Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sulaima

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. I forgot at "not". It should have been: Leaders of the free world do not have to be Christian (but I guess you knew this already) There are many kinds of Christians, just like there are many kinds of Muslims. There is not consensus how to interpret the Bible, similar with the Quran. So who can tell for sure how a Christian or an Muslim should behave for not being hypocratic? There are many things bad in democrasies. But so far people generally have a far better life than under communism or religious tyrany. Democrasies are full of innovative people. If they believe in the Quran, Bible or Buddha is their on buissness.
  2. In a modern state women are equal with men. So if their husband dies they don’t have to become prostitutes or criminals. Because man and woman have equal rights, women are no more prepared to accept their spouse to have more than one partner, than are men. The should be no secret police to check if you are doing forbidden things in bed at night or if you have forbidden wievs in a civilised state. You have to go further back than only a few decades to find the Othman empire. It was once a strong totalitarian nation, but when the free world arose in Europe, it was no longer competitive. Leaders of the free world do have to be Christian, so there is nothing hypocritical if they do not behave according to the Bible. I am not familiar with www.muslimwakeup.com, and I am not a muslim.
  3. There are not enough fertile women for every man to have one of his own, so polygamy is not a good idea for men as well as for women. Beside, civilised nations do not allow marriages with minors, and women in underdeveloped countries are also fertile under a shorter period than men. That’s the way to count! In the free world, who you sleep with at night is thank heaven a private matter. Prostitution is global, and allowing men to have more than one wife will result in many lonely men, increasing the problem. If you prefer to live in a Muslim totalitarian state, it is your choise. But I am certain most muslims prefer to live in a free developed country. When they cant get it at home, many of them try to escape to the west. I only know about hell on earth, and this we find in totalitarian countries like Iran, North Corea and Afghanistan.
  4. Not all men in 7th century had 11 wives. Muhammad was a person of influence, but people of influence are also human beings of flesh and blood, like you and me. In a tribal society, a big family was useful to stay in control, and many wives was a practical way to obtain a big family. Of course 7th century justice can not be expected to have 21-century standard. Polygamy is not compatible with modern civilisation, something nobody could know 1400 years ago. There are still nations where tribes are important, but they will also become civilised one day, and their women will become emancipated.
  5. Which would mean that Muhammads true love was his first, and when she died he found 11 wives that he didnt love as much as his first? Kings and rich men normally had many wives and slaves to demonstrate their position. Muhammad did what was normal. But don’t tell me that of all 11 wives, he didn’t love one more than another. And it is not credible that he fell in love with a girl that still played with children tools. If I remember correct, Aisha testifies she was only 8 or 9. It sounds like a political marriage to me. It is not a coincidence that some of his chosen wives were daughters of influential Muslims either. The habit with many wives we find in underdeveloped nations. In modern nations we are man and wife. And they can still be Muslims. Not from the 7th century, but modern ones.
  6. Men have been the main victims of wars, true. And therefore there was a need for society to allow more than one wife. But not in all cultures. In nations like USA and Europe, there are more men than females under age 35. (but above age 60 there are more ladies than men because females live longer). Having more than one wife in countries where there are not enough women for all men to marry is not sympathetic. Of course Muhammad suggested laws that would fit his society, but how many nations today have got more young women than young men? Maybe in Afghanistan, but not in the developed world. And happily death penalty for "odd sexual habits" will not be tolerated in civilised modern democrasies. Let us hope that muslim countries soon will have peace. With a natural balance between the sexes, there will be no need for anyone to have more than one wife.
  7. In the 7th century, when Mohammad lived, there were probably more females than males. Today there are more young men than young girls, so the question today logically would be if you would like to marry someone that already has got a husband!! This way things would add up in our 21th century. But if your friend and his two girls want to live together, why bother. Or likewise; if a woman has two men. However they are in great minority. Most modern men dont want to share a woman with another man. Modern women are no different from modern men in this aspect. Naturally we can not expect Muhammad to be "modern", so him having (or rather allowing himself to have more than) 4 wives, applied to a society 13 centuries ago.
  8. The "Outraged Muslim World"

    No there is no reason for such outrage. That some muslims overreacted was probably because they had not read the popes speach, or that they simply wish to be angry. The pope naturally does not have to apologise. But he did. Here's a link to the full speach of the pope. http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474 If one wants to be outraged with the pope, why not choose the fact that the catholic church speak against the use of preservatives, well knowing that this could prevent the spreading of AIDS. This is really something that harm humans.
  9. Jesus (PBUH) was NOT crucified.

    Are there clearly two concomitant categories of inheritors? Not all Muslims seem to agree. Have a look at: http://www.islamic.org.uk/internalc.html These guys diminish all 3 categories equally with 1/24. So we have got (at least) two different Muslim expert solutions to the problem 1/3+2/3+1/8=1/1. I would not be surprised if you regard yourself as cleverer than the guys at “www.Islamic.org”. But they certainly have got a more civilized language than you, and................ .....................the way you estimate the opinion of all non-Muslims in the world familiar with Arabic, based on a few non-Muslim friends of yours down under, make me feel uncomfortable. If mathematic is not correct from the start, it is impossible to make it correct. And two different solutions concerning inheritance sharing is not good at all. But as you said; lets go back to the topic. Has someone got knowledge of documents that support Muhammands idea that Jesus was not crucified? Prefferable old ones.
  10. Jesus (PBUH) was NOT crucified.

    How does one divide 1000$ between wife, 3 daughters and 2 parents? The Quran say, if taken literally: 125+666+333. Everybody understands that because the sum exceeds 1000, this is not the method. Al Zaki informs me that it shall be 111+593+296 or 125+583+292. Can you blame me believing there must be an error somewhere? I have never heard about “most non-Muslims fluent in Arabic”. Who are they? Got a link? If they have an explanation how 111+593+296=125+583+292=125+666+333 logically can be correct, I will naturally change my opinion.
  11. Jesus (PBUH) was NOT crucified.

    I did not say that the two solutions derived from the unprecise Quranic prescription were deliberate misinterpretations. They just do not fit together, and at least one has to be wrong.
  12. Jesus (PBUH) was NOT crucified.

    Indeed I have read links to muslim pages defending the Quran. Al Zaki has also tried to explain, but he avoids the question how 2 contradicting solutions can be derived from a perfect book. If one can twist logic this way, there are no errors in the Bibe either. Just to mention a much more popular subject on SC.
  13. Jesus (PBUH) was NOT crucified.

    1/3+2/3+1/8 are known figures. They result in 2 different opinions among Muslims how to share the inheritance in this particular situation. I call this a contradiction resultng from a mathematical error. Muslims don't (can't). I am not surprised, you never dared to admit there are more men than women in USA under age 30 either.
  14. Jesus (PBUH) was NOT crucified.

    The mathematical error: You have personally given 2 different solutions how to solve the “inheritance problem”. You never explained this contradiction of yours in the thread you personally closed. I cant force you to explain, but of course I noticed you didn’t. The topic of this thread: No 1st or even 2nd century documents support the Quranic idea that Jesus was not crucified, so there are really no supporting books to attac. What is more to say than that the non-crucifixion is not historically reliable? Generally: I personally dont mind if this thread is open or not, but please notice that nobody has yet come up with an argument to support the "non-crucifixion" idea of the Quran. Probably because such a thing doesnt exist. Only option seems to be trying to prove N.T. story is unreliable. Defensive I would say.
  15. Jesus (PBUH) was NOT crucified.

    No arguments why Jesus was not crucified, only questioning the New Testament. Start a new thread if you like, and please avoid stupid personal remarks. (I do not smoke) (From your link: To arrive at his understanding, Katz insists that he must take the Qur’anic statements in the most literal sense. I agree we literally should not understand books from a time when the earth and not the sun was believed to be the center of the solar system. For this reason I opposed the statement on SC that the Quran is perfect and without errors. What is important is the message, and smaller mathematical inaccuracies does not affect this. This goes for the Bible as well. Maybe the verse was lost that said wich of the 2 subsidiary laws that is the correct? Uthman was only a human)