Answering Christianity Research Center

Let's discuss the others.  In regards to 33:52, even at the worst case scenario it doesn't qualify as an abrogation.  It is no more than an EXCEPTION and very limited to the Prophet that he can no longer marry women, when other Noble Verses allowed him and the Muslims to marry.  The reason I still insist there is no abrogation is because the Law still stands for the Muslims on whom they can marry from relatives and others.  The Noble Verse was to the Prophet, but the Law was a general one for all Muslim men on whom they can marry from their relatives and others.  The prohibition for the Prophet to marry more women came for reasons such as:

1-  The Prophet had more than four wives at the time Allah Almighty allowed polygamy but limited it to up to four wives only.

2-  The Prophet might've abused marriage and divorce and practiced Muta (temporary marriage).  This would've violated the sacredness of marriage and Allah Almighty might've punished him or limited him for that by prohibiting him from marrying and divorcing ever again.


Whatever the reason is (and I don't really care what it was), we do not have an abrogation here.  We have a limitation to the Prophet and an exceptional case that is limited to the Prophet only.  An abrogation is a Law to all Muslims abrogated by another contradicting one, which does not exist at all in the Glorious Quran.  For example, meat of swine (pig) is forbidden but then becomes allowed.  That would be a clear abrogation in this hypothetical example.

Let's talk about the other abrogations that the infidels and the ignorant from the Muslims bark on the Quran.  Watch how their lies get decimate here, insha'Allah.

Jazaka Allah Khayr,
Osama

No abrogation.  33:50 defined the women that Muslim men can marry.  Yes, the Noble Verse here was for the Prophet, but the message was for all Muslims since this deals with marriage, and whom we can marry. 

The portion about a woman giving herself to the Prophet was never abrogated if she were to be a believing harem:

"It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses. And Allah is Ever a Watcher over all things.  (The Noble Quran, 33:52)"


But again, Allah Almighty also commanded that all slavery must come to an end in the Muslims' lands.  See the Noble Verses in the previous posts.

An abrogation is when a general Law is permanently nullified by another.  This does not exist in the Glorious Quran.  Christianity's prohibition of polygamy, for example, would qualify as an abrogation in their lala world of buffoonery, even though Jesus never forbade it:

www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_problematic_hyperboles.htm

Because their religion is a religion of lies, it is filled with lies on GOD Almighty, and it has turned sinful into lawful and lawful into sinful.


If the Prophet was in a position where any further marriage became forbidden for him because he had more than four wives at the time Allah Almighty set that limit, then this is not an abrogation.  The Prophet's situation here is not a general Law for all Muslims and for all times and places.  The Law about a woman offering herself to the Prophet can still be applied for slave women.  Believing slaves owned by Muslims did exist back then.  She could still be his female harem.  But then again, one of Islam's Grand Goals is to end all slavery:

[090:012] And what will make you comprehend what the uphill road is?
[090:013] (It is) the setting free of a slave,

So one of the monumental tasks upon the Muslims is to end all forms of slavery.  Yet, the Glorious Quran also allows enslaving, buying slaves, selling slaves, having harems (female slaves).  So is this a contradiction?  No.  Is this an abrogation (90:12-13 abrogating all other verses or vise versa)?  No.  All Noble Verses concerning slaves and slavery still stand TILL THIS DAY!  All 6236 Noble Verses that make up the entire Glorious Quran still stand today and will always stand till the Day of Judgment.  We have no abrogation here.  The Muslim State and Court and people must be mindful that Allah Almighty has set high and monumental goals in the Glorious Quran.  In the interim of things, however, the slavery Noble Verses could be activated and applied due to battles that may occur or deals and/or transactions.  But the ultimate goal must be to end all forms of slavery in all Muslim lands.

As to why the Noble Verses that are limited to the Prophet exist in the Glorious Quran, this belongs to Allah Almighty.  No one can really answer this one.  I can however remind you that the Glorious Quran's Text and number of verses is STUNNINGLY miraculous:

www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links


Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Also brother, the past tense even in English can include the future.  For example, if you ask me "Do you own www.answering-christianity.com ?" or "Are you the owner of www.answering-christianity.com ?"

Technically, I can answer you something like this: "I've been since 1999".  "I've been" here doesn't stop at today and the future.  In other words, it doesn't mean that I stopped owning the website or no longer own the website.  No, on the contrary, it would mean here that I've been and I am still and will always insha'Allah be the owner of this website.  The context of "I've been" here means it is continuous.

So Allah Almighty using past tense is indeed most appropriate, because it does include the past, present and future and all infinity and all eternity.  So Kaana for Allah Almighty means that He's been and is and will always be.


Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Kaana كَانَ when used for Allah Almighty it means what I described in the previous post, because it indeed is the closest word that can give us a simple picture of His Infinity.  Allah Almighty did use YAKOON (2:117), which is present of Kaana, when the Almighty Said when He wants to create something He commands it "be and it becomes" (2:117).  Here YAKOON was used, because it has beginning and end (all shall taste death) 3:185 كل نفس ذائقة الموت .  But with Allah Almighty past tense encompasses all past and present and future.  There is nothing comparable to Allah Almighty (112:004).  Our earthly grammar does not encompass Allah Almighty.  But the use of past tense is the most appropriate.


In a nutshell, before anything and everything was Allah Almighty.  Hence the use of past tense for Allah Almighty.

Also wow you definitely hate Wstern women a lot, lol. And who was that one guy who said that, you knew him?

A guy at work.  I don't hate anyone.  I wish them all Divine Guidance from Allah Almighty.  But I definitely do not want my daughter to associate with anyone of them.  Me and my wife are in total agreement on this.  No non-Muslim female friend, and certainly no male friend at all (Muslim or none).

You will not find two who agree on which abrogates which in the Glorious Quran, and on the amount of verses that are abrogated.  Every quack barks his conjecture.  All of those who bark abrogation are either quacks or liars that fabricate lies on the Holy Quran.  There is no abrogation in the Quran.  Period.  It was a lie that was invented by infidels.

As to Prophet Muhammad forgetting Noble Verses, that is normal for a flesh and blood human being.  The Glorious Quran is made of 6236 Noble Verses.  Prophet Muhammad didn't have all of them memorized.  The preservation of the Quran was thorough and complete by the companions and family of the Prophet.  Please visit the following link to see the Glorious Quran's STUNNING Numerical and Scientific Miracles:

www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links

As to ​" اَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيْلًا , this is referring to the women (lesbians or not) who commit lewdness.  Lewdness includes adultery.  It is broader.  Here if they repent (not go back to it again after being found guilty and convicted), then they are to be set free ​" اَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيْلًا .  Otherwise, they are to be locked up till death comes upon them.  Visit:

www.answering-christianity.com/homosexuals.htm


Again, there is no abrogation.  The adultery punishment is specific between a man and a woman, and it is limited to SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.  Otherwise it would be LAMAM (like kissing and touching before actual sex), which is a lesser crime than ZINA (sexual intercourse).  This LAMAM falls under lewdness.  In a nutshell, there are levels and degrees to sexual sinning.  They're not all the same.



Women's Temptations and Corruption:

I personally believe that Allah Almighty has placed this Law of locking them up till death if they're caught again is to prevent women from prostituting and spreading evil in the lands.  Women are forbidden from dressing sexy and showing off their curves and temptations.  Islam stops them at their tracks from defiling the land with their filth.  A woman is expected to be pious, chaste and the pinnacle of chastity and modesty.  Prostitutes and filthy temptations have no place in Muslim society.

Most Western women and men have great respect towards Muslim women, who dress modest and are chaste.  A woman in the West is nothing but a walking vagina, breasts and butt.  Like one guy once said, put a pillow on her face and "f her"; meaning who gives a two cents rats ass about how she feels and what she has to say.

A Muslim woman is truly dignified and is treated with best dignity and respect, and she is the best woman to produce and raise societies, especially in raising daughters.  Non-Muslim women are treated like harlots, and are viewed as harlots, which are (again) nothing but walking sexual objects to test drive.  The overwhelming majority of them have been test driven by many men, each.  Such quality is garbage.


Take care,
Osama Abdallah