Fellow Human, Thank you.

StevenImeyer, you have just articulated exactly what I have been telling BOAZ, I admit, I equally deserve the criticism.

Boaz, Sufism is part of the Sunni tradition, some claim that is also part of the Shia tradition, for example, former Mufti Alhilali prides himself on his Sufi tradition.

65:4 is talking about married women, there are many married woman who never have their courses, this has nothing to do with puberty. I have personally met women who in their late teens still said that they never had their periods. There are women who have irregular periods or who may never ever in their lives have a period, the verse is talking about their period of waiting after divorce. I have searched for your so called Hadith in the three copies that I have of Sahih Bukhari, both the abridged and full versions and I could not find it. I also did an online search of the Arabic index, on islamweb.net and could not find it. I found opinions but no Hadith like the one you quoted. All I can surmise is that the USC offering is not of an authentic Hadith, that is a Hadith that was at some point found by scholars not to be a true statement of the prophet. Like I said, the verse speaks about the period of waiting after divorce and not about the age of marriage. Any talk about the age of marriage is an opinion by the person speaking and not the verse itself. There is no statement by the prophet like the one you have quoted. However, assuming there was, words in brackets are the translator’s opinion and not part of the original text.

I keep reminding you Boaz, you do not know enough about Islam to make these assertions, Nadwi and Nursi are far more highly regarded for their scholarship than Maududi and like I said, Ibn Kathir has been criticised by scholars for some of his views, both contemporary and ancient scholars, but this is not to say that all his work is discounted.

Love&best wishes

Boaz,

Here is the flaw in your argument from your own comments (& Graham Y):

You claimed that the Old Testament contains similar violent references and that the New T is peaceful, tolerant, etc..

How do you (or GrahamY) explain this:

1. Jewish or followers of Judaism believe in the OT and not the new. So how come for the last 1700 years or so the followers of the NewT (peaceful tolerant), have been persecuting and butchering the followers of the OldT (the allegedly more violent)?. I didn’t see a single historical reference where the followers of the OT(Violent teaching) transgressed on the most peaceful version. Yet history is full for the opposite.

2. While at it, shouldn't you be dedicating equal energy to criticize the OT? I mean, why do you bother so much with the Quran if you believe it’s a fake message anyway? Should the OT be more worthy of becoming your white whale Captain Ahap :-)?

And yes, I 'kind of' miss you too. We will do lunch next time I am in Melbourne.

Peace as always,

I made a grammatical mistake in the previous post, non authentic Hadith means that the prophet never said it.

There goes my two posts for today, now I cannot post again till after 5:30 PM tomorrow because of OLO's 24 hour two posts policy.

I will revisit something I said before, Islam means peace and wilful submission to God. This is reflected in our declaration of faith which states in Arabic: I bear witness that there is no god except Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the (final) messenger of Allah.

To bear witness is to give evidence and you can only do that out of a conviction of its truth, so by necessity this witness can only be wilful and cannot be through compulsion.

Muslims do not turn our backs on Christ, we love Christ, we also love all the biblical men and women of God. There is a statement of the prophet which roughly translates as: People are all dependent on (some translate it as family or children of) God, the best in the sight of God is the one who is best to His (that is, God’s) dependents.

In that sense, Islam teaches me that in order to be a good Muslim, I have to be good to all of God’s creation, a Christian may say, all of “God’s children”, these semantics should not confuse us.

As I bear witness that Muhammad is the final messenger of God, I also bear witness that Christ, Moses, Abraham, Noah and a myriad of biblical figures were also messengers or prophets of God. Some Muslim scholars, having studied the lives of Buddha and Hindu greats who preceded Muhammad also believe that these were great men of God, even though they are not mentioned by name in Muslim scriptures. Not being mentioned by name does not negate their mission or their status.

I repeat other words of the prophet Muhammad peace and blessings upon him: None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.

With my love and best wishes

Keysar,

thanks for the informative article.
Most importantly I appreciate your patience in moderating your own thread on a wide spectrum of questions raised.

Boaz,

"We started intearcting on OLO May 05.
Looking at the thread is like reliving our last 3 years of discussions. I have to say I am surprised that years later many of us developed new learnings about each other while you are still at the point you started.

I feel sorry for you isolating urself. Seems in your belief system you can't survive and be happy without an imaginary enemy.

Peace,"
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 11:11:04 PM
__________________________________

Thank-you so very much for this Fellow_Human.

What gives it such value is that I know you two have met.
I know that you appear here intermittently.
THUS;- it gives your observation more depth and credence.

THAT is why I thank you.

It has not as you can see, made one bit of difference.

KTrad: your description of dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) and dar al-harb (House of War) is an attempt to water down an expansionist doctrine of war. As we harbis (non-submissive residents) try to process the “Islam as a peaceful religion” claim against the facts of Islamic terrorist acts and the woeful state of the dar al-Islam countries, the white anting of our democracy is in an advanced state.

We need to ignore the well documented facts of history and the institutionalized process of the normative religious obligation for Muslims to carry out the military conquest of dar al-harb countries.

In the west, the majority of the Muslim community might be at peace with the rest of the host country, however jihad fighters are waging war on non-Muslims. This is an immutable fixture of Islam and continues until dar al-Islam is established globally.

Your platitudes about the third category, a truce or a treaty state, are included above to puzzle those who are inclined to give Islam the “benefit of the doubt”. Such a state (dar ul-Ahd) can only be negotiated for a maximum of 10 years, although it will be rescinded when the Muslim offensive sees an advantage to conquer outright.

Within these three states, peace is excluded. So even if Australian Muslims wish to preserve our nationhood, the rest of the Muslim world will not rest until Australia is subdued into dar al-Islam. Denying this is denying Qu’ranic teaching, Islamic traditions, history and current events.

By your misleading definition of dar al-harb, please provide examples of countries where Muslims are being persecuted which would be thus categorized, and show how those countries differ to Australia.

For the west, it is dar al-Islam countries, where Christian, Jewish and members of minority religions are persecuted relentlessly, which are the threat to peaceful coexistence.

I know you sincerely believe that this struggle will result in the installation of dar aSalam (the House of Peace). Categorizing nations into “for” or “against” Islam, is not the language of love. It is a declaration of war. The spiritual backdrop of “peace” is an illusion.

APOLOGIES to all non_'technical' readers... this_might_hurt.

Dear Kaysar and F.H. "Ali and Khalid" :)

KT first.. mate.. I fail to see why you cannot find what comes up immediately on the link.

MuslimAccess and WitnessPioneer gets it (word for word)

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/bukhari/062.htm

(scroll to number 63)

He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Go, I have agreed to marry her to you with what you know of the Qur'an (as her Mahr)." 'And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the 'Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/062.html
(Scroll to number 63)

So.. 3 separate sources have very easily revealed the actual wording of this Hadith. (but you can't find it? then you blame USC for fudging?)

Now..according to your statement "The words in brackets are those of the translator not the original"

OK.. what is in the brackets?

"i.e. they are still immature"and
"In the above verse"

NOW..what is NOT in the brackets? "The iddat for girls before puberty is 3 months"

(Note "Iddat" is waiting period for evidence of PREGnancy)

Let me repeat that with some emphasis "BEFORE PUBERTY" (Ginx, r u following here?)

Now.. thus far it appears that this is BUKHARI's recollection, not any translators opinion. Bukhari is said to have a photographic memory and he compiled some 300,000 hadiths, of which he retained only 2000+ due to proof and evidence.

Given that this is in his work(according to the sources liste) one can only assume that because of his personal contact and interviews with those much closer to the events than you, I or any other modern commentator, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that I was correct from the beginning in my assertion.

F.H.. the reason I've not shifted from day one, is that I'm still a committed (but stumbling and imperfect) follower of Christ. Why would I shift?
The issues you raised were not relevant to the point under discussion, but you can save them for next coffee :)

Where is KACTUZ when we need him..he has the hadith also.