But not more than 4 at the same time… correct?Umar had 6 wives in total
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
But not more than 4 at the same time… correct?Umar had 6 wives in total
That's no quite the revelation, the revelation here was a sort of admonishment or reprimand of you will, but let's say yes it was.Revelations like what, exactly?
Like how his wife should be Muhammad’s 5th wife?
But not more than 4 at the same time… correct?
Okay, well Muhammad had between 5 and 9 at the same time.Correct
But they didn’t, and he did, and by the time he’s Caliph, there’s a clearly stated rule that believers can have “2 or 3 or 4” wives that he abided by.Had they converted he would have had more than 4
I’m not re-typing the entire revelation, so yes, the summation is accurate. It led to Zayd’s divorce and Muhammad’s 5th concurrent marriage.That's no quite the revelation, the revelation here was a sort of admonishment or reprimand of you will, but let's say yes it was.
No it adds context. I know you don't like it but it is what it is.Okay, well Muhammad had between 5 and 9 at the same time.
But they didn’t, and he did, and by the time he’s Caliph, there’s a clearly stated rule that believers can have “2 or 3 or 4” wives.
Again: Muhammad had between 5-9 at the same time.
I’m not re-typing the entire revelation, so yes, the summation is accurate. It led to Zayd’s divorce and Muhammad’s 5th concurrent marriage.
The rest of the story you’ve typed there is irrelevant to that point.
No, it doesn’t. It’s just distracting from the fact that Muhammad granted himself (had granted to him if you’re a believer) special dispensation to have more than 4 wives.No it adds context.
There was more than one revelation. I’m talking about multiple ones that allowed Muhammad to do what he wanted. Hence: “how convenient” that this keeps happening. It’s ‘almost’ like he was making it up as he went along.The revelation didn't lead to the divorce. The revelation I speak of came after.
Yeah… but then “god” made a rule.The point was before the fixed number there was no issue with anyone marrying more
Which is a completely specious argument to make considering my point is that Muhammad made a special rule for himself after the fact which allowed him to do what others now couldn’t do.Your point was about privilege for Muhammad. My point was it wasn't a privilege in that others prior to revelation could do so too.
Finally you admit it. Good grief. Was it that hard?Overall however some rules do apply to Prophets alone
Yeah, because it is, being generous again, very suspicious behavior.Funny how we focus on one element of "privilege"
No it adds context. As before earlier in the discussion you don't want to seem to accept something despite what's put in front of you.No, it doesn’t. It’s just distracting from the fact that Muhammad granted himself (had granted to him if you’re a believer) special dispensation to have more than 4 wives.
There was more than one revelation. I’m talking about multiple ones that allowed Muhammad to do what he wanted. Hence: “how convenient” that this keeps happening. It’s ‘almost’ like he was making it up as he went along.
Yeah… but then “god” made a rule.
Which is a completely specious argument to make considering my point is that Muhammad made a special rule for himself after the fact which allowed him to do what others now couldn’t do.
Finally you admit it. Good grief. Was it that hard?
Yeah, because it is, being generous again, very suspicious behavior.
A rule that Muhammad proclaimed to his people…Another reason was the fact that non of his wives would remarry and no Muslim would marry them as they took on the title of mother of the believers
No you're lying. 7th century sources have the leader of the Arabs proclaiming to be a prophet during the conquest of JerusalemIt's pretty well documented in a variety of sources. Muslim, non Muslim , from the time to later on.
Things like death of Muhammad was pretty much down to the day and date. If all sources agree with that then any conquests happening with him would be miraculous to say the least.
Sorry you seem to be very ignorant about your prophet and trying to deflect about what an evil person he was. He raped, enslaved, stole and commited genocide. It's all in you hadith. I imagine you avoid them at all costsOoh I see your hate spewing out. Did a muslim bully you or something to have so much trite islamophobic fantasies under your sleeve?
So long as it's good copium for you.
Not as much as you avoid going to a shrink for your unresolved hate.Sorry you seem to be very ignorant about your prophet and trying to deflect about what an evil person he was. He raped, enslaved, stole and commited genocide. It's all in you hadith. I imagine you avoid them at all costs
Muhammad died in 632. When was Jerusalem conquered?No you're lying. 7th century sources have the leader of the Arabs proclaiming to be a prophet during the conquest of Jerusalem
If only they had shrinks hundreds / thousands of years ago…
There’s definitely still more folks hearing voices than there are shrinks to help them.Think we need a few now
Do you have a view on it? It has to be at least another reference, I guess, because 634 is four years before the Jerusalem conquest.I believe he might be referring to a source named The Teaching of Jacob the Newly Baptized. It doesn't state that Muhammad conquered Jerusalem, just implies that he was present with the Arabs as the invasion of Palestine commenced.
Might as well copy the relevant parts of the text here for anyone interested - it is the earliest recorded reference (July 634) to Muhammad (though he is not actually named), dated two years after his death according to the Islamic tradition:
Justus answered and said, “Indeed you speak the truth, and this is the great salvation: to believe in Christ. For I confess to you, master Jacob, the complete truth. My brother Abraham wrote to me that a false prophet has appeared. Abraham writes, “When [Sergius] the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was in Caesarea, and I went by ship to Sykamina. And they were saying, ‘The candidatus has been killed,’ and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying, ‘A prophet has appeared, coming with the Saracens, and he is preaching the arrival of the anointed one who is to come, the Messiah.’ And when I arrived in Sykamina, I visited an old man who was learned in the Scriptures, and I said to him, ‘What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?’ And he said to me, groaning loudly, ‘He is false, for prophets do not come with a sword and a war- chariot. Truly the things set in motion today are deeds of anarchy, and I fear that somehow the first Christ that came, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God, and instead of him we will receive the Antichrist. Truly, Isaiah said that we Jews will have a deceived and hardened heart until the entire earth is destroyed. But go, master Abraham, and find out about this prophet who has appeared.’ And when I, Abraham, investigated thoroughly, I heard from those who had met him that one will find no truth in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of human blood. In fact, he says that he has the keys of paradise, which is impossible.” These things my brother Abraham has written from the East."
From this book -https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520299610/a-prophet-has-appeared
Tweet doesn't exist.
I don’t really have any original thoughts on it, I’d direct you to Shoemaker’s analysis in the book cited which gives a good overview of its context and significance. It’s available to read in full here (first chapter) -https://books.google.ie/books/about...cover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&redir_esc=yDo you have a view on it? It has to be at least another reference, I guess, because 634 is four years before the Jerusalem conquest.
It was the Bruno Mars of evangelicals offering up quite the word salad. Impossible to follow.Tweet doesn't exist.
Are you sure you posted the right tweet? Because it didn't exist basically as soon as you posted it.It was the Bruno Mars of evangelicals offering up quite the word salad. Impossible to follow.
It looks like it was deleted immediately after I posted it. I can't find it on the poster's home thread.Are you sure you posted the right tweet? Because it didn't exist basically as soon as you posted it.
They're onto you! Watch out for any lakes burning with fire and sulphur around you..It looks like it was deleted immediately after I posted it. I can't find it on the poster's home thread.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
To the idiots that hear this guy and nod in brain dead agreement: Read your own book!Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
.Jesus is a nuisance.
What is the point of discussing if the Quran allows or doesn't allow this? It is a fact that many muslim countries use religion to oppress women. Makes zero difference if a bullshit book written over one thousand years ago allows or doesn't allow it, it is full of lies anyway and should have zero relevance for our lives today.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...al-recognition-technology-hijab-law-crackdown
Iranian authorities plan to use facial recognition to enforce new hijab law
Government says it will use technology on public transport in crackdown on women’s dress
Which university?The first university in Egypt for women
Sorry I got the country wrong.Which university?
It's absolutely a good starting point to discuss the Qur'an. Then the hadith etc.
The main reason for this being that the message from, what you call, Muslim countries is being mistaken as being from the Qur'an hence the religion.
When you look at the Qur'an and what it bought for women 1400 years ago it was anything but oppressive. Rights to inheritance, rights to property, right to and education, right to divorce, vote, the right for women to keep their names instead of become Mrs Jones etc.
Countries maybe Muslim in name but aren't Islamic in character. The first university in Egypt for women was set up because of the Qur'an and Islam. The oppression started with secularism.
Well your initial point was about oppression of women by Muslim countries. I would say that the Qur'an is particularly useful to show these countries that what they do isnt acceptable by their own belief systems.But that's exactly my point. What was great and progressive 1400 ago has no relevance today. It is a pity that people try to decipher how to live their lives in 2022 based on a book written 1400 years ago, when science and technology and education were almost non-existent compared to today.
For example, it is irrelevant for our lives today that marriage between gay people was not allowed 1400 (or even 50) years ago.