Who was the first anti-racist? Rooted in both ignorance and arrogance, racism has plagued civilizations since the advent of man. Hear the remarkable story of a pioneer who addressed this disease of the heart and mind from its root cause. Watch Dr. Craig Considine of Rice University as he presents the story of the first anti-racist, from the 7th century, who set in motion universal principles that forever changed the discourse on racial equality.
Categories: Islam
That is 600 years late.
God speaking through previous Scriptures was way before Mohammad – going back to creation – Genesis1:26-28.
God created humans in His image ( morality, reason, all internal spiritual and relational characteristics that make us different than animals.)
The NT was anti-racist long before.
Ephesians 2:11-22
Racial and cultural barriers were broken down by the cross in the church; the enmity between cultures and races was abolished .
People from every nation and tribe and language and people group are purchased by the blood of the lamb at the cross.
Revelation 5:9; 7:9
Galatians 3:28 – in Christ there is no Jew or gentile or slave or free or male or female – meaning all are equal
Colossians 3:10-11
9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him— 11 a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.
Even before NT, foundation was laid,
The OT also – Israel was to be a blessing to all the nations – Genesis 12:3; 22:18
Psalm 67, 96:3; 87
Isaiah 49:6
Not according to your mangod though. Gentiles ain’t dogs!
Jesus was testing the disciples with the prevailing view of unbelieving Gentiles.
It is the same basic attitude that Muslims have toward unbelievers – calling them “najes” نجس (dirty, unclean)
the Qur’an is very harsh in calling the people of the book “the worst of creatures”
Surah 98:6
“they (the people of the book) are the worst of creatures”
Your “god” is a racist.
Jesus was testing the disciples to see if they learned the lesson about pride / arrogance in the heart. (Mark 7:20-23 flows into 7:24-30 – the story of the Canaanite / Syro-Phoenician woman. He was not approving of the attitude that the Jews had, but using a common cultural attitude to test the disciples and also to draw out the woman’s faith – she did not whine or complain; she did not do a victim mentality type thing; but fully accepted the wrongness of her paganism, and was saved out of that paganism, calling Jesus “the Son of David” = Messiah, and “Lord”.
Wow, so he was “testing” the disciples by insulting a Gentile woman by calling her a dog. Riiiight…
What if your mangod was here today and he tried the same “test”? What if an African guy came up to him, and he used the N-word to “test” his disciples?
Are you kidding or are you serious, Kenny?
The Quranic verses you refer to say nothing about RACE. That’s what we’re talking abou here. Focus, Kenny, focus.
There were non-Arab Muslims in the time of the Prophet, basically from the very beginning. We had Bilal (as) and later we had Salman Al-Farsi (ra), and of course there were others as well. Allah (swt) didn’t need to “test” the Arabs with the prevailing view” of non-Arabs. He just put it plainly: there is no race in Islam. All are equal. The only thing that makes a person superior is piety.
In contrast, your mangod decided to insult a well-meaning and faithful woman to…ahem…”test” his Jewish disciples! Wow!
Ken the Qur’an calling a certain people the worst of creatures isn’t ‘racist’. If God puts out His Law then everyone who believes in it will be the best and hence why everyone else will, by definition, be the worst. In other words: they are not the worst just because they don’t belong to a certain NATION (like the gentiles not belonging to Israel or in the case of Islam the gentiles would then be everyone that isn’t Arab) but because they don’t accept God due to their rejection of the last Prophet and the Message he brought from God.
Muhammad called black people raisin head. The Muslims also have hadith where selling black people is under the section of selling animals. If someone call the prophet black kill that person And the list goes on and on and on and on. Muhammad was a racist. Go to the link and look for black skin https://www.answering-islam.org/Index/index.html
Is that you again whore of Babylon?
I’ve already dealt with the “raisin-head” nonsense in my response to the nutjob Jack Chick:
In fact, the hadith that Chick was referring to clearly shows that a person’s color or nationality could not preclude the people making him their “chief” and obeying him. Here is the hadith:
“Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.””[68]
We can see that the hadith is not even claiming that all Ethiopians have a head that “looks like a raisin”. It is merely saying that even if such a person was made the “chief”, it was incumbent upon the people to obey him. Moreover, there are other versions of the hadith where it does not mention what the Ethiopian chief’s head looks like:
“It was narrated that Yahya bin Husain said: “I heard my grandmother say: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah say, during the Farewell Pilgrimage: If an Ethiopian slave is appointed over you who rules according to the Book of Allah, then listen to him and obey.”‘”[69]
And yet another version describes the Ethiopian slave as having been “mutilated”, yet it was still incumbent upon the people to obey him:
“It was narrated from Umm Husain that she heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: ‘Even if the one appointed over you is a mutilated Ethiopian slave whose nose and ears have been cut off, listen to him and obey, so long as he leads you according to the Book of Allah.’”[70]
Finally, a hadith about the end times states that the Kaaba will be destroyed by an Ethiopian man known as “Dhus-Suwaiqatain” (“the thin-legged man”). Does that mean that all Ethiopians have “thin legs”? If we follow Chick’s logic, the answer would be yes, but if we follow normal logic, then the answer is no. Here is the hadith:
“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Dhus-Suwaiqatain (the thin legged man) from Ethiopia will demolish the Ka`ba.””[71]
Thus, by making this silly and stupid argument about “raisin-heads”, Chick demonstrated that he was a chowder-head!
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/18/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-camels-in-the-tent/
But there is more to the hadith. Scholars describe the use of the phrase “…whose head looks like a raisin” as an Arabic rhetorical device known as “an argument by the absurd” or “trajectio ad absurdum”, a term coined by the late British orientalist Bernard Lewis,[56] which he explained as the following:
“[a] principle is asserted and an extreme, even an absurd, example is given – but the purpose is to show that the principle still applies even in this extreme and absurd formulation.”[57]
Akande explains that the hadith of the hypothetical Ethiopian slave “whose head looks like a raisin” uses the “trajectio ad absurdum” rhetorical device because the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):
“…wanted to stress the importance of obedience to the legitimate Islamic authority, however unlikely the form in which it appears.”[58]
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-unforgiven/
LOL, the whore of Babylon has nothing rational to say in response! Even though it has been shown that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was using a literary device known as trajectio ad absurdum and was not suggesting that all black people had heads that looked like “raisins”, and was in fact REFUTING THE NOTION OF RACISM by stating that even an Ethiopian slave should be obeyed if he is placed in charge of the Muslims, the whore thinks she has the upper hand! But what can you expect from the copy/paste whore except stupidity and more stupidity? LOL!!
Perhaps you can list the hadith you keep harping about here? Why not just show it instead of being vague and ambiguous?
🤣😂 The whore proves that she is an illiterate moron! What else can we expect from Christian princess’ minions?
Little whore, my offer of tutoring you for free still stands. Do you want some help to get your GED, because any high schooler can tell you that a literary device doesn’t have to be written. Go get an education first, then come back here for more humiliation. 😆
Wow, I guess that would be devastating if he(saw) didn’t say explicitly in his last sermon:
“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white – except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. ”
Or you know other than the fact that his adopted mother was African, and his adopted son and many of his Companions… I’m sorry what were you attempting to argue again? Oh right, you were trying to explain Romans 13 and Genesis 9:20-27 to us and how these 2 passages were used to subjugate Africans.
https://www.theroot.com/a-brief-history-of-people-using-romans-13-to-justify-wh-1826875704
Ham is represented by the Talmudists as one of the three who had intercourse with their wives in the Ark, being punished therefor in that his descendants, the Ethiopians, are black (Sanh. 108b; Gen. R. xxxvi. 11).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7116-ham
Now I know what you’re thinking Christians never believed that! Well…
Color Symbolism: Black as Sinner, Devil, and Demon
One image of the black African introduces us to the complex world of color symbolism, specifically the symbol of black as evil. The issue before us is not the abstract metaphor of black as evil (e.g., black heart, black day), which is apparently universal, but the concretization of the metaphor of blackness in the black person, in other words, the notion that the biblical black African metaphorically or allegorically represents evil. We find this first in the works of Philo, the first-century Alexandrian-Jewish philosopher,
who explains that Kushís black color adumbrated his son’s, Nimrod’s, evil nature, because pure evil has no participation in light.î67The application of the metaphor of darkness as evil to dark-skinned people was also made in one rabbinic midrash which, interpreting Amos 9:7, says that when the Israelites sin they are like Kushites, i.e. black in sin. The most extensive such application of the metaphor was made by the church fathers in their allegorical interpretations of the Bible. The most ramified of these interpretations, as well as the one with the greatest influence, was that of Origen (d. ca. 253). Using the metaphor of blackness as sin, he identified various biblical references to
Ethiopia or Ethiopian(s), as well as the black maiden in Song 1:5-6, as symbols (ìtypesî) of the gentiles, who, not having known God, were born and lived in sin. Building on this
foundation, Origen then erected an exegetical superstructure that encompassed all
scriptural Ethiopians as sinners. Thus, God’s words to the prophet Zephaniah, From
beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will I receive the dispersed onesî (Zeph 3:10), means that
although the Ethiopian, typologically the gentile church, has been stained with the inky
dye of wickedness [and] has been rendered black and dark, he will nevertheless be
accepted by God; or, to take another example, Ebed-melech, the Ethiopian (Jer 38:7-13),
who is ìa man of a dark and ignoble race, represents the sinning gentiles.68
Origenís biblical exegesis was enormously influential on the church fathers who
followed.69 His interpretation of Songís maiden as an Ethiopian, and his use of this and
other biblical Ethiopians as a metaphor for those in sin (i.e. the gentiles), became
widespread in later patristic literature. It ìset the tone of all later exegesis.î70 In sum, the
patristic hermeneutic tradition saw the biblical Ethiopian as a metaphor to signify any
person who, not having received a Christian baptism, is black in spirit and without divine
light. In a similar way ìEthiopiaî came to symbolize the ìas yet unevangelized, and
spiritually unregenerated world of sin.î71
Lol, the whore can only rant with her incoherent copy and paste nonsense.
Ephesians 2:11-22
written around 600 years before Islam.
around 60-62 AD, while Paul was in prison at the end of Acts.
11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
Ephesians 2:11-22
there are good reasons for concluding Paul did not write this letter.
@ Paul:
Na
biblical scholars consider it an open question Ken.
Why were they excluded?
Because they were unbelievers, but now, by faith in Christ, they are brought near and fellow-citizens in the church. Unity and love between the different peoples / nations. The cross broke down the cultural and racial barriers; “abolished the enmity” means the enmity and hatred and separation laws that kept peoples and cultures apart from one another; according to Ephesians 2:11-22
“Many Arabs are dark complexion themselves such as the people of Sudan. Several of the Prophet’s companions had dark skin as well and one of the most beloved to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was Bilal ibn Rabah (may Allah be pleased with him) who used to call the Adhan (ritual prayer call) and the Prophet promised him Paradise.”
https://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-about-islam/are-black-people-going-to-hell-according-to-islam/
I would also add that the hadith about the two colors of people is metaphorically referring to people of Righteousness and people of sin. The charcoal image refers to the fact that these people will be in hell where they will burn for eternity. Hence, they will be charred beyond recognition. The whore of Babylon will most likely be one of these people. 😁
@ QB
Paul had deleted Emma’s other comment but I had refuted Emma’s stupid claim so I’ll repost:
Yeah, I guess this would be devastating if he(saw) didn’t say explicitly:
“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor does a black have any superiority over a white except by piety and good action.”
https://hadithoftheday.com/the-last-sermon/
Or the fact that his adopted mother was African, and his adopted son and his many of his student’s… I’m sorry what were you saying again? Oh yeah, you were going to explain the Curse of Ham and Romans 13.
From classical Jewish commentary:
“Ham is represented by the Talmudists as one of the three who had intercourse with their wives in the Ark, being punished therefor in that his descendants, the Ethiopians, are black (Sanh. 108b; Gen. R. xxxvi. 11)”
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7116-ham
Now some of you might go well: Jesus ended racism (despite being a racist and never peaking on the subject according to our text) but Christians true spirtual father Philo influenced Origen who influenced the rest:
Color Symbolism: Black as Sinner, Devil, and Demon
One image of the black African introduces us to the complex world of color symbolism, specifically the symbol of black as evil. The issue before us is not the abstract metaphor of black as evil (e.g., black heart, black day), which is apparently universal, but the concretization of the metaphor of blackness in the black person, in other words, the notion that the biblical black African metaphorically or allegorically represents evil. We find this first in the works of Philo, the first-century Alexandrian-Jewish philosopher,
who explains that Kushís black color adumbrated his sonís, Nimrodís, evil nature, because pure evil has no participation in light. The application of the metaphor of darkness as evil to dark-skinned people was also made in one rabbinic midrash which, interpreting Amos 9:7, says that when the Israelites sin they are like Kushites, i.e. black in sin. The most extensive such application of the metaphor was made by the church fathers in their allegorical interpretations of the Bible. The most ramified of these interpretations, as well as the one with the greatest influence, was that of Origen (d. ca. 253). Using the metaphor of blackness as sin, he identified various biblical references to Ethiopia or Ethiopian(s), as well as the black maiden in Song 1:5-6, as symbols (ìtypesî) of the gentiles, who, not having known God, were born and lived in sin. Building on this foundation, Origen then erected an exegetical superstructure that encompassed all scriptural Ethiopians as sinners. Thus, Godís words to the prophet Zephaniah, From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will I receive the dispersed onesî (Zeph 3:10), means that although the Ethiopian, typologically the gentile church, ìhas been stained with the inky dye of wickedness [and] has been rendered black and dark,î he will nevertheless be accepted by God; or, to take another example, Ebed-melech, the Ethiopian (Jer 38:7-13), who is “a man of a dark and ignoble race,” represents the sinning gentiles. Origenís biblical exegesis was enormously influential on the church fathers who followed. His interpretation of Songís maiden as an Ethiopian, and his use of this and other biblical Ethiopians as a metaphor for those in sin (i.e. the gentiles), became widespread in later patristic literature. It “set the tone of all later exegesis”. In sum, the patristic hermeneutic tradition saw the biblical Ethiopian as a metaphor to signify any person who, not having received a Christian baptism, is black in spirit and without divine light. In a similar way ìEthiopiaî came to symbolize the ìas yet unevangelized, and spiritually unregenerated world of sin.
Gotta love the “Example of the Church”
Here is the rest even though they try to defend Origen and Philo’s racism by saying they still believed Africans should be propagated to:
https://glc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/events/race/Goldenberg.pdf
And here is Romans 13 history of being used to justify discriminatory practices less than 60 years ago (i.e when either some of us or our parents were STILL alive)
https://www.theroot.com/a-brief-history-of-people-using-romans-13-to-justify-wh-1826875704
Now that’s devastating!
LOL, as usual, the facts flew right over the whore’s head, and all the poor harlot could do was…repeat the same mindless nonsense. Christian apologetics must be in dire straits if the whore the best it can offer. Bwhahahaha!
Poor Stew Jojo has to use fabricated hadith to defend his fake prophet. That the only way to defend a cult. I don’t know if you can get lower than that. It’s very embarrassing. Truly some people have no shame at all.
S.F.H. Faizi, an Indian, later Pakistani, Islamist is the author of “Sermons of the Prophet”, the 1987 book[24] which first rendered this version of the sermon (in the 1991 edition, it can be found on p. 145).
In summation, Faizi “derived” this version of the sermon from various unnamed books not accepted by the ulema (scholarly Muslim clerics).
Praise God that we don’t follow Jewish Midrash or Talmud, which are not infallible; unlike Islam that incorporated a lot of Midrash and Talmud into the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Praise God that we have the word of God, the Scriptures, to judge what Origen got wrong – he was not infallible either.
Praise God that we can judge when people of the past mis-applied the Scriptures, such as the way that some applied Romans 13.
We have Jesus and the infallible Scriptures.
Jesus defeated racism long before Muhammad. Mark 11:17 – “Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations.” (Quoting Isaiah 56:7 – see Isaiah 56:1-7 – around 750 years before Christ, clearly teaches that God loves the foreigners and other nations.
So, we have the previous Scriptures that were anti-racist, long before Muhammad.
Islam is a 600 year too late man-made religion.
Jesus taught against hatred and pride and arrogance long before Muhammad did.
Isaiah the prophet taught that even longer ago; Jesus quoted him.
God the Father taught it through the previous Scriptures.
//Praise God that we don’t follow Jewish Midrash or Talmud, which are not infallible//
Let me correct you, Ken
You follow a fallible jew called Paul who used to corrupt the teaching of the OT as you read in Romans and other letters. You yourself has admitted this fact. Moreover, Jesus commanded his disciples by the following “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach.” Matt 23:2-3.
You’re just a product of your prophet Paul who called the law of God in the OT as (jewish fables) while in the same time he fabricated some prophecies and combined some jewish legends in his letters.
Islam, is from Allah (sw). And According to the teaching of Islam there’re scriptures sent to the people before. If it happened that there’re similarities between Islam and other teachings from other religions, then that affirms what Islam told us from the beginning. The problem is with jews and christians who think the truth has begun with them.
@ QB
In your professional opinion, would you say some sort of fission between atoms has resulted in a certain type of explosion that ended a certain war has taken place?
Yes, in my assessment of the data, I would have to conclude that a fission reaction, a “nuking” if you will, has indeed occurred.
@ QB
I concur. We may have to shave our beards to fit the gas masks on properly because Chernobyl’s got nothing on this place.
Er, my beard ain’t that big!
@ Emma
Saw your last post said nothing to this effect nor did you give a reference. QB however has given a reference to your text claiming Jesus(as) refused to heal a woman’d child until she admitted that she was a b**ch of Israel.
Combined with the Curse of Ham and Romans 13 we see those ever delectable fruits springing forth.
Let me try one more time. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/45841/the-last-words-of-the-prophet-peace-and-blessings-of-allaah-be-upon-him and Bam got refute by muslims lol
@ Emma
God you’re stupid.
“The highest companion” was his last words on HIS DEATHBED
All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor does a black have any superiority over a white except by piety and good action, was part of his LAST SERMON.
Deathbed, Last Sermon see the difference? There goes that wonderful English again Emma.
The whore has no idea how to engage in a rational discussion. She’s just bouncing around desperately trying to keep up.
So you admit his last words were to expel the Jews. Thank you for confirming he was a racist even on his death bed. Do you have anything more to say to expose your fake prophet? Stop complaining about English when your prophet was illiterate. Remember he won’t be able to tell the difference between “crap” and his name. I don’t have a problem with Muhammad being illiterate, to be honest. But if you want to talk about English. I’m happy to remind you. That Muhammad would confuse crap and his own name. 🤣
Come now whore, I asked you to provide the hadith. Why are you stalling?
@ QB
Is Emma so stupid she isn’t aware someone who is illiterate can use literary devices in speech? I know she struggles to put together a decent sentence in English and is hated by the people she is trying to kiss up to so they will accept her as a westerner but surely she knew that, right?
Lol! That’s what happens when you goof off in school and don’t graduate high school! 😂
Still wanting for the hadith, illiterate whore. How is McDonald’s? Still making those fries?
@ Emma
I didn’t copy and paste anything I refuted your silly nonsense born from lack of reading comprehension. Now go back to trying to pretend to be a westerner Emma.
Quick tip they still won’t like you and want you to go back to your country no matter how much you pretend.
Jesus defeated racism long before Muhammad. Mark 11:17 – Jesus said, “Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations.” (Quoting Isaiah 56:7 – see Isaiah 56:1-7 – around 750 years before Christ, clearly teaches that God loves the foreigners and other nations.
So, we have the previous Scriptures (both OT and NT) that were anti-racist, long before Muhammad.
Islam is a 600 year too late man-made religion.
Hahaha, yet your insulted a Gentile woman. So we’re back to square one. Your mangod did not like Gentiles and it seemed it rubbed off on the disciples as well.
To.make things worse, Ezekiel says that uncircumcised Gentiles could not enter the temple. So Isaiah has to be read in that context as well.
wrong. Ezekiel 44:7, 9 says those foreigners are “uncircumcised in heart and flesh” = unbelievers – but if they are circumcised in their heart, then they are welcome – which is what Isaiah 56:1-7 says, and so both Ezekiel and Isaiah are consistent with one another and true and way many centuries before Muhammad.
🤣😂 Kenny is misquoting his own Bible! You said it yourself dummy. “Heart AND flesh”. It has to be both, not just one.
where did I misquote?
The author is assuming that foreigners are uncircumcised in flesh and heart (unbelievers), but those foreigners who repent and believe in Christ – “join themselves to the Lord” (Isaiah 56:1-7) – they are welcome.
the Lord rebukes Israelites who are circumcised in their flesh, but not in heart – Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4
External circumcision is not enough.
Moreover, the NT abrogated requirements to be circumcised for foreigners / Gentiles / nations – book of Galatians, Romans
Galatians 2:16
Galatians 2:20-21
chapters 3-5
Galatians 5:1-13
Galatians 6:16
neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but a new creation – what counts is if one’s heart has been changed.
John 3:1-10
Ezekiel 36:26-27
So the foundations for anti-racism are already there in the OT (Isaiah 56:1-7) and the NT – Jesus said it in Mark 11:17 – “My house shall be a house of prayer for all the nations.”
Pathetic. Your NT came after Ezekiel. It came too late. Ezekiel says you need both flesh and heart, not just one. Someone who is circumcised in flesh but not in heart is a hypocrite. But someone who is circumcised in heart is also lacking. You need both. This is what Ezekiel says. Your anachronistic babble about what the NT says is worthless.
and yet the Qur’an affirms the books before it – the NT. 10:94; 5:47-48; 5:68
not the NT, no, but the Torah and Injeel.
but the Qur’an refers to the book الکتاب that was with the Christians at that time, so the Injeel has to mean the NT, even though Muhammad was ignorant of it’s contents; he affirmed the writings that the Christians had AT THAT time, which confirmed 600 years of the text that we still have today.
The Qur’an says “people of the book”, but you are saying, “they did not have the book” (writings)
It is like saying, “the guy with hair”, but he has no hair.
Pathetic. Kenny is unable to refute the argument and has to deflect. So I think we can nip this in the bud. The Biblical Jesus was a racist. Does anyone second the motion?
I already proved it by Mark 11:17 and Isaiah 56:1-7. (and all the other texts)
So you are the one who is pathetic.
You didn’t prove anything except that you have no clue on how to save your racist mangod. You resort to deflections and non-sequiturs, which only shows that you have no reasonable explanation.
Even Isaiah 56 refutes you, because it clearly says that only those “foreigners” who keep the Sabbath and the covenant will be accepted. That covenant includes circumcision of BOTH heart and flesh. You have been unable to refute this. It has to be BOTH.
Genesis 17:13 – Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.
Jeremiah 9:25-26 – The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh— 26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the wilderness in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.
@ Emma
No its not. Instead of copy and pasting do some research. The hadith is in Tirmidhi and was classed sahih by Sheikh Albani
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/182686/is-the-arab-muslim-better-than-the-non-arab-muslim
Also some more:
At-Tirmidhi (3270) narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) addressed the people on the day of the conquest of Makkah and said: “O people, verily Allah has taken away from you the arrogance of Jaahiliyyah and its pride in forefathers. People are of two types: righteous and pious, who are dear to Allah, and doomed evildoers, who are insignificant before Allah. People are the descendants of Adam, and Allah created Adam from dust. Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): ‘O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted’ [al-Hujuraat 49:13].”
Become a Muslim Emma.
You’re getting desperate now Stew Jojo. You have Muslims who did the research. Your own scholars reject the hadith. It’s not even a weak hadith, you’re using a fabrication. It does not exist. I thought maybe you did not even know. I could give you the benefit of the doubt. Many Muslim quotes it. Without doing research it’s a fabrication. But since you keep arguing. In your case, it’s not ignorance but deception. I know it’s a fabrication from memory. If I tell you, you ask for a reference. Since you like reference, I had to look for one. I had to copy paste from somewhere. You will find Islamic website and muslims online also confirm it’s a fabrication.
S. F. H. Faizi, Muḥammad (Prophet), “Sermons of the prophet” – Hadith references which are often cited as sources for this fraudulent sermon, once checked, are either misrepresented (i.e. they have nothing to say on the sermon)[26] or in fact refer to the sermon that most fits al-Tabari’s rendition with regard to beating women and so on.
Ok I’ll become a Muslims. I’m convinced especially after you used a fabricated hadith to make your case.
Now Stew Jojo stop arguing with your own scholars and accept the truth. And stop twisting the word of Muhammad. Your putting words in Muhammad’s mouth. It’s a fabricated last sermon. Show some respect for your prophet.
@ Emma
I agree one of is DEFINITELY desperate. Sheikh Albani is one of the greatest scholars of all time and said its authentic as opposed to your baseless claim. Hell exists and your insults harm nobody but yourself. God only guides the sincere servants.
Stew Jojo read slowly.
In summation, Faizi “derived” this version of the sermon from various unnamed books not accepted by the ulema (scholarly Muslim clerics). He does not know the original sources, but welcomes readers to help in his search.
Hadith references which are often cited as sources for this fraudulent sermon, once checked, are either misrepresented (i.e. they have nothing to say on the sermon)[26] or in fact refer to the sermon that most fits al-Tabari’s rendition with regard to beating women and so on.[27]
The following authentic version is taken from al-Tabari, Vol IX, and it’s important to note that it is in perfect agreement with the Qur’anic order of wife-beating in Quran 4:34. Attempts to add this authentic version next to the other two at Wikipedia, had been met with resistance.[28]
You should contact your scholars, you found the source of the last fabricated sermon which never existed 😆. Instead of arguing for a fabricated hadith. I know you wish the last sermon of Muhammad was peaceful. In reality he was full of hate towards the jews.
The scholars are aware of all the sources. Nothing you can quote that they don’t know. It’s a fabrication.
Let me know when you wake up from the darkness of Islam. No point continue a conversation with someone who try to defend a fabricated hadith. You mad? You’re wasting my time.
@ Emma
You are the one wasting time because you are a troll whose heart God has sealed. I know your English sucks but how about YOU try reading (Emphasis mine):
Ahmad (22978) narrated from Abu Nadrah: Someone who heard the khutbah of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) on the second of the days of at-Tashreeq told me that he said: “O people, verily your Lord is One and your father is one. Verily there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab or of a non-Arab over an Arab, or of a red man over a black man, or of a black man over a red man, except in terms of taqwa. Have I conveyed the message?” They said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) has conveyed the message.
CLASSED AS SAHEEH BY AL-ALBAANI IN AS-SAHEEHAH (6/199).
So whom should I believe your no source quote (who you probably just copied from Shamoun who doesn’t know what he’s talking about?) or Sheikh Albani in his Sahih Tirmidhi? Become a Muslim Emma or you will be among the worst of failures in the Next life.
@ Ken
You should really read more as I addressed this already.
1.Jesus(as) took the side of the Pharisees over the Sadducees. What was the biggest difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees after resurrection? If oral tradition (such as the Talmud) are valid. Pharisees said yes, Saducees said no. So yes they are valid otherwise you have laws that have no application in the Bible. There are so many evidences of them having another law its too large to list here:
http://www.aishdas.org/student/oral.htm
2. You have no explicit text (you actually have quite a bit of text to the contrary) there is a clear theme of Jewish supremacy. Again you all claiming Jesus forced a woman to call herself a bi**h of Israel. At best you can say Jesus never spoke on the issue otherwise the Disciples (who are racist according to you) wouldn’t have argued about it. Also I love the fact that ALL your early scholars said black people are stained in wickedness and sin but now in modern times (like 20-30 years) to evangelicize to black people its all:
“Oh no its not racist.”
Despite the fact that it was used to justify the largest deportation of people in known history nf was used as a means of oppression to people STILL alive.
Explicit texts:
Mark 11:17 – Jesus said, “is it not written, My house shall be a house of prayer for all the nations” ?
quoting Isaiah 56:7 – see whole context 56:1-7 – “the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord”, etc.
goes back to Genesis 12:3, 22:28; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10
“through you (Abraham and his descendants), all the nations/ peoples / families / cultural people groups will be blessed”
God’s love for all nations is very old – way back in Genesis 12 – much older than Muhammad.
” I will also make you a light for the nations” Isaiah 49:6
Jesus taught that all traditions (extra-biblical oral interpretations of the text) must be tested by the infallible text.
Mark 7:1-23
Matthew 15:1-20
@ Ken
That is not “explicit” text, that is is “implied” text. Implied text is if some is reading they would not initially think that was a meaning. Explicit text is the initial obvious meaning like Muhammad(saw) saying a black has no superiority over a white, a white over a black, an Arab over a non Arab, and a non Arab.
I agree God meant His message of monotheism for everybody but your text is full of Jewish supremacy and states otherwise.
Regarding the Talmud quote this works against you, to begin basically you have Jesus telling people not to wash their hands before they eat lol. This whole passage is, in fact, an illogical argument:
Yo why do your followers not wash your hands like the Elders taught?
8You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.”
1. How does that put aside God’s commandment? This is an illogical line of argumentation.
2. There are plenty of things that go into a person that defile hence sayings like “You are what you eat” or food that is plain bad for you such as pork, alcohol and a variety of other foods.
3. This text does not say oral traditions are out and so since the Bible is racist we can assume the traditions about Noah and black people were accepted as the text of the Curse of Ham makes no sense otherwise as well as judging by Christianity’s “fruits”.
defile, in this context does not mean things like physical illness, stomach aches, obesity, etc.
Defile is talking about being sinful and dirty in the sight of God – guilt and sin.
The text of Genesis 9 does not say what slave traders or justification for slavery or Jim Crow (southern Democrats) made it out to say.
No one follows those wrong interpretations.
@ QB
“I second” (Raises hand)
@ Ken
Lol, so pretty much all of Christianity’s major scholars and peoples (i.e. it’s “fruits”) were wrong until recently when they need to evangelize to black people again. Got it.
Anyways this is illogical as the Jews never argued that and this is a strawman argument by the Biblical Jesus to defend people not washing their hands before they eat (which is still wrong).