gemara as well as Mishnah.

The term niddah is applied in Biblical and Rabbinical literature to a woman in menstruation who, by reason of her uncleanness, is subject to certain restrictions during her periods and for a varying number of days subsequently.

The origin of these regulations is Lev. XV, 19ff, which prescribe some general rules concerning niddah and zibah (v. Glos.). These enactments have been expounded and amplified in accordance with Rabbinical methods of interpretation and tradition, and have been made still more onerous by the strict customs adopted by Jewish women themselves.

The following is a brief summary of the ten chapters of this Tractate:
…
CHAPTERS VIII — X indicate the tests to be applied to decide whether a stain is that of menstrual blood or of some other matter; describe the symptoms of the approach of the menstrual period; and deal finally with the condition of uncleanness of the corpse of a menstruant.”
http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_0.html#intro

The purpose of this tract is to determine whether a stain is that of menstrual blood. To read this as a “history book” is to take it out of context.

You know, I actually mentioned this in one little paragraph when I mentioned that this is what the two schools taught about marriage and age of marriage in reference to first intercourse and menstration.

The problem with the Islamic apologist’s polemic is that it ignores the context it was written in. Poetry is poetry and should be understood as such. Because the Islamic apologist ignores the context of how the Mishna/Talmud was written, he jumps to the conclusion that everything in this is to be considered an acceptable practice. That’s not the case. For example, the Bible is clear that drunkenness is evil yet the Talmud states:
The following quote is from the Babylonian Talmud - Tract Erubin:
“Said R. Gamaliel to his companions: "Have we drunk a quarter of a lug of Italian wine?" and they answered: "Yea, we did." "Then," quoth R. Gamaliel, "let us walk on, the man following us until the effects of the wine wear off," and they walked on for three miles. When they came to the steps leading up to the city of Tyre, R. Gamaliel dismounted, wrapped himself in a robe, sat down and nullified the man's vow, and from these actions we have learned many things; namely: "A quarter of a lug of Italian wine inebriates a man; when a man is inebriated, he must not decide any legal questions; a walk neutralizes the effects of wine…”
New Edition Of The Babylonian Talmud, Michael L. Rodkinson, Book 2, Volume III, Tract Erubin, Chapter VI, P 151 The Talmud Society [1918]

The point here is not the rightness or the wrongness of drunkenness. It is about making legal decisions. So the example posted does not mean a prepubescent marriage is acceptable. It’s a legal hypothetical on how to deal with various “niddah” issues.

In your hypothetical caveman corn-pone dreams (laughing). It was pretty dumb of you not to at least check out the “double jeopardy” questions. There is case law on all aspects of pre-pubescent marriage. Example: The law on birth control spells out that birth control can only be used by 11 year olds (for their health) and forbids that birth control be used under the age of 11 or over the age of 12. Then in the reference it gives a specific case where OOPS a named 7-yr-old gave birth (Justinia the daughter of 'Aseverus son of Antonius). Summary: I did not think it possible but your “legal hypothetical” theory has achieved a whole new category of stupid. There are actual cases in these books. Cases and names sort of trump you pretending that this was not normal law and normal Jewish life at the time of Jesus and Jesus said nothing about it.


Now let me be clear, so I am not taken out of context again, that this is irrelevant to the discussion because they are not morally equivalent. The point is that the Islamic apologist that you have once again received information from does not understand what he has or how to understand it.

I believe it is morally equivalent. Your silly twist of the creation story however in the context of defining marriage is one level above your theory that just because Jewish case law at the time of Jesus does not match your little box it must be "theoretical". That's really hilarious. I mean REALLY hilarious.

You may justify your prophet anyway you like but he still died in his sins. This may help you sleep at night but it’s still wrong. Do yourself a favor and stop drinking the Kool-Aid of the Islamic apologists. Their “arguments” have about as much substance as a vacuum.
Here we go again. The house with no foundation. Jesus did not affirm Shammai. He affirmed the creative order and the word of God. As shown above the created order is that of a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman that are both fully mature.

From original law:
24 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and ehe writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house
Jesus defined “indecency” as:
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
This is what Bet Shammai, at the time of Jesus, taught.

And you know this how? Rashi? A crystal ball?

It's clearly written down. So easy a corn-pone can't find it. LOL


Seriously - I sent you the link to the Jewish law along with the rulings of (both) Rabbis at the time. Ignore it or not. The answer to your question is that I know it because I read it.

We have been through this. You must be confusing the God of the Bible with the god of islam. Prepubescent marriage is inherent to islam not Christianity or the God of the Bible. Your “evidence” is found in that same vacuum with the arguments of the other Islamic apologists. You have miserably failed to demonstrate from the Biblical text your assertion. Whether or not Jews did this or not is irrelevant. If they did they sinned. Please note the conditional word “if” in the preceding sentence. Just trying to help you keep from jumping to conclusions. It’s clear from the created order, referenced by Jesus, that God intends marriage to be an unbroken relationship between man and woman. There. Fixed. This is what Jesus said. The passage YOU brought up confirmed this. Thank you.

Oh my! LOL! Another “insult”… LOL!!! Do you mean looking foolish like jumping to conclusions about what someone says then finding out later it was a quote from an Islamic apologist? The same one you appear to get your information from? LOL!!!

Not as foolish as attributing the words of the referenced sources to Islamic apologists.

Biblical standards don’t change. That’s why Jesus referenced the Biblical standard of the created order when dealing with the Pharisees of His day.

Which is why I referenced original law and examples of many types of “marital arrangements” from the bible. To define these as sin someone like yourself needs to add things like “one” and “mature” and “consent” which are not there.

TBC. I'm just getting started LOL

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

All three sources state that it is not OK to force a virgin to marry if she expresses that she does not wish to.

You are right about the fundamentalist. It is difficult to determine how the law can be twisted and violated so badly and what the justification behind such a case (referring to the young lady in the video) can be.

You have a misconception however about Muslim countries. I cannot say I know of anyone who has married a young girl or expouses violence or justifies violence in the name of Islam. I have lived overseas in Saudi 4 years now. My wife and her family are Indonesian and we spend quite a bit of time there. Most of my Muslim friends and colleagues are just like me.

Your christian peers here I believe, would agree.