The absurdity of Allah's 99 names

[Queequeg]

What exactly is your point? I don't think superiority complexes are a religious side effect.

My point is in objection to your statement that atheist are concerned with gods actions, they aren't their objection is concerned with religious peoples beliefs regarding gods actions. What you was claiming was a strawman.

Believing in God is not the same as believing you are wearing glasses. I'm not sure why you're bringing up the same argument above over and over again.

One is dependant on metaphysical factors while the other is not.

Marshmallow world = metaphysical
God = metaphysical
Glasses = physical

See the difference?

Special pleading again? The only difference between metaphysical statements and physical statements is that a physical statement can in principle actually be verified, metaphysical statements can not which further goes to discredit the belief in them.

But lets assume its impossible for you to verify if I am wearing glasses, perhaps the glasses I am wearing a metaphysical in nature, they exist in some other glasses dimension that mirrors our own. So do you believe that I am wearing said metaphysical glasses?

PS it absolutely relevant because it establishing your position regarding knowledge.

PS why do you call me squiggles?

[Queequeg]

the very bad thing your religion wants to kill him for right? the same religion where allah is supposedly "loving", the religion of peace lol

In fact its the worst kind of thought possible, because such people are incapable of ever being wrong and of ever adopting new information. The basis of thought goes religion X is correct, all other or contradictory information is wrong. Therefore the that mentally can never be challenged, its absolute and those outside its grace at peril.

[MuzzieChik786]

My point is in objection to your statement that atheist are concerned with gods actions, they aren't their objection is concerned with religious peoples beliefs regarding gods actions. What you was claiming was a strawman.

Uh huh. And in the very next post I said that might not be true. I'm not sure, I'm not athiest. Maybe TallGuy can shed some light for us. Do Athiests believe in meditation? Do they practice morality? Do they believe in marriage? Many of these stem from religious belief.

Special pleading again? The only difference between metaphysical statements and physical statements is that a physical statement can in principle actually be verified, metaphysical statements can not which further goes to discredit the belief in them.

But lets assume its impossible for you to verify if I am wearing glasses, perhaps the glasses I am wearing a metaphysical in nature, they exist in some other glasses dimension that mirrors our own. So do you believe that I am wearing said metaphysical glasses?

PS it absolutely relevant because it establishing your position regarding knowledge.

If you're wearing glasses that are metaphysical in nature and tell me about them, it's really up to me whether I believe you or not. The criteria I would use to judge the validity of that statement can range from your character, our history, whether there's more than one person wearing those glasses etc.

So tell me again what we're debating here?

The basis of thought goes religion X is correct, all other or contradictory information is wrong. Therefore the that mentally can never be challenged, its absolute and those outside its grace at peril.

Wrong again. Where have I said I'm right, my belief is right and you're wrong? My religion states that those who do not believe in the Oneness of God are committing a grave sin for which they will be punished by GOD in the hereafter. I choose to prescribe to the religion knowing this is the case. Personal preference to believe.

[Queequeg]

If you're wearing glasses that are metaphysical in nature and tell me about them, it's really up to me whether I believe you or not. The criteria I would use to judge the validity of that statement can range from your character, our history, whether there's more than one person wearing those glasses etc.

So tell me again what we're debating here?

The epistemic basis for belief.

Wrong again. Where have I said I'm right, my belief is right and you're wrong? My religion states that those who do not believe in the Oneness of God are committing a grave sin for which they will be punished by GOD in the hereafter. I choose to prescribe to the religion knowing this is the case. Personal preference to believe.

I was not specifically referencing you.

[Queequeg]

Do Athiests believe in meditation? Do they practice morality? Do they believe in marriage? Many of these stem from religious belief.

Ethics does not stem exclusively from religion. Both the Chinese and Greek teachings on the morality of philosophy pre-date religions grasp of morality. Hinduism is as much a religion as it was a philosophy. Mediation has been practice by non religious and atheist groups before religion, in China's case 2000 years before Christ.

[MuzzieChik786]

The epistemic basis for belief.

I was not specifically referencing you.

No, you were just pegging all believers into one gelatinous group like most other R/P posters. Here's the thing with believers. Everyone believes for a different reason. I see God when the flowers bloom. Someone else might think "friggin' crazy arse girl." I really don't care what people think. To each their own.

I don't believe people should punish other people for anything on this Earth (other than what laws dictate as punishable offenses). Each country has their set of rules. ALL law is derived, to a certain degree, from religion. Whatever cannot and is not being punished by the law (lying, cheating, adultery, fornication, etc.) will be punished by God. It works for me. End of.

This is my last post on this thread. Always nice chattin' with you Squiggles.

[makavelli1988]

No, you were just pegging all believers into one gelatinous group like most other R/P posters. Here's the thing with believers. Everyone believes for a different reason. I see God when the flowers bloom. Someone else might think "friggin' crazy arse girl." I really don't care what people think. To each their own.

I don't believe people should punish other people for anything on this Earth (other than what laws dictate as punishable offenses). Each country has their set of rules. ALL law is derived, to a certain degree, from religion. Whatever cannot and is not being punished by the law (lying, cheating, adultery, fornication, etc.) will be punished by God. It works for me. End of.

This is my last post on this thread. Always nice chattin' with you Squiggles.

I have read a few of your posts and it appears you have a reasonably critical mind yet whenever challenged to direct your critical skills, you leave or run from the debate. This act of cowardice betrays your own inner struggle regarding the truth of the deen/Islam.

It also appears you are selective in parts of Islam you follow. Particularly interesting was your argument regarding the hijab and reinterpreting the generally accepted classical interpretation to a more modern and reformist interpretation advocating garments be 'loose' and not revealing rather than a ruling on covering the hair.

As with many Western-educated Muslims, what generally tends to happen is a reinterpretation of the ancient outdated and non-defensible aspects of Islam to a more acceptable (in their eyes) interpretation tinged/influenced by Western liberal values.

I challenge you to defend the following authentic hadiths on the position of women in Islam. Please also do not do me the dishonour of waving me away as some sort of 'Islamophobe' or slanderer of Islam. I have used what is a well regarded scholarly link but can provide many more should you doubt their authenticity.

Finally, please do not bore me with some modern day scholar's laughable re-imagining of the meaning behind these hadiths as I am more interested in your honest opinion as a well educated and seemingly very proud woman. I am more than well versed on the apologists response to the below as I too used to regurgitate the exact same defense.

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri
The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."
Sahih Bukhari 3:48:826 http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religiou...hp#003.048.826

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."
Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301 http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religiou...hp#001.006.301

EDIT: I just want to elaborate on the nonsensical logic used within the above. God is the reason women menstruate yet it is now being used as a reason for their deficiency in Religion. Some just God this is.

Finally, God/Muhammed has stipulated a woman's witness statement is half that of a male yet this is now evidence of a woman's intellectual inferiority. The circular logic is enough to keep you dizzy for years.

[lasher]

The answer to the second one is that for some reason there will be waaaay more women on earth then men in the future, so obv more will be in hell.

[perrierAX]

^^

Context?

Lol.

[Tamorlane]

Here are a few of the many epithets that appear in the suttas in reference to the Buddha.

All-seeing: Iti 112
Awakened one (buddho): AN 11.12
Best of those who can be tamed: Iti 112
Blessed one (bhagava): AN 11.12
Brahma: MN 18
Bull among men: Sn 3.11
Bull among seers: Sn 3.11
Bull of the Sakyan clan: Sn 3.11
Caravan leader: Iti 84
Conqueror of beasts: Sn 3.11
Consummate in knowledge & conduct (vijja-carana-sampanno): AN 11.12
Dhamma: MN 18
Dispeller of darkness: Iti 38
Elucidator of meaning: MN 18
Endowed with all the foremost marks: Snp III.1
Expert with regard to the world (lokavidu): AN 11.12
The Eye: MN 18
First in the world: Iti 84
Foremost jewel: Sn 3.11
Foremost of all people: Sn 3.11
Foremost of charioteers: Thag 6.9
Foremost of those who can cross: Iti 112
Foremost sage: Sn 3.11
Giver of the deathless: MN 18
Great One (naga): Ud 5.6
Great seer: Sn 4.14
Kinsman of the sun: Sn 4.14
Knowledge: MN 18
Lord of the Dhamma: MN 18
Peerless bull: SN 1.38
Rightly self-awakened (samma-sambuddho): AN 11.12
Shower of the way: MN 107
Supreme among those who can be released: Iti 112
Tathagata (the one "Thus-gone" or "Thus-come"): Iti 112
Teacher of divine & human beings (sattha deva-manussanam): Iti 112
Thoroughly mature: Iti 112
Ultimate leader: Thag 6.9
Unconquered conqueror: Iti 112
Unexcelled trainer for those people fit to be tamed (anuttaro purisa-damma-sarathi): AN 11.12
Unsurpassed doctor and surgeon: Iti 100
Victor in battle: MN 26
Well-gone one (sugato): AN 11.12
Wielder of power: Iti 112
Worthy one (arahant): AN 11.12

[perrierAX]

Anyway, if you are genuinely interested makavelli1988, I mean, there's no way you could be trolling.. have a look at:

http://www.livingislam.org/k/wiha_e.html

[Callmechristian]

Yes. The OP is trying to defame Islam.

Excuse me ma'am...... Please go

[Callmechristian]

He is merciful because he is willing to look past your sins if you repent and vow to never commit it again.

He is just because he will give everyone what he or she deserves in the here after, and there will be no favoring of one or another.

He is loving because he created everything in love. He created human beings with free will, unlike animals, so those with the best will can rise up to the greatest levels and be in God's companionship in the here after, whereas animals who do not have free will and thus have no choice do not have this privilege, but at the same time, they do not have the risk of punishment in the here after as we do.

"The Distressor, The Harmer, The Afflictor and The Pardoner, The Effacer, The Forgiver": these names refer to the fact that anything that happens to you, happens to you ONLY through God's will. He is the one who inflicts harm, and he is the one who inflicts good. He can forgive you, but he can also punish you, all of which occurs through God's wisdom.

The names, in general, are a metaphor for the fact that everything that exists and occurs around us in this universe, happens by the hand of Allah.

This is why I'm agnostic. Same views replaced with different names. No thanks jasmine.

[makavelli1988]

Anyway, if you are genuinely interested makavelli1988, I mean, there's no way you could be trolling.. have a look at:

http://www.livingislam.org/k/wiha_e.html

I am well aware of the modern day reinterpretations. These hadiths were never contentious until the advent of feminism. It is only recently where the laughable apologetics as within your link have arisen to provide protection against the accusation of the obvious, explicit and clear sexism inherent within these hadiths.

Please do not be discourteous by accusing me of trolling. I have not been in any way slanderous and provided what are authentic hadiths. You have then googled the best apologetics you could find on the topic and posted it with an ad hominem intended to discredit and censor my voice. The fact you have asked for 'context' when the full hadith has been provided is evidence for the weakness of your position.

I see you are a disciple of the Alchem school of discourse. I am to expect ad hominems, straw men and the smugness of victory only the ignorant possess ?

Let me guess, you will also believe I am an apostate of Islam because I did not understand it? Considering Islam has the least complex theology (especially compared to the equally wrong albeit extremely interesting, erudite and advanced Catholic theology it 'borrowed' from), this is one of the most arrogant assumption Muslims love to make.

[makavelli1988]

The answer to the second one is that for some reason there will be waaaay more women on earth then men in the future, so obv more will be in hell.

This prophecy made by Muhammed is often spouted as true by Muslims. The world's current ratio is approximately 1:1. It has always and will always remain close or at this ratio.

This is due to Fisher's Principle on Sex Ratios. This principle should be enough evidence to discredit this 'prophecy' as a falsehood but they don't teach that in Islamic school.

[lasher]

This prophecy made by Muhammed is often spouted as true by Muslims. The world's current ratio is approximately 1:1. It has always and will always remain close or at this ratio.

This is due to Fisher's Principle on Sex Ratios. This principle should be enough evidence to discredit this 'prophecy' as a falsehood but they don't teach that in Islamic school.

I agree. That was the answer I was given when I asked about that hadith. lolz by muzziechick iirc

[perrierAX]

I am well aware of the modern day reinterpretations. These hadiths were never contentious until the advent of feminism. It is only recently where the laughable apologetics as within your link have arisen to provide protection against the accusation of the obvious, explicit and clear sexism inherent within these hadiths.

Please do not be discourteous by accusing me of trolling. I have not been in any way slanderous and provided what are authentic hadiths. You have then googled the best apologetics you could find on the topic and posted it with an ad hominem intended to discredit and censor my voice. The fact you have asked for 'context' when the full hadith has been provided is evidence for the weakness of your position.

I see you are a disciple of the Alchem school of discourse. I am to expect ad hominems, straw men and the smugness of victory only the ignorant possess ?

Let me guess, you will also believe I am an apostate of Islam because I did not understand it? Considering Islam has the least complex theology (especially compared to the equally wrong albeit extremely interesting, erudite and advanced Catholic theology it 'borrowed' from), this is one of the most arrogant assumption Muslims love to make.

Anything else you want to add? You want to tell me about my future or something?

Your belief or disbelief in whatever has no bearing on my response and how I feel about you. That is not my business.

You misrepresenting hadith and exaggerating the Islamic position on a matter is what I have an issue with. The position you have taken is wrong, I'm sorry but that's just how it is. I will respond by googling 'the best apologetics' I can find, because normally on such matters I refer back to scholars, which is what most Muslims tend to do i.e. ask those that know more about the issue at hand. You want to call that lazy, amateurish, that's fine. We are obviously not going to agree on the matter so why go around in circles?

[makavelli1988]

Anything else you want to add? You want to tell me about my future or something?

Your belief or disbelief in whatever has no bearing on my response and how I feel about you. That is not my business.

You misrepresenting hadith and exaggerating the Islamic position on a matter is what I have an issue with. The position you have taken is wrong, I'm sorry but that's just how it is. I will respond by googling 'the best apologetics' I can find, because normally on such matters I refer back to scholars, which is what most Muslims tend to do i.e. ask those that know more about the issue at hand. You want to call that lazy, amateurish, that's fine. We are obviously not going to agree on the matter so why go around in circles?

Please enlighten us all in how I have misrepresented or exaggerated the Hadith by posting it in full. It's always amusing how angry and defensive Muslims get when a hadith is posted that provides clear evidence of the the archaic nature of what is essentially a codification of 7th Century Arab Bedouin laws and thought.

As I have said, this recent interpretation is based on liberal values and is an effort to shoehorn an explicit narrative into something it is not. Your 'scholar' (he is not a scholar just because his interpretation agrees with your world view), does not acknowledge the circular logic being used by God and his avatar to punish women. Also, these hadiths are an expansion on the ruling in the Quran regarding the requirement for two women to testify. Quran 2:282 "if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her"

Clearly from this verse it is inferred that a woman's memory cannot be relied on unless there is another woman to substantiate it. There is no two ways about this.

Let us get back to your scholars lamentable attempt at apologetic. You are posting things without having actually understood or comprehending the implications of your 'defence'. Your scholar claims the Prophet said this as hyperbole to encourage the women to give alms. God's prophet is using a biological condition given to women by God to chastise them and emotionally blackmail them into giving alms.

It appears Muslims would rather Muhammed come off as a conman and an emotional blackmailer than a sexist.

Let us turn to a real universally recognised classical scholar and not some internet scholar you have put on a pedestal for your tenuous defence: Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari. For those unaware, Encyclopedia Brittanica states:

"Muslim scholar, author of enormous compendiums of early Islamic history and Qurʾānic exegesis, who made a distinct contribution to the consolidation of Sunni thought during the 9th century. He condensed the vast wealth of exegetical and historical erudition of the preceding generations of Muslim scholars and laid the foundations for both Qurʾānic and historical sciences."

"Adam, is it from Me that you are fleeing? Adam replied: No, my Lord, but I feel shame before You. When God asked what had caused his trouble, he replied: Eve, My Lord. Whereupon God said: Now it is My obligation to make her bleed once every month, as she made this tree bleed. I also must make her stupid, although I created her intelligent (halimah), and must make her suffer pregnancy. Ibn Zayd continued: Were it not for the affliction that affected Eve, the women of this world wound not menstruate, and they would be intelligent and, when pregnant, give birth easily." Al-Tabari, Vol. 1, pp. 280-281 General introduction, and, From the Creation to the Flood - Ṭabarī; Franz Rosenthal

This is the only commentary or referencing to this hadith from early scholars because it was seen as self explanatory and further consolidates the literal nature of the speech as meant and taken by the Prophet, his companions and immediate successors. Ibn Zayd who is being quoted in the above is one of the 10 promised paradise and a companion of Muhammed. He holds a little more weight than your google scholar.

[uwootm8]

Please enlighten us all in how I have misrepresented or exaggerated the Hadith by posting it in full. It's always amusing how angry and defensive Muslims get when a hadith is posted that provides clear evidence of the the archaic nature of what is essentially a codification of 7th Century Arab Bedouin laws and thought.

As I have said, this recent interpretation is based on liberal values and is an effort to shoehorn an explicit narrative into something it is not. Your 'scholar' (he is not a scholar just because his interpretation agrees with your world view), does not acknowledge the circular logic being used by God and his avatar to punish women. Also, these hadiths are an expansion on the ruling in the Quran regarding the requirement for two women to testify. Quran 2:282 "if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her"

Clearly from this verse it is inferred that a woman's memory cannot be relied on unless there is another woman to substantiate it. There is no two ways about this.

Let us get back to your scholars lamentable attempt at apologetic. You are posting things without having actually understood or comprehending the implications of your 'defence'. Your scholar claims the Prophet said this as hyperbole to encourage the women to give alms. God's prophet is using a biological condition given to women by God to chastise them and emotionally blackmail them into giving alms.

It appears Muslims would rather Muhammed come off as a conman and an emotional blackmailer than a sexist.

Here, this has already been dealt with

http://sunnahonline.com/library/fiqh...omen-witnesses

Let us turn to a real universally recognised classical scholar and not some internet scholar you have put on a pedestal for your tenuous defence: Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari. For those unaware, Encyclopedia Brittanica states:

"Muslim scholar, author of enormous compendiums of early Islamic history and Qurʾānic exegesis, who made a distinct contribution to the consolidation of Sunni thought during the 9th century. He condensed the vast wealth of exegetical and historical erudition of the preceding generations of Muslim scholars and laid the foundations for both Qurʾānic and historical sciences."

"Adam, is it from Me that you are fleeing? Adam replied: No, my Lord, but I feel shame before You. When God asked what had caused his trouble, he replied: Eve, My Lord. Whereupon God said: Now it is My obligation to make her bleed once every month, as she made this tree bleed. I also must make her stupid, although I created her intelligent (halimah), and must make her suffer pregnancy. Ibn Zayd continued: Were it not for the affliction that affected Eve, the women of this world wound not menstruate, and they would be intelligent and, when pregnant, give birth easily." Al-Tabari, Vol. 1, pp. 280-281 General introduction, and, From the Creation to the Flood - Ṭabarī; Franz Rosenthal

This is the only commentary or referencing to this hadith from early scholars because it was seen as self explanatory and further consolidates the literal nature of the speech amongst the Prophet and immediate his successors.

Can you guys stop speaking as if you know a thing or two about Islam?

Tabari's volume is based on biblical stories, these hadiths are not authentic, which is why we do not derive theology from them. This (false) hadith is similar to what you find in genesis, and it probably found its root there. The Prophet did not say this, nor do we care about anything the Prophet did not say.

[uwootm8]

So in Islam Allah (God) has 99 names, which are also his attributes. The problem is, there are many of these attributes that are inconsistent with his other attributes and his divine nature.

Here's a list of the 99 names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam

Lets see how many inconsistencies and problems the R/P can find with Allah's names.

The Loving and The Immutable, The Infinite, The Everlasting. This problem was actually raised by Lasher: Was Allah always the Loving? If so, whom did he love before he created anything? Did he love himself? Or did he become loving after he created things? If he became loving later, then he cannot be infinite or immutable.

The Exceedingly Merciful and The Utterly Just. How can Allah be merciful and just at the same time? Say I am murdered, then Allah forgives my murderer. This would make Allah exceedingly merciful indeed. But what about his justice? Where's the justice? What if I demand Justice? Now we have a problem.

The Heir, The Inheritor of All and The Eternal, The Absolute, The Self-Sufficient. How does Allah, who according to the Quran, is eternal and the creator and owner of the heavens and the earth and everything therein? How can Allah inherit something if everything belongs to him?

The Distressor, The Harmer, The Afflictor and The Pardoner, The Effacer, The Forgiver. No need to explain this one.

Let's see what you guys can come up with...

These debates have probably already been dealt with. It's not even a serious question, I think OP is trolling me again

1. Loving One is an inherent attribute, you do not need a "thing" to love to be loving.
2. I do not see why you are presenting a dichotomy, in regards to sins you make against other people, it is up to them to forgive you or take retribution in the afterlife. With regards to sins against God alone (eg. jerkin off), He can forgive you just like that
3. This is referring to how God will bring everything back to Him at the end of the world.
4. What? How are these contradictory

[makavelli1988]

Here, this has already been dealt with

http://sunnahonline.com/library/fiqh...omen-witnesses

You provide further evidence of my point. I know it is an extremely lengthy article, they usually tend to be in order to obfuscate matters, but have you read it?

Just because someone has posted a response does not mean the matter has been resolved or dealt with.

His defence is that two women are required as women may suffer from emotional issues related to menstruation or menopause. He then posts studies showing affects of menstrual cycle/menopause on the behaviour and (possibly) memory of some women. Ergo, it makes sense for two women to be required.

This defence is an insult and an affront to reasonable minds. There are studies that show differences in androgen levels can affect memory in men - Testosterone Loss and Estradiol Administration Modify Memory in Men http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...22534705000492

Why has God not mandated for men with low testesterone to testify in pairs? Why is your all just and all knowing deity never consistent in his logic?

Completely preposterous how modern day medical knowledge is subverted as some kind of proof that this was all part of God's plan.

Generally when faced with problematic hadiths such as this, you and your ilk seem to throw as many excuses/justifications as possible hoping something sticks.

Can you guys stop speaking as if you know a thing or two about Islam?

Tabari's volume is based on biblical stories, these hadiths are not authentic, which is why we do not derive theology from them. This (false) hadith is similar to what you find in genesis, and it probably found its root there. The Prophet did not say this, nor do we care about anything the Prophet did not say.

Yeh...Good try. Considering you rely on Scholars to breakdown an explicit hadith/saying of the prophet...We know this is not the case. Also, I do not know who you group me in when using the words 'you guys'. I was reading the Quran before i could walk. I know a thing or two.

The quote I used is based on the narration of Ibn Zayd. A companion of the Prophet. I used it to provide evidence of the general thinking of the time regarding women.

What is likely, 7th century desert raiders believed in the deficiency of women's intellect or God, in prediction of our future research into the menstrual cycle, instructed for it due to behavioral effects of menopause and menstruation?

Occam's razor not even once.

[uwootm8]

You provide further evidence of my point. I know it is an extremely lengthy article, they usually tend to be in order to obfuscate matters, but have you read it?

Just because someone has posted a response does not mean the matter has been resolved or dealt with.

His defence is that two women are required as women may suffer from emotional issues related to menstruation or menopause. He then posts studies showing affects of menstrual cycle/menopause on the behaviour and (possibly) memory of some women. Ergo, it makes sense for two women to be required.

This defence is an insult and an affront to reasonable minds. There are studies that show differences in androgen levels can affect memory in men - Testosterone Loss and Estradiol Administration Modify Memory in Men http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...22534705000492

Why has God not mandated for men with low testesterone to testify in pairs? Why is your all just and all knowing deity never consistent in his logic?

Completely preposterous how modern day medical knowledge is subverted as some kind of proof that this was all part of God's plan.

Generally when faced with problematic hadiths such as this, you and your ilk seem to throw as many excuses as possible hoping something sticks.

Seriously? So your response is to have a law that caters for the tiny minority of men? While all women go through menstruation? But to answer your question, if a man was weak in memory, they would certainly not be taking witness. This is a matter of practicality in business related deals, which is why Islam says to do written contracts rather than ones that rely on memory beforehand. However in arabia most people couldn't write anyway, hence law of witness.

Look, I don't know your agenda here, but the Prophet very clearly states that men and women are equal. He has said it multiple times and he treated his own wives as such.

Narrated Aisha, Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: "Assuredly, women are the twin halves of men."(Jami' Tirmidhi, Book 1, Hadith 113)

There's no need to spread hate when it's not warranted. I like to treat women as my equal and what you are trying to tell us is to treat them less than that.

Yeh...Good try. Considering you rely on Scholars to breakdown an explicit hadith/saying of the prophet...We know this is not the case.

The quote I used is based on the narration of Ibn Zayd. A companion of the Prophet. I used it to provide evidence of the general thinking of the time regarding women.

What is likely, 7th century desert raiders believed in the deficiency of women's intellect or God, in prediction of our future research into the menstrual cycle, instructed for it due to behavioral effects of menopause and menstruation?

Occam's razor not even once.

But the hadith is not reliable, I quoted a scholar's discussion on a reliable and authoritative hadith. This hadith is simply not it. The hadith names ibn zayd, however, the hadith itself is not traced back to ibn zayd which is why it is not considered authentic. Someone slapped on his name for the sake of being sexist, most probably.

I actually doubt at-Tabari even holds this view, when he wrote his book on the collection of hadith he himself stated explicitly he did not know whether any of these hadith were true, and did not check their authenticity, he just went around recording. Or perhaps he does hold the view, as one would expect for a man of that time.

What is likely, 7th century desert raiders believed in the deficiency of women's intellect or God, in prediction of our future research into the menstrual cycle, instructed for it due to behavioral effects of menopause and menstruation?

You are forgetting that we believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, and either way you can't use this as proof as inequality between sexes in Islam.

[perrierAX]

Please enlighten us all in how I have misrepresented or exaggerated the Hadith by posting it in full. It's always amusing how angry and defensive Muslims get when a hadith is posted that provides clear evidence of the the archaic nature of what is essentially a codification of 7th Century Arab Bedouin laws and thought.

As I have said, this recent interpretation is based on liberal values and is an effort to shoehorn an explicit narrative into something it is not. Your 'scholar' (he is not a scholar just because his interpretation agrees with your world view), does not acknowledge the circular logic being used by God and his avatar to punish women. Also, these hadiths are an expansion on the ruling in the Quran regarding the requirement for two women to testify. Quran 2:282 "if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her"

Clearly from this verse it is inferred that a woman's memory cannot be relied on unless there is another woman to substantiate it. There is no two ways about this.

Let us get back to your scholars lamentable attempt at apologetic. You are posting things without having actually understood or comprehending the implications of your 'defence'. Your scholar claims the Prophet said this as hyperbole to encourage the women to give alms. God's prophet is using a biological condition given to women by God to chastise them and emotionally blackmail them into giving alms.

It appears Muslims would rather Muhammed come off as a conman and an emotional blackmailer than a sexist.

Let us turn to a real universally recognised classical scholar and not some internet scholar you have put on a pedestal for your tenuous defence: Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari. For those unaware, Encyclopedia Brittanica states:

"Muslim scholar, author of enormous compendiums of early Islamic history and Qurʾānic exegesis, who made a distinct contribution to the consolidation of Sunni thought during the 9th century. He condensed the vast wealth of exegetical and historical erudition of the preceding generations of Muslim scholars and laid the foundations for both Qurʾānic and historical sciences."

"Adam, is it from Me that you are fleeing? Adam replied: No, my Lord, but I feel shame before You. When God asked what had caused his trouble, he replied: Eve, My Lord. Whereupon God said: Now it is My obligation to make her bleed once every month, as she made this tree bleed. I also must make her stupid, although I created her intelligent (halimah), and must make her suffer pregnancy. Ibn Zayd continued: Were it not for the affliction that affected Eve, the women of this world wound not menstruate, and they would be intelligent and, when pregnant, give birth easily." Al-Tabari, Vol. 1, pp. 280-281 General introduction, and, From the Creation to the Flood - Ṭabarī; Franz Rosenthal

This is the only commentary or referencing to this hadith from early scholars because it was seen as self explanatory and further consolidates the literal nature of the speech as meant and taken by the Prophet, his companions and immediate successors. Ibn Zayd who is being quoted in the above is one of the 10 promised paradise and a companion of Muhammed. He holds a little more weight than your google scholar.

Lol - Just Lol.

Whats that Arab proverb? speak and I will know who you are. You have just demonstrated your lack of knowledge Re: Islam.

Also, Gibril Haddad is no 'google scholar'. Not surprised that you haven't heard of him btw. Read:

http://sacredknowledge.co.uk/index.p...-gibril-haddad

http://seekersguidance.org/home/teac...l-fouad-haddad

Re: misrepresentation and exaggeration. Its very easy to frame an event/act in a negative manner, that's what some of the anti-Islam posters on this forum do, and then they are taken aback when Muslims reject how they present certain events. You want to go round in circles where we both pull different meanings/interpretations from the same hadith or do you want to refer to what scholars have said regarding the issue?

[GregariousWolf]

Can one of Allah's names be the Freshmaker?

[makavelli1988]

Seriously? So your response is to have a law that caters for the tiny minority of men? While all women go through menstruation? But to answer your question, if a man was weak in memory, they would certainly not be taking witness.

And yet in all of God's wisdom he could not apply this equally to women? As in let a woman be judged individually on the merits of her memory rather than her sex...i.e. the definition of sexism, prejudging based on sex. The studies you apologist posted also indicate that a small minority of women are affected by menstrual cycle. The evidence for the effect of the menstrual cycle on memory is even weaker.

So a law has been made to cover all women for the minority of women?

But the hadith is not reliable, I quoted a scholar's discussion on a reliable and authoritative hadith. This hadith is simply not it. The hadith names ibn zayd, however, the hadith itself is not traced back to ibn zayd which is why it is not considered authentic. Someone slapped on his name for the sake of being sexist, most probably.

I actually doubt at-Tabari even holds this view, when he wrote his book on the collection of hadith he himself stated explicitly he did not know whether any of these hadith were true, and did not check their authenticity, he just went around recording. Or perhaps he does hold the view, as one would expect for a man of that time.

You accept or at least consider Tabari, a much more learned man than Muhammed may hold this sexist and archaic view but are not prepared to with Muhammed?

You are forgetting that we believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, and either way you can't use this as proof as inequality between sexes in Islam.

My purposes is not to show inequality between the genders in Islam. This exists beyond a doubt. You may try and justify why the inequality exists but even you cannot deny the existence of inequality within the scripture.

I asked this question to a Muslim woman for her opinion. Women generally understand these hadiths for what they are than men considering many women have to live in societies where the statements in the hadiths are part of the culture. A culture Muhammed grew up and was a part of.

[uwootm8]

And yet in all of God's wisdom he could not apply this equally to women? As in let a woman be judged individually on the merits of her memory rather than her sex...i.e. the definition of sexism, prejudging based on sex. The studies you apologist posted also indicate that a small minority of women are affected by menstrual cycle. The evidence for the effect of the menstrual cycle on memory is even weaker.

So a law has been made to cover all women for the minority of women?

But all women go through the menstrual cycle... idk what you are on about m8

You accept or at least consider Tabari, a much more learned man than Muhammed may hold this sexist and archaic view but are not prepared to with Muhammed?

What are you talking about? I said I don't know if Tabari actually holds these views. Secondly, I do not ascribe the views to the Prophet because the Prophet explicitly states that men and women are equal.

My purposes is not to show inequality between the genders in Islam. This exists beyond a doubt. You may try and justify why the inequality exists but even you cannot deny the existence of inequality within the scripture.

I do not see any. Sorry.

I asked this question to a Muslim woman for her opinion. Women generally understand these hadiths for what they are than men considering many women have to live in societies where the statements in the hadiths are part of the culture. A culture Muhammed grew up and was a part of.

and I came to step in because you were framing things incorrectly, and I wanted to correct you. Good day.

[makavelli1988]

Lol - Just Lol.

Whats that Arab proverb? speak and I will know who you are. You have just demonstrated your lack of knowledge Re: Islam.

Also, Gibril Haddad is no 'google scholar'. Not surprised that you haven't heard of him btw. Read:

http://sacredknowledge.co.uk/index.p...-gibril-haddad

http://seekersguidance.org/home/teac...l-fouad-haddad

Re: misrepresentation and exaggeration. Its very easy to frame an event/act in a negative manner, that's what some of the anti-Islam posters on this forum do, and then they are taken aback when Muslims reject how they present certain events. You want to go round in circles where we both pull different meanings/interpretations from the same hadith or do you want to refer to what scholars have said regarding the issue?

Yes. Let us compare Gibril Haddad, with someone like Tabari a student of Ibn Hanbal and Imam Shafi. You have a severe lack of understanding on how scholarship works in Islam.

[perrierAX]

Yes. Let us compare Gibril Haddad, with someone like Tabari a student of Ibn Hanbal and Imam Shafi. You have a severe lack of understanding on how scholarship works in Islam.

What did you say about Gibril Haddad?

Your 'scholar' (he is not a scholar just because his interpretation agrees with your world view)

You called him a 'scholar'. Okay. And:

He holds a little more weight than your google scholar.

A 'google scholar'.

Did you read the links I provided about him? Maybe its you that doesn't know how scholarship works in Islam.

Also, you want to compare scholars like they are football players, and in this case, scholars from completely different time periods, just lol. And you are telling me I have a severe lack of understanding regarding Islamic scholarship. I can not claim to be a master of any Islamic field, I would not even classify myself as a student of knowledge but I have sat with real scholars and I do know how they conduct themselves, how they study, how they teach and how serious they take it.

uwootm8, has pretty much demolished your weak attempt of an argument anyway.

[tallguy29]

Uh huh. And in the very next post I said that might not be true. I'm not sure, I'm not athiest. Maybe TallGuy can shed some light for us. Do Athiests believe in meditation? Do they practice morality? Do they believe in marriage? Many of these stem from religious belief.

Muzzie, again depends how much and what interpretations one is brainwashed with from birth.
However these change as we grow up and realize some of "god's actions as interpreted" may be incorrect, if we are better enlightened. Some still hold on to those original views steadfastedly.

Meditation is not religious, unless you take the sound "OM" to be religious. Marriage could probably have stemmed from religion. But all religions, including those that are not "from the book", advocate them.