Answering Christianity Research Center

I bought www.HeTube.com, which has great potential among all who use YouTube for a little over $2,000 including taxes and fees.  300K is just ridiculous.

But don't worry brothers.  I'll keep an eye on it and on other sites.  I am working on one great domain name, if it goes through, Insha'Allah.  I won't reveal now what it is.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

2k itself is ridiculous! 100 or 200 maybe but this is too much lol.

Quote from: Abdullah Almadi on August 02, 2016, 12:32:54 AM

Assalamu alaikum,

@iKnowi
 I see no contradicton between the hadith and the Quran. The verses that you mentioned only applies to the people who have a treaty with the Muslims (either by paying the Jizyah or by having a peace treaty with the Muslims) and the apostate CANNOT be a Mu'ahid. I honestly didn't expect you people to go as far as to say that the adulterer shouldn't be stoned! The prophecy is being fulfilled! The prophet (PBUH) stoned the adulterer and ALL scholars agree on that. The hadiths are from Umar (RA) and they are authentic. There is no doubt on that. Are you gonna reject what the second best man (after the prophets peace be upon them) on Earth said because of your personal emotions? The adulterer gets stoned in most religions. STOP trying to change our faith because of your emotions! What Umar (RA) said matters a LOT. So according to you, almost ALL the scholars are wrong and YOU are right!? What is so feminine about what I did? Are you kidding me? I'm sorry if I sound offensive, but I am afraid that what is happening to the Christians will happen to us. We will try to reform our religion and change because of our modern values and then we will be split into many sects. This is the religion of Allah, it is NOT a toy.

Asalamu alaykum,

Please read the following article: http://islamic-myths.com/2008/01/23/stoning-to-dead-is-against-islam/

The quran is very detailed, this can be seen by hijab rulings, inheretence percentages etc. If Allah wanted the stoning of the adulterer he would mention it in his book, surely. It is such a severe punishment and determines ones qadr... how do you know that this adulterer might not grow up to be an ardent defender/scholar of islam?

And i also encourage you to adopt a more solipsist mindset: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_solipsism

And you said "thank you for strenghening my faith in islam", this is textbook passive aggresiveness and i consider it one of the worse personality traits. Sorry if you didnt mean it that way but i dont know how else to interpret that line other than passive aggresiveness.

Finally, modern day scholarship trumps older scholarship, we are in a new computer age, we have connectedness that we never had before, it is a truly unique point in human history. Now we can commincate with eachother more easily and help eachother in deciphering this perfectly preserved text, examples include the reinterpretation of the wife beating verse 4:34 of which the translators have actually CHANGED their translation in light of modern day scholarship... And MANY others (most of which are scientific).

And if you say that Mohammed pbuh said that no one understood the Quran after me better than my sahaba (Umar, Uthman etc), what he really meant was at that specific time period, not now; did the sahaba have access to the number 19 miracle? Nope. Did they understand the verses on evolution? Nope. And so on.

May Allahs peace and blessing be on you, i do not want to attack you, only inform you. I want to end here because ive had these sorts of discussions before but they end up going nowhere, people will believe what they want to believe (most of the time, anyway).

Salaams.

 This is just pathetic with all honesty. I can no longer converse with someone who wants to change the religion of Allah because of his feelings or his modern standards. You sum your whole entire reply perfectly at the end:

"people will believe what they want to believe (most of the time, anyway)."

Let us deal with your points quickly:

 Stoning:
 
You post a link from a non-professional source claiming that stoning isn't a punishment in Islam, but he fails to address the point that ALL, yes ALL of the scholars agree on stoning as a punishment even Ibn Abass who is considered to be a companion of the prophet and the greatest scholar of all time. He was called "the sea" due to his vast knowledge. He never heard a single hadith without understanding it from the first time. The prophet prayed for him when he was young to become knowledgeable. Stoning was a punishment preformed by the prophet and his successors. Just because you post a link which makes a point, that doesn't make the point correct. To further prove that you are a person that is trying to change (or "reform") the religion and have a weak faith and knowledge, you use an argument created by the deviant sects of the "Quranists". "If it is necessary, then why didn't the Quran mention it?":

These points have been addressed over here:

https://islamqa.info/en/9067

"Every Muslim has to believe in all the hadeeths of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) – if they are saheeh (authentic) – and not reject any of them, because his hadeeths and his Sunnah (teachings) are revelation (wahy) from Allah. Whoever rejects the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has rejected revelation from Allah. "

"The one who rejects the Sunnah is a kafir and an apostate. " (I'm not declaring you as an apostate BTW)

"Those who want to restrict themselves to the Quran only are called al-Quraniyyoon. This view of theirs is an old view which the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) warned against in more than one hadeeth, as we shall see below. Among the soundest evidence that this view is false is the fact that those who say this do not really follow what they say.

How do these people pray? How many times do they pray each day and night? What are the conditions and details of zakah? What is the nisab (threshold of wealth) for paying zakah? What is the amount that must be paid? How do they do Hajj and ‘Umrah? How many times do they circumambulate the Ka’bah? How many times do they go back and forth between al-Safa and al-Marwah?

There are many other issues for which the details are not narrated in the Quran, rather they are mentioned in the Quran in general terms, and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) explained them in detail in his Sunnah.

Would these people refrain from acting upon these rulings because they are not narrated in the Quran?

If their answer is yes, then they have passed judgement against themselves that they are kafirs, because they have denied a basic principle of Islam that no Muslim has any excuse for not knowing and on which there is unanimous consensus among the Muslims. 

If they reply that they do not refrain from following these rulings, then they have demonstrated that their view is false."


Read the whole thing for full details.

The adulterer is only stoned and killed when he is married. He is lashed when he isn't though.

"And you said "thank you for strenghening my faith in islam", this is textbook passive aggresiveness and i consider it one of the worse personality traits. Sorry if you didnt mean it that way but i dont know how else to interpret that line other than passive aggresiveness."

 First you call it "feminine" for no reason and you now call it "aggressive". Out of ALL of the aggressive things in my posts you chose  this one lol. There is nothing bad with what I said. This can't get any worse, can it? Yes,sadly, it can. As we will see soon.

 Now here comes the WORST part:

"Finally, modern day scholarship trumps older scholarship, we are in a new computer age, we have connectedness that we never had before, it is a truly unique point in human history. Now we can commincate with eachother more easily and help eachother in deciphering this perfectly preserved text, examples include the reinterpretation of the wife beating verse 4:34 of which the translators have actually CHANGED their translation in light of modern day scholarship... And MANY others (most of which are scientific)."

 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!! No, older scholars are almost always better. Even our modern scholars admit that. You don't realize the fitnah which is happening today. The prophet said that Allah will not remove knowledge from brains, instead he will remove the good scholars and the people will go to the bad scholars. This is what is happening today. The prophet said that the last of this ummah are the worst ones in faith. That means that the ones before us are akmost always better than us in faith. The older scholars were more knowledgeable and had more religous resources. As for verse 4:34, no the interpretations are all the same except for Osama Abdallah's. All translations say beat them lightly. 

"And if you say that Mohammed pbuh said that no one understood the Quran after me better than my sahaba (Umar, Uthman etc), what he really meant was at that specific time period, not now; did the sahaba have access to the number 19 miracle? Nope. Did they understand the verses on evolution? Nope. And so on."

No, he meant forever. Stop trying to change the meanings of the hadith. The sahabas knew the prophet (peace be upon him) way more. As for the 19 miracle, I don't believe in this lie. It was made up by a false prophet named Rashad Khalifa who claimed to be a prophet from Allah. If you are gonna let a number decide your faith, the  you are ridiculous. As for the verses about creation, they do not contradict with the understanding of the prophet or the sahabas to the Quran. We are talking about this from a theological view point not a scientific one.


@AhmadFarooq

 Brother, I cannot read our post. It looks like this:

"Not to criticize anyone, but just to state some facts and what the scholarly difference of opinion is on the matter.
[/size][/color]R[/font][/size][/color]egarding the matter of stoning, as far as my Islamic knowledge goes, [/font][/color][/size]the article that was linked [/color][/size]has a lot of incorrect and inaccurate material included[/size][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]In the second Caliph Hadith the author is probably talking about, if I am not very much mistaken, Caliph Umar never said that the verses were "lost". Caliph Umar said those verses, although revealed, were removed from the Qur'anic text on the command of Prophet Muhammad and therefore no longer part of the Qur'an. Most scholars accept this narration while those scholars who reject abrogation of this kind might criticize the authenticity of the narration, but even they do not reject the idea that stoning was one form of punishment during the Prophet's time[/font][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]T[/font][/size][/color]here is also the problem with the Qur'an being compiled during the reign of the third Caliph, while there are narrations that indicate the author's viewpoint, there are other narrations which provide evidence that the Qur'an was already compiled in a book form during the first Caliph's reign[/font][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]A[/font][/size][/color]side from the Sahih Bukhari narration cited, as far as I know there are [/font][/size][/color]many[/size][/font][/size][/color] other narrations talking about the punishment of stoning[/font][/size][/color]. [/font][/size][/color]A[/font][/size][/color]lso, on the matter of the Hadiths books being compiled 200 years later, this is highly misleading. It is true that by 250-300 years our most reliable Hadith books [/font][/size][/color]Sahih Bukhari[/size][/font][/size][/color] and [/font][/size][/color]Sahih Muslim[/size][/font][/size][/color] get compiled but there were many other books and authors [/font][/size][/color]before[/size][/font][/size][/color] these works. From what I have read, we even have extant manuscripts of Hadith books dating about 70-90 after the Prophet's death.[/font]
[/size][/color]A[/font][/size][/color]s a person somewhat versed with the ideas of Javed Ahmad Ghamindi, I was surprised to read his name used in the article. Ghamidi is a strong believer in the Qur'an being [/font][/size][/color]Al-Furqan[/size][/font][/size][/color] (the measure or the criterion) and [/font][/size][/color]does[/size][/font][/size][/color] happen to base his judgment on other Islamic issues, laws and Hadiths by putting first what the Qur'an says on the matter. Because of this, even though, he argues against the stoning punishment being the one and only punishment for adulterers, as far as I know, he still maintains that under special circumstances it [/font][/size][/color]can[/size][/font][/size][/color] be given. He does not reject that this punishment was given by the Prophet.[/font]
[/size][/color]Ghamidi  basically argues that stoning was according to the [/font][/size][/color]Surah Maidah[/size][/font][/size][/color] punishments for the person creating corruption in the land. One of the four punishments mentioned there is a torturous death, which in 7th century Arabia was stoning. Therefore, the people who were stoned were either rapists or people who were habitual in such crimes. In any case, according to Ghamidi, stoning [/font][/size][/color]did[/size][/font][/size][/color] happen. Under normal circumstances however, the punishment for adultery according to Ghamidi's arguments is in line to what the author is basically saying, [/font][/size][/color]w[/font][/size][/color]hich is to put in simple terms, that the Qur'anic punishments are not abrogated by Hadiths[/font][/size][/color].[/font]
[/size][/color]Additionally, regarding 4:34, although if Hadith literature is not taken into account, it [/font][/size][/color]is very much possible to come to the "modern" interpretation, however, the[/font][/size][/color] conservative interpretation appears to be closer to the original meaning. Even Ghamidi, whose interpretations are very non-conservative in the cases of adultery punishment and even [/font][/size][/color]Hijab[/size][/font][/size][/color], maintains the conservative opinion in the case of 4:34.[/font]"

 I think that you were talking about that hadith from Umar. So you should read this:

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2009/08/myth-of-qurans-lost-verse-about-stoning.html




I'm sorry for the harsh language, but I cannot let a person change my religion. Especially in a time of fitnah.
 

But the real question is, was Budhism a religion of Allah? According to IslamQA it is not. And it is a reputable website, so i accept Sheikh Munajjid's opinion until further evidence is provided
Allah knows best.

 It is indeed true that Buddhism is not a religion of Allah (or was), but in the same website (IslamQA) they claim that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is in the Hindustry scriptures. And I do not deny that! This is because of 2 things:

1- In the Hindu scriptures, there are other Abrahamic figures such as Abraham (I think he is called Brahama?), Ishmael, and Issac. So it makes sense for our prophet (peace be upon him) to be in them.

2-  There was not a people without a messenger:

And for every Ummah (a community or a nation), there is a Messenger; when their Messenger comes, the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged. (Qur'ân 10:47)

And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghut (all false deities, etc. i.e., do not worship Taghut besides Allah)." Then of them were some whom Allah guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth). (Qur'ân 16:36)

 So that could mean that they took some teachings of prophets from Allah and put them in their scriptures.



 The reason to why I doubt that our prophet is in Buddhism is because the first point doesn't apply. There is no relation to the Abrahamic religions in Buddhism. The evidence for Muhammad (peace be upon him) in it is also very weak.

Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism. And they believe in incarnations of deity , gods , godess on earth.

 "Buddhism and Jainism, both religions are considered different from Hinduism due the very basic difference between the way they treat idea of God. Interestingly the basic philosophy that underlies both is Sankhya philosophy.

 Sankhya defines duality as inherent nature of things. Everything will have two opposite sides of same, look like two faces of a coin.

 When it got adopted in Hinduism in Vedas they treated everything that is manifestation of supreme brahaman as God (heard of stupid chiche called Hindus have 33 million Gods) when this system became too thick, then arrived Buddhism or Jainism (around same time, 600BC) which said nothing is God or God dies not exits, only humans who achieve real knowledge exists and they are called arihant or Buddha. Basically in other words, what current times refer to atheists is what Buddhism or Jainism were, nastik or atheistic religions.

 If you see other than this basic difference much of other things remained similar. Since the basic idea of God was opposite, both Buddhism and Jainism are not considered part of Hinduism. In fact in India, Jains are one of the minority, without any benefits obviously."

Source:

Reponse by Kapil Jain : https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Buddhism-not-considered-as-a-branch-of-Hinduism

 Anyone who believes the stuff in that website is an idiot with all honesty. If you are a Muslim and your faith got shaken from such a website then you shouldn't visit anti-Islamic sites since your faith is pretty weak in the beginning and visiting them is haram and forbidden according to the consensus of the scholars. I will give some rebuttals to 2 or 3 of their claims and then I will give you a place were you can find a rebuttal to EVERYTHING on anti-Islamic websites.

 Claim 1:

 "Muhammad was a bad man because of what happened to Banu Qurayzah"

Response:

http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2008/07/allegation-that-muhammad-brutally.html?m=1

http://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/banu_quraiza_stuff.htm

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/01/re-examining-banu-qurayzah-incident/ (recommended)


Claim 2:

 "Muhammad slaughtered women,children, and elders"

Reponse:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/did_prophet_muhammad_kill_innocents.htm

https://controversialislam.wordpress.com/killing-of-non-combatants/

Claim 3:

 " *comparison between prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Jesus (PBUH)*"

Response:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/founders_rebuttal.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/jesus_and_muhammad_compared.htm (recommended)

https://thedebateinitiative.com/2014/07/19/is-jesus-pbuh-superior-to-muhammad-pbuh-because-he-didnt-lift-a-sword/



You can find a rebuttal to almost ALL anyi-Islamic claims over here:

http://searching-islam.com

I suggest that you use the "All" option.

To further prove that they are liars, they misqoute a narration in Ibn Ishaq about the pagans of Mecca attempting to pay money for the prophet (PBUH). And they claim that this proves that the pagans of Mecca were good to the prophet. But this is false. They didn't tell us WHY they attempted to pay him. They wanted for him to leave his religion and they persecuted him a lot.

Regarding the static of terrorist attacks done by Muslims that they have:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/thereligionofpeace-com-working-to-streamline-the-american-empires-war-on-terror/

Don't visit islamophobic websites for the sake of your faith brother.



 

But did Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abu Sarh convert back to Islam?

 Yes, he did. https://islamqa.info/en/168773

But the Quran directly said that who ever changes his religion to leave him alone. There is no punishment prescribed in the Quran.

 The Quran never said to leave them alone. Where did you get this from? The verses that you brought have nothing to do with the issue. They have to do with the kuffar. The punishment for adultery isn't found in the Quran. So does that mean that we shouldn't punish the adulterer? I remember Umar ibn Al-Khattab  (may Allah be pleased with him) said that he was afraid that people will stop the punishment of stoning because it is not found in the Quran. He also said that in the end of the times there will be people who will claim to follow the Quran but reject the Sunnah. And you are an example of that  (no offense). Thanks for strengthening my faith brother.

"That is because they believed, and then they disbelieved; so their hearts were sealed over, and they do not understand." 63:3


https://islamqa.info/en/20327

This is the religion of Allah. Stop trying to change it.

I've started a new thread over in the "other religions" section

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php?topic=2185.0

 Dude no lol. I wasn't talking about the religions section on this website. But I was talking about the one on the number 7 wikipage.

Quote from: Abdullah Almadi on July 31, 2016, 09:31:12 AM

I would also like to add that the Jews also believe in 7 heavens.

That's correct, but also bears no relevance to what we are discussing here whatsoever, as neither of us are Jews.

Quote

Anyways, your theory is still absurd and pointless. The number 7 is a special number in most religions and even in the religions which predate the discovery of Jupiter.

Further proves my point that it refers to the seven heavenly bodies. The roots of all pagan religions is astrotheology.

Quote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_(number)

Link is dead, please update

Quote

Go to the religions section.

Sure, I'll start a thread there

 I don't understand what disproves my point and proves yours. Religions before the discovery of the "seven heavenly bodies" believed that the number 7 is special.

Assalamu Alaikum

Dear brother

I read your article on Apostasy in the below link. It was interesting and convincing. I have been researching for years on why Islam Executes Apostates and I have found it on this site.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm
 
But there was another article (not from this site) on Apostasy that states that Apostates should be killed. But they have given valid reasons. It is in contradictory to your article which states that Apostates should not be killed and there is absolute freedom of religion in Islam. Your article states that it was a temporary law at the time of the prophet as Islam was still growing.

So I am not sure which article is accurate. The link for the other article on Apostasy is given below.
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/05/punishment-apostasy-islam-rationale.html
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/of_course_apostates_should_be_killed

Please help me on this

Thank You

 All scholars agree that apostates should be killed. Osama's points are not valid and the hadith (Who ever changes his religion kill him) is agreed upon and authentic. The article at letmeturnthetables and Bassam Zawadi's articles are the accurate and the true ones. Killing of apostates is also found in the bible.