Water is Pure

On By stewjo004In Ahadith, Islam, Muhammad, Responses

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

Water is Pure

By Quran and Bible Blog Contributor stewjo004

c7634-pdf
View As PDF

“But there are some people who trade in ‘entertaining tales’, to lead others, without knowledge from God’s path, and to hold it up to as a joke. There is a humiliating punishment for such people. When My verses are recited to them, they turn away arrogantly as if they didn’t hear them, like there’s some sort of barrier around their ears. So, announce to them a painful torment. But for those who believe and do good deeds, there will be Gardens of constant blessings for them, to live in forever. This is the promise of God in truth and He’s the Final Authority and the One to pass Judgment.”[1]

            I was going to take Ramadan off but due to a parody video in the comments and that some non-Muslim commentators didn’t seem to know much about the discussion they were having, I decided to write an article explaining the matter in detail.  The argument brought forth in the video is that these two hadith means the Prophetﷺ allowed Muslims to drink dirty contaminated water:

“Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated: “It was said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Shall we use the water of Buda’ah well to perform ablution while it is a well in which menstruation rags, flesh of dogs and the putrid are dumped?” Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Indeed water is pure, nothing makes it impure.’”[2]

“It was narrated that Jabir bin ‘Abdullah said: “We came to a pond in which there was the carcass of a donkey, so we refrained from using the water until the Messenger of Allah came to us and said: ‘Water is not made impure by anything.’ Then we drank from it and gave it to our animals to drink, and we carried some with us.””[3]

The Video

            So let’s start an examination of the claim. The easiest part to refute in the video is the second hadith. Anyone who checked the link will know that the hadith is weak and so it’s thrown out for evidence, hence why the gentlemen in the video didn’t show the quote in the book like they did with the first hadith which is authentic and will now be discussed.

            One will notice in the first hadith there is no mention of drinking water but about ablution or Wudu, which is a washing process Muslims do before prayer.[4]  The hadith is talking about this washing process and nothing more. So a lack of reading comprehension is how the mistake in the video began. This was a general statement by the Prophetﷺ to tell the person who asked the question whether water be used for washing. Because the well was so big, a small amount of something gross won’t ruin the whole well.

            Now let’s look at Buda’ah well mentioned in the hadith.  Abu Dawood’s commentary on the hadith states that:

“…the well was situated in sloping ground. When the rains came, these impure substances would be carried from the roadways and the yards of people’s houses and dropped into the well. However, due to the considerable amount of the water in the well, the quality of the water was never affected or altered.”[5]

This means that the water was running and not just a stagnant pool.  Other ahadith further explain the condition of the water in the well:

“Abu Dawud, said I heard Qutaibah b. Sa’id say: I asked the person in charge of the well of Bud’ah about the depth of the well. He replied: At most the water reaches pubes. Then I asked: Where does it reach when its level goes down ? He replied: Below the private part of the body.

Abu Dawud said: I measured the breadth of the well of Buda’ah with my sheet which I stretched over it. I them measured it with the hand. It measured six cubits in breadth. I then asked the man who opened the door of garden for me and admitted me to it: Has the condition of this well changed from what it had originally been in the past? He replied: No.  I saw the color of water in this well had changed.”[6]

So it was not a well like something you see on a show like Little House on the Prairie:

Well

Rather, it was sort of like a small river running down a hill that people used as a well. Rainwater would wash the occasional object in it. So they weren’t sure if it would be appropriate to wash in this water for prayer because of that.

Muslim Redactors and Editing?

            After other evidence was brought to show that the Prophetﷺ was speaking about water generally, the claim of contradiction was made. Another commenter claimed:

“Most likely later generations of muslim [sic] scholars tried to reconcile these contradictions with redactions and additions.”

This same commenter also claimed that my faith “was keeping me blind from the obvious”.  Again basic reading comprehension will show that there’s no contradiction and one would have to cite proof for the claim of redactions and editing (which they did not.  Of course, it can be tempting for someone to assume this because their own religious scribes had this issue with redaction and editing. Let’s explore this in more detail. Here are the hadith quoted:

“You should not pass urine in stagnant water which is not flowing then (you may need to) wash in it.”[7]

Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “None of you should take a bath in stagnant water when he is sexually impure.”[8]

The person appears to have gotten confused and thought they were talking about the same incident and also wondered why it would be necessary to say that. Well, the Prophetﷺ told people not to urinate or bathe directly in bodies of water outside because other people might drink or wash in it not knowing that. Remember this is in ancient times in the desert and people had to bathe and wash themselves – they didn’t have the luxury of plumbing that we have nowadays. They used lakes, wells, streams, rivers, collected rain water etc. So the Prophetﷺ said don’t urinate or bathe in these pools of water because someone might come after you.

            Finally the last hadith quoted to show the statement was general:

It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar that his father said:
“The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was asked about water and how some animals and carnivorous beasts might drink from it. He said: ‘If the water is more than two Qullahs, it will not carry filth.'”  It comes with some explanation in Sunan At-Timidhi ‘Abdah (one of the narrators) said: “Muhammad bin Ishaq said: ‘A Qullah refers to Jirar (These are two nouns describing large casks that are used to hold water), and a Qullah is the thing that drinking water is held in.”‘ At-Tirmidhi said: “This is the saying of Ash Shafa’i, Ahmad and Ishaq. They say that when the water is two Qullahs then nothing makes it impure, as long as it does not change its smell, and its taste. And they say, it is approximately fifty Qirbahs (waterskins).”[9]

This goes back to the same point.  if you have a large amount of water that is considered large enough that a little amount of something gross won’t instantly contaminate the whole thing. So all these hadith are saying is:

  1. This well’s water is pure to wash yourself and nothing from this small amount of trash makes it impure.
  2. Don’t urinate or take a bath in stagnant water so you don’t contaminate other people.
  3. Water can be contaminated if it’s a small amount and something gross gets into it.

These are not contradictions, but a general statement combined with exceptions to the rule of thumb. Water by itself is fundamentally pure. If there are impurities involved, the water would also become impure; not because of the water itself, but because of what’s in it.

The Companions opinion was based off a weak hadith? (Sigh. I know. Just please…go with it)

            The last point that’s worth noting is that a list of classical Companions and scholarly opinions were listed to show that water’s purity is a general statement. Furthermore, the people who heard the Prophetﷺ say the statement in question about water didn’t understand what heﷺ said in the way the video claimed.  What they said was that water does not get affected by a small gross object getting into a large body of water, except when the water’s smell, taste or color changes.  In response, the non-Muslim commenters said that they based their opinion on a weak hadith!

face smack

For the purpose of trying to not make this blog post too long, let’s go down the line. These are people who met the Prophetﷺ or students of people who met the Prophetﷺ. They’re not sitting there reading Bukhari or Muslim etc. This is what they taught at their schools. This would be like me thinking that the early Church Fathers’ opinions about wife beating not being grounds for divorce are in the New Testament.

            One big difference in Islam and Christianity’s history is that God allowed us to defeat our oppressors and by the end of the Prophet’sﷺ life Islam was an authority in the land. Many Companions set up schools to teach the next generation of Muslims. They weren’t passing secret notes back and forth. Some of the people quoted in the list had never even met.  This was just their understanding that the statement about water is general but if something happens to the water, don’t drink it or use it for ablution. We can see a basis for the opinion because, as can be seen in the hadith about the well, it was a large amount and one small thing doesn’t contaminate it. As for a small amount, it’s possible it can become contaminated. Where confusion took place is that it was shown that a weak hadith just happened to say the same thing they had said as well (hence it’s use as a supporting evidence but it could never stand by itself) so it could be that heﷺ did say this because all these Companions said the same thing when asked. But we cannot use it as a proof by itself because a narrator is unknown in the chain. And as can be seen from the first section, it’s not even necessary to refute the claim of the video and for the sake of argument it can be thrown out.

            In summary:

  1. There is a general statement about using water to wash before prayer.
  2. The donkey in the pond hadith is weak and not used for evidence.
  3. All the hadith quoted to show that the statement was general about washing for prayer are not contradictory or edited. They are talking about specific incidents and exceptions.
  4. The Companions opinions were not based off a weak hadith.

Hopefully this will be enough to put this matter to rest. Ramadan Mubarak to everyone and next time if you have a question about something in Islam, please message it privately and don’t spam the comment section.

[1] Quran 31:6-9.

[2] Jami` at-Tirmidhi Hadith 66: https://sunnah.com/abudawud/1/66

[3] Sunan ibn Majah Hadith 520: https://sunnah.com/urn/1255190

[4] See the following video for a guide on how to perform Wudu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KweAf1Z8sY

[5] Ma`âlim al-Sunan (1/37).

[6] Sunan Abi Dawud 67: https://sunnah.com/abudawud/1/67

[7] Sahih al-Bukhari 239: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/4/106

[8] Bulugh al-Maram 6 (reported by Imam Muslim): https://sunnah.com/bulugh/1/6

[9] Sunan an-Nasā’ī Hadith 52: https://sunnah.com/urn/1000520

 

113 thoughts on “Water is Pure”

  1. Paulus

    The first thing I noticed is this.

    “One will notice in the first hadith there is no mention of drinking water but about ablution or Wudu, which is a washing process Muslims do before prayer.[4] The hadith is talking about this washing process and nothing more.“

    But you proceed to cite a few other Hadith that also do not mention drinking water. So you’ve applied one criteria inconsistently. What does bathing have to do with drinking water if wudu is excluded? What does post sex washing have to do with drinking water if wudu is excluded?

    Second, you haven’t given any evidence for consensus for drinking water. Again, the “exceptions” you discuss are not about drinking. So if the first Hadith isn’t allowed to be about drinking, nor can the few others you cited.

    Thirdly, we do have a Hadith about drinking contaminated water. You dismissed it because it is weak. So you are dismissing one Hadith about the specific discussion topic and using other Hadith not related to drinking as evidence. Even though you disallowed such a reading initially.

    Finally, you appear to have abandoned the weak Hadith about change of colour and taste. But that was your *only* Hadith that did discuss drinking water and the *only* Hadith your scholar’s used to gain their consensus on that specific topic. As I mentioned before, it’s inconsisent to accept one weak Hadith but exclude another. That’s bias talking, not consistency.

    So you’ve done yourself no favours. You’ve merely applied a few exceptions about bathing and urinating in water and applied it to drinking. But as your quote above shows, you wouldn’t allow such a reading for the initial Hadith. Why the hypocrisy?

    Like

    Reply
    1. stewjo004

      @ Paulus

      The claim of the video is Muslims are allowed to drink dirty water because of a weak hadith and the “Water is pure” part mentioned in the hadith on wudu. So according to them no matter what happens to water we always think it can’t be contaminated.

      I was saying this is a general statement about water and was showing other hadith where water can be contaminated such as by bathing or urinating in it. Everyone forgot what the actual hadith in the video said and started saying they were all contradictory.

      Finally please read last third again as I’ve discussed all of this. None of this is about drinking water except the camel one which can’t be used as an evidence by itself. You weren’t listening, the Companions who heard the rule are themselves the evidence. They are not quoting any hadith period. They were asked about the ruling on when does water become unfit and this is the ruling they give. Hence the “Consensus” on their understanding about water. None of them were like: “Even if the water is brown with flies in it, the Prophetﷺ said water is PURE!!!” Like what was being claimed.

      This ruling they gave just so happens to be the exact same thing a weak hadith says. We would never take the weak hadith by itself or as the main point of the discussion but if its saying something that’s established and agreed on by other authentic evidences it can be used as a support. However again it can be thrown out as it really doesn’t affect anything. It’s simply, there’s a possibility the Prophetﷺ could’ve said it because the Companions are saying the same thing. Even let’s hypothetically take the camel, it would be used as a supporting evidence for if there is a gross thing in a large body of water it doesn’t alter the water’s state. Neither one of these hadith affects the discussion.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  2. Paulus

    “the Companions who heard the rule are themselves the evidence. They are not quoting any hadith period. They were asked about the ruling on when does water become unfit and this is the ruling they give.”

    Ok, where is this recorded? This should make it clear

    Like

    Reply
  5. Joel

    stew

    Seriously? This is a sorry excuse for an refutation. All you have done is illustrate the unreliable nature of the hadith collections. You have presented two so-called “authentic” hadith supposedly to show that the first supposedly “authentic” hadith was not saying what it so plainly is saying.

    When mohammed says, “Indeed water is pure, nothing makes it impure.” in one “authentic” hadith, and then in a couple of others he says what amounts to an abrogation of his initial proclamation by saying, “well, er…actually…some things make water impure”. These are two clear and blatant contradictions.

    Mohammed says “NOTHING makes water impure”, and then contradicts himself. There is no qualifier here. Mohamed does not say that water cannot be made impure in some conditions, he makes a blanket assertion that is plainly false. The problem you have is that either the hadith simply cannot be trusted, or mohammed was teaching two different and opposite principles. Or, both are true, and mohammed was stringing folks along.

    Then for your coup-de-grace, you post this ridiculous hadith…

    “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was asked about water and how some animals and carnivorous beasts might drink from it. He said: ‘If the water is more than two Qullahs, it will not carry filth.'”[1] [1]It comes with some explanation in Sunan At Timidhi ‘Abdah (one of the narrators) said: “Muhammad bin Ishaq said: ‘A Qullah refers to Jirar (These are two nouns describing large casks that are used to hold water), and a Qullah is the thing that drinking water is held in.”‘ At-Tirmidhi said: “This is the saying of Ash Shafa’i, Ahmad and Ishaq. They say that when the water is two Qullahs then nothing makes it impure, as long as it does not change its smell, and its taste. And they say, it is approximately fifty Qirbahs (waterskins).”

    Obviously mohammed did not know – and allah didn’t bother telling him – that entire lakes can be made “impure” from parasites, bacteria, and toxic poisoning. These impurities can harm muslims since they can enter the body through cuts, bodily orifices, and the like. That aside, again, you have quoted an “authentic” hadith that plainly contradicts the “authentic” hadith in which mohammed makes the claim “NOTHING can make water impure”. Again, you have merely illustrated the unreliability of the hadith.

    Then you came up with this gem..

    Well, the Prophetﷺ told people not to urinate or bathe directly in bodies of water outside because other people might drink or wash in it not knowing that.

    LOL! The texts you quoted say absolutely nothing of the sort – you have totally made that up.

    Like

    Reply
    1. stewjo004

      Please, re-read the text you just posted slowly…

      Allow me to help you with understanding, using a previous discussion. Let’s take the statement that no one can divorce except for adultery. You spent a few days arguing this was a general statement and there were other reasons Christians can divorce correct?

      How come a statement that has no exceptions or examples can be taken to mean one thing? But not a statement that has exceptions and explanations behind it?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. LOL, little Coco is still doing his dance! First it was radiation, then parasites. Then it was the reliability of the hadiths. Every time the little primate gets refuted, he just keeps dancing!

      But what can you expect from a guy who worships another guy, and whose Bible is so full of contradictions, nonsense and myths, that the only way to distract from it is to make nonsensical arguments against Islam?

      Like

      Reply
    3. Joal

      stew

      There is no need to re-read anything – you have not made a reasonable case for why your scriptures are contradictory. Even your comment shows that you struggle to reason logically. For example…

      Let’s take the statement that no one can divorce except for adultery. You spent a few days arguing this was a general statement and there were other reasons Christians can divorce correct?

      Jesus does not make contradictory statements in this situation – mohamed makes clearly contradictory assertion. On the one hand he sates that nothing can make water impure, on the other hand you claim he makes exceptions. It cannot be true that nothing makes water impure and water can be made impure. It has to be one or the other. Your problem does not go away by using tu quoque arguments.

      As for your “what aboutism” argument, there is a history in the OT of Yahweh calling those who disobey his laws adulterers – clearly to disobey God is to adulterate your relationship with him. To disobey the commandment to love others as yourself – by, let’s say, abusing your wife – puts you in the category of adulterer to the Lord. There is clear precedent. It isn’t hard.

      On the other hand, mohammed makes clearly false statements about water never being impure which are contradicted later in other so-called “authentic” hadith. There is no similarity between the two circumstances.

      Nothing you have written comes even remotely close to resolving the blatant discrepancy in these two polar opposite assertions.

      Like

      Reply

  6. if i am one person and after death i still remain one person, how is my person different than the fathers person?

    If yhwh created bacteria and came down as a jew, why didnt he say

    “Not only are sinful thoughts detrimental to ones living ,but you know,the pharisees are right, YOU SHOULD wash your hands before you eat”

    Quote:

    They don’t wash their hands before they eat!

    the pharisees are saying that their hands are UNWASHED as in UNWASHED aniptos

    jesus’ “divine ” advice is that washing of hands is MAN MADE ritual which the jews are passing of as divine/traditions of men as doctrines, but jesus did not know about germs, he thinks hand washing is MAN MADE

    in that time and place, if one thing would have been divine revelation , it would be to WASH your hands because of bacteria

    jesus’ words

    but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

    put it together, disciples are caught eating with unwashed hands and jesus thought all along “it doesnt matter because eating with dirty hands does not defile”

    Luke

    But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the me

    Marks version

    The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])

    5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

    clearly the crosstian god thinks only a RELIGIOUS issue is at stake,if he had known about germs, he would have said that the pharisees are right.

    think about how the religion of christianity affected crosstians in time of black plague, think about how jesus’ “advice” played role in keeping hands dirty. Think about how worshipping a false god can AFFECT your health and living.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. stewjo004

      Yeah, I debated about bringing this up. According to Christian teachings using the same logic were getting, Jesus is said to oppose washing your hands before you eat.

      But then it will be a response: “No context.” Exactly, the context of water is pure is it is inherently pure by itself. It’s really not that difficult.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  7. stewjo004

    It’ pretty funny because it’s almost a reversal of the divorce discussion

    1. Exceptions to the general rule
    2. Disciple explanation
    3. Early scholars believed to mean it as an exception. (Which btw, I love how no one is bringing scholarly opinion like we did during divorce)

    The only other way I can possibly explain this:

    Human waste is inherently impure. You could wash it to a mirror shine, but at the end of the day, it will always remain impure.
    Water is pure by its nature. Even if bacteria, mud, etc got into it if they could be removed it would retain it’s pure state again.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    2. stewjo004

      Ibn Abbas opinions are in various books of fiqh.
      Ibn Umar’s opinion is in various books of fiqh, Tafseer, even in Bukhari’s commentary he will mention various Companion’s opinions etc.
      A lot, of this, will be their student’s writing the opinions of their teachers.

      “Nail altar” by Imam Ash Shanqeetee is supposed to be a very good recording of various opinions. (Note I haven’t read this myself nor do I know if its in English I just asked the question in passing to one of my teachers if there is one spot to check sahaba opinion and he mentioned this particular book is a good spot if you need a quick reference.)

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Paulus

        Hello Stew.

        May I remind you of your own comment.

        “the Companions who heard the rule are themselves the evidence. They are not quoting any hadith period.“

        I am wondering why you are placing fiqh books above the Hadith literature? I am also wondering why you are now referring to the “students”. Are you admitting that you don’t actually have the words or records of the companions, I.e eyewitnesses?

        Like

  9. stewjo004

    No, a lot of Sahaba’s student’s wrote fiqh books where they will mention their teacher’s opinions in them. Depending on how far back you go some may be older than for example Bukhari (note there are hadiths books before this) who in his commentary is quoting from other fiqh books. You can go online and look for of who was a student of who. It’s just not that deep to me to research every quote in this discussion with you, to be honest.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Brother Stew, you are just going to have to face the fact that Cerbie is just going to keep moving the goalpost and ask stupid questions (which actually expose his own ignorance) every time he gets refuted. There is not an honest bone in his pathetic body. The honesty has been removed due to years of brainwashing.

      Like

      Reply
      1. stewjo004

        @qb
        You’re right. The moving the goal post fallacy has been strong on this topic. I’m signing out as the point has been more or less proven and the opposing side is quoting no scholarly work to support their argument.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Paulus

      Ok.

      I would like to follow islamic dawah principles for a second. You claim some of these books predate Bukhari.

      Can you provide manuscript support? From the late sixth or early seventh century?

      Second, what is superior? Hadith or fiqh books? You said Hadith is to be favoured above consensus. But you seem to now be not abiding by your own standards.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Paulus

      Finally, if these people were the Sahabas students, then they would definitely predate Bukhari. You say only “some” of them do. Well, how many centuries is Bukhari after muhammad? Clearly, these people weren’t students at all.

      You’ve really just dug a big hole of hearsay here unfortunately.

      Argument over.

      Like

      Reply
      1. stewjo004

        OR, instead of assuming a conclusion when I say “some fiqh books predate Bukhari” I mean not every fiqh book on planet earth predates him. (See how the discussion started off from a person making assumptions about one statement a person is saying?)

        We have fiqh books from the middle ages and yes modern fiqh books as well. Fiqh is simply Islamic jurisprudence and many scholars have written on the subject. So shockingly we have many works older than Bukhari.

        He was in school studying hadith around 205 years after the Prophet. WHAT! Hadith was in circulation prior to his famous compilation? Yes, hence why everyone sounds stupid saying hadith appeared 200 years afterward. What Bukhari did that was so famous was the extensive compiling, checking the chains and biographies of the people in said chain as a quick resource but he was not the first person to do this.

        There are hadith books older than Bukhari as well as various fiqh and Tafseer books. ALL of these have opinions of Sahaba as recorded by their student’s. So for example, ibn Umar may have held the opinion on a subject, his student’s record it in their work. Bukhari or another famous scholar may quote from that work when he is discussing his own personal opinion on a fiqh discussion. Same with in his hadith compilation, he may absorb a collection of ahadith from an earlier work of a student of a Sahaba when they are talking about hadith this Sahaba mentioned to him (hence the “chain”) Of course there are other ways but this is a simple example.

        Like

      2. Joal

        stew

        “There are hadith books older than Bukhari as well as various fiqh and Tafseer books. ALL of these have opinions of Sahaba as recorded by their student’s.”

        Assertions are not evidence. There are no extant complete manuscripts of hadith literature pre-dating the 11th century or bukhari.

        Like

      3. Coco, you are just blowing hot air and pretending to be an expert. The fact is that scholars recognize the existence of hadith collections predating Bukhari. You see, the absence of manuscripts is precluded by the isnad. This is why hadiths are far superior to your gospels. Your gospels lack any manuscripts as well as a reliable chain going back to Jesus (pbuh).

        Like

      4. Also little Coco, there is in fact an extant manuscript fragment of Malik’s Muwatta dated to the 8th century when Imam Malik lived. The Muwatta contains many hadiths included in Bukhari.

        Like

      5. Joel

        qb

        You are an idiot. Manuscripts are made impossible because of the hearsay of the isnad?

        So, in short, you admit that there is scant manuscript evidence for bikhari’s 11th century work? My point is not refuted, the hadith are historically suspect.

        Like

      7. Joel

        qb

        ” there is in fact an extant manuscript fragment of Malik’s Muwatta dated to the 8th century when Imam Malik lived.”

        Talk about desperation! LOL!

        Fragment? Bukhari is 9 volumes and you are claiming a “fragment” as evidence?

        Like

      8. LOL, look at the little monkey dance! We find yet again that Coco is full of hot air and doesn’t know what he is talking about. There are in fact manuscripts predating Bukhari, and so the monkey is embarrassed yet again!

        Like

      9. Paulus

        Ok stew.

        I’d just like you to remember this conversation the next time you want to attack the Christian faith. I hope you won’t be inconsistent and expect more from Christians that you yourself accept.

        Like

  10. Hey pauliz , if we DROP rabbinical judaism from the picture , we would like to know about what advice jesus gave you when it comes to

    1.bum cleaning (water or toilet paper?l
    2.hand washing ( not important or important)
    3.cleaning mouth( tooth brush or no tooth brush)
    4.cutting nails (when)

    now since crosstians dont like pharisic or judaic “water sport rituals” tell us the HYGIENE of your pagan meat god? What healthy living he recommended as to live HEALTHY life ? Oh i forgot, jesus told ppl to HATE life….since he was more concerned with heart, he obviously didnt cate about germs . But if you live an ill life , it is possible that worship of god becomes difficult . other than bathing on sunday to be SEEN and Sniffed BY men, what advice were youn given by jesus ????

    Like

    Reply
    1. Paulus

      Oh, I see. You want to set criteria that someone must discuss to be considered a prophet. Is that correct? In that case, please provide the following instructions from muhammad.

      1. Are Muslims to use google or bing?
      2. Are Muslims to travel via car or donkey?
      3. Are Muslims allowed to wear glasses or not?

      Duh!

      Like

      Reply

      1. you are an idiot. what has your list got ANYTHING to do with living hygienic life or CONSIDERED to be a prophet??
        my question was about jesus and HYGIENE. hygenic living is important to living healthy life. bacteria is a real danger to human life. my question is, what did jesus advice you crosstians?

        why are you crosstians PHARISEE like in your KITCHENS and less jesus like?
        you hate on the pharisees, but they have more hygenic advice (washing pots , kettles, hands) , then jesus, right?

        i QUOTE :

        “The disciples not washing their hands (Matthew 15:1-20) was a theological concern not a matter of cleanliness otherwise why would Jesus go on at length about sexual immorality, stealing, etc.. if the Pharisees would [be] solely concerned about washing hands, it just doesn’t make [sense] in context that this is a merely a health concern on the Pharisees part.”

        Everyone acknowledges this washing held a solely theological purpose for the Pharisees and as far as we can tell, for Jesus also. We all understand such washing was a sacred ritual for the Pharisees, so, saying that Carrier is arguing this washing was “merely a health concern on the Pharisees part” is a misrepresentation, a nonsensical claim to make about Carrier’s position, and a straw man. Carrier is arguing that we might expect the Pharisees to see washing as having only a theological significance since their knowledge was merely that of men, but that if Jesus had, in fact, possessed divine knowledge of the creation, washing in general should have held significance for Jesus wholly apart from the theological. Yet it did not. Why not? It was a perfect opportunity, a teachable moment if you will, for a Jesus who might have been divine to “reveal” to the disciples and mankind not only that “sexual immorality, stealing, etc.” were detrimental to a good life or a good society (to put it in context), but also to bestow upon them the divine knowledge that:

        “Lo, my god created these single-celled organisms, the planty photosynthetic kinds, such as algae on the Third Day, and the more animally kinds such as viruses and protozoa on the Fifth Day, some of which, if you don’t wash them off, will —–king kill you! And so, even though the Pharisees are dead wrong about WHY you should wash your hands before you eat, they are, nonetheless, 100% correct about the fact you should indeed be washing your hands before eating!”

        Carrier’s point is, if the xian god were benevolent and if Jesus had possessed divinity, it should have, and indeed would have been a health concern on Jesus’ part! The fact it was not suggests that either the xian god is not benevolent or else, contrary to what John 1:1-14 claims, Jesus did not know about germs and that he possessed no knowledge about what was supposedly the trinties own creation beyond that which was available to other regular, “non-divine” people at the time. Jesus had access to no better information than did the Pharisees, and finding fault with the theological aspect of washing, apparently saw no purpose in washing at all. Hence, reasoning narrowly from this passage it’s possible to think that Jesus might not have been benevolent, but more likely that he was simply not divine. Either way, Jesus is not who xian apologists such as yourself would have us believe he was, given that he existed.

        ““Some Pharisees and teachers of the Law who had come from Jerusalem gathered round Jesus. They noticed that some of his disciples were eating their food with hands which were ritually unclean – that is, they had not washed them in the way the Pharisees said people should” (Mark 7:1-2)”

        QUOTE:

        he relevant verse is Mark 7:2 which reads in Greek:

        kai idontes tinas tôn mathêtôn autou hoti koinais chersin tout estin aniptois esthiousin tous artous

        Which translate literally as:

        and / they were seeing / some / of his disciples / that / with defiled hands / that is, unwashed [hands] / they ate / their bread.

        The key word “unwashed” is aniptos (likewise again in Mark 7:5). It means what it says: unwashed.

        The phrase “in the way” is nowhere in the text. Even the next verse reads only:

        For / the Pharisees / and / all the Jews / if they do not wash / their hands / by fist / they do not eat / holding fast / the tradition / of the elders / and / when [they come] / from the marketplace / if they do not / cleanse themselves / they do not eat / and / many / other things / there are / which they have received / to hold fast to: / washing / of cups / and / pots / and bronze vessels.

        You will see no reference to the words your translation inserts. Those words simply aren’t there. The phrase “to the wrist” is a modern attempt to interpret “by fist” [dative of pugmê], the more direct meaning of which is that they wash their hands with their fists (i.e. the way we scrub our hands, enclosing one in the fist of the other), meaning they wash well. Note that the disciples are not said to have washed less well, but to not have washed at all.

        Hence what is being described is simply washing their hands, which “some of the disciples” weren’t doing–their hands were “unwashed” (notably, the tradition Jesus goes on to denounce here included washing your cooking and drinking utensils, too, cf. Mark 7:4, another obvious vector for germs that Jesus was evidently unaware of).

        END QUOTE

        i quote

        1Then come unto Jesus do they from Jerusalem — scribes and Pharisees — saying, 2‘Wherefore do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they do not wash their hands when they may eat bread.’ 3

        And gathered together unto him are the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, having come from Jerusalem, 2and having seen certain of his disciples with defiled hands — that is, unwashed — eating bread, they found fault

        for the Pharisees, and all the Jews, if they do not wash the hands to the wrist, do not eat, holding the tradition of the elders, 4and, [coming] from the market-place, if they do not baptize themselves…

        5Then question him do the Pharisees and the scribes, ‘Wherefore do thy disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but with unwashed hands do eat the bread?’

        15And Peter answering said to him…that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly, and into the drain is cast forth? 18but the things coming forth from the mouth from the heart do come forth, and these defile the man

        And Peter answering said to him, ‘Explain to us this simile.’ 16And Jesus said, ‘Are ye also yet without understanding? 17do ye not understand that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly, and into the drain is cast forth? 18but the things coming forth from the mouth from the heart do come forth, and these defile the man; 19for out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, whoredoms, thefts, false witnessings, evil speakings: 20these are the things defiling the man; but to eat with unwashen hands doth not defile the man.’

        notice that only a religious issue is at stake and jesus SEES NO OTHER REASON for washing hands before meals?

        notice that jesus could only SEE ritual within the practice and nothing else?

        notice that he agrees that it is NOT IMPORTANT to wash ones hands? notice that the deciples with unclean hands would continue to eat with unclean hands because of jesus’ response to the pharisees? jesus gave them an escuse to keep thier hands dirty and continue to eat because according to jesus’ logic it is not IMPORTANT to clean hands before meals.

        “Jesus never gave any good advice reflecting what is known now but was not known then. So Jesus should have been saying that it’s important to have clean hands to avoid contaminated or being contaminated, but not just to follow a ritual mindlessly.”

        ////////////////////////////////////////

        so paulus, WHAT advice did jesus “savior” give you on HEALTHY living other than DYING for your sins lol?

        Like

  11. stewjo004

    @ Joel

    Read again slowly. Contradiction states two things can’t exist at the same time when dealing with the SAME CONTEXT.

    A person mentioning water is pure when dealing with washing for prayer. Is different from a person mentioning water can be contaminated in a different context.

    The Passover dates between John and the Synoptics are contradictory. In this case, water is being referred to generally. As I said earlier, the only other way I can possibly explain it is this:

    Human waste is inherently impure. You could wash it to a mirror shine, but at the end of the day, it will always remain impure.

    Water is pure by its nature. Even if bacteria, mud, etc got into it if they could be removed it would retain its pure state again.

    The water itself is still pure. What makes the water bad is what foreign material is in the water.

    In regards to hadith. To begin it’s hard to refer to what you mean. A manuscript and a codex are two separate things. But if you’re using the complete codex argument Codex Sinaiticus is the 4th century. Just using your dates without looking even though both Qur’an and hadith were mostly preserved orally were still earlier than you on both counts.

    Imam Malik’s Muwatta is early:
    https://www.islamic-awareness.org/hadith/perf731

    Here is a list of even earlier hadith collections:
    https://www.islamic-awareness.org/hadith/hadith.html

    Are There Any Hadith Collections From Early Islam?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    2. Joel

      stew

      Water is pure by its nature. Even if bacteria, mud, etc got into it if they could be removed it would retain its pure state again.

      The water itself is still pure. What makes the water bad is what foreign material is in the water.

      How did you get so brainwashed? What you have said is that water can become impure, but the water’s not really impure, it’s the impurities in the water that are impure so the water is not impure at all, even though it actually is impure because of the impurities in it….which are impure. Are you even thinking?

      LOL!!

      So you have admitted – even from your initial post – that mohammed was wrong when he claimed that water cannot be made impure by anything. And you have completely missed the significance of this important incorrect teaching of mohammed – impure water can harm people even if they don’t drink it. So even if your prophet is fine with people washing on filthy water, the medical profession would disagree that it is okay to do so.

      Like

      Reply

      1. LOL!! Coco the dancing monkey accusing someone else of being “brainwashed”!! That’s rich!! Hey Coco, what’s the deal with menstruation? I notice you ran away from that again. 😉

        So after all this, despite being refuted over and over again (radiation, parasites, hadith transmission and preservation etc.), you’re still doing your dance? Now that’s a perfect example of a good little, brainwashed Christian zombie! Still nothing substantive to refute Stew, only personal opinions. The holy spirit certainly has rotted your brain, it seems! ROFTL!!

        Like

      2. stewjo004

        @ Joel
        And that’s what I’m talking about with you not listening.
        The water was not dirty brown or something like that and he’s saying naw, it’s still fine you can wash before prayer in it. Imagine you had a little river, every once in awhile somebody urinated in it or something gross ended up in it. He’s saying that that small gross thing doesn’t make an entire body of water contaminated for washing for prayer. For example, let’s say a bug ended up drowning in your Kool-Aid. People will throw out the entire cup thinking its now been contaminated when in reality the bug isn’t that big of a deal. It’s the same thing here.

        @ Paulus
        I have been very consistent you’re both just doing a “moving the goal post fallacy”. The original contention was that Muslims may drink dirty water based on 2 hadith.

        The opposing side countered:
        1. This was a general statement used for washing before prayer.
        2. The 2nd hadith about drinking is thrown out due to being weak.
        3. There are other hadith where he warns not to contaminate water.
        4. No Companion held this opinion.
        5. No scholar of any age has held this opinion.

        The contending side is now talking about hadith collection manuscripts… Do you see how the original point has been moved? The only thing defending side should’ve done was call out contending side on the fallacy and not engaged as it was not relevant to the discussion.

        If you both still don’t get it here’s something to simplify things for you:

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Joel

        stew

        You are just avoiding the issue. Your prophet made a general statement that nothing can make water impure. You are now claiming that “impure” means it must be discolored or smell funny, which is being willfully ignorant. Water can be clear, clean, and nice smelling, yet still be a danger to people washing in it since parasites, microbes and toxins can enter the body even when you don’t drink it. That in and of itself makes the proclamations of mohammed suspect, but then he contradicts himself with another authentic hadith. Clearly, the hadith cannot be reliable.

        No amount of special pleading and moving the goalposts can help you.

        Like

  13. Paulus

    The opposing side countered:
    1. This was a general statement used for washing before prayer.
    – except you cited other Hadith that didn’t talk about drinking water. You allowed yourself the priveledge but disallow is the same. Inconsistency number 1

    2. The 2nd hadith about drinking is thrown out due to being weak.
    -initially you used a weak Hadith as evidence. But don’t allow others to do the same. Inconsistency number 2.

    3. There are other hadith where he warns not to contaminate water.
    – irrelevant. None discuss drinking water which was the initial point. So YOU MOVED THE GOALPOSTS! You won’t allow the Hadith about wudu to be relevant to drinking but somehow allow yourself a Hadith about urination to be relevant. Inconsistency number 3.

    4. No Companion held this opinion.
    – except there is a whole oral tradition that came from somewhere…

    5. No scholar of any age has held this opinion.
    – appeal to authority fallacy. Since Muslims aren’t allowed to stray from orthodoxy, it’s not surprising to find that people accept what they are told blindly.

    Like

    Reply
    1. stewjo004

      @ Paulus
      1. None of the hadith talk about drinking other than a weak one. If you have one that is authentic by all means bring it to the table. So appealing to this really weakens your entire argument. If you wanted to drop all 4 points below you would definitely not have any ground to stand on.
      2. I have never used a weak hadith as a main evidence that’s a straight lie. Even though from a fiqh perspective I didn’t do anything weird I personally said we can throw the point out.
      3. It is not moving the goal post. I stated it was a general statement and showed other narrations to establish proof.
      4. Doesn’t matter neither one of us can prove where the hadith came thrown hence throwing it out. People say they say aliens on Roswell doesn’t make it true.
      5. It’s not an appeal to authority to state the earliest scholars who were students of Disciples did not use the hadith in the context you’re using it in. From that perspective, no one can use the Early Church Fathers to establish early Christian beliefs, which sounds ridiculous. You literally have nothing to use to establish your evidence hence why your entire [remise is basically “I feel this is what it’s saying”.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. stewjo004

        @qb

        They’re both so corny. They never even heard the term moving the goal post fallacy and then all of a sudden they both start claiming I’m doing it.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Paulus

      Stew.

      You said that all scholars (consensus) agree that as long as the water is not changed In colour or taste, then it is drinkable. However, such a criteria was based on a weak Hadith. You agree with this and suggest we throw the Hadith out of the discussion. But it’s very inconsistent that your fiqh class notes that you posted cited a weak Hadith. Yet you’ve abandoned the Hadith in the video without even attempting to face it. That’s hypocritical and inconsistent.

      The problem you now have is that you have no basis for drinking clean water. If the consensus was appealingto the weak Hadith, then the consensus becomes moot.

      Even appealing to other authentic Hadith about urination won’t aolve the problem, because you won’t allow any Hadith that is not directly related to drinking water. That was your criteria. But you place fast and loose with it when you feel like it.

      So you may believe that their are exceptions to the rule of nothing making water impure, but you have no basis for any exception SPECIFICALLY related to drinking. You’re gunna be very thirsty!!

      Yes, you moved the goal posts. You spent a good portion of another thread pushing the idea of change of colour and taste being consensus. Now you’ve abandoned this argument and created another.

      I’ve dmeonstrated fairly easily your hypocritical stance. You make one criteria but abandon it in the next comment. You appeal to a weak Hadith only to abandon another on the same breath.

      Like

      Reply
  14. stewjo004

    @ Joel
    I’m now going to prove your faulty reasoning. According to you there’s no such thing as a general statement with exceptions. Okay, for the sake of argument I’ll agree with you.

    Luke 13:31-33. It says that the Pharisees came to Jesus and warns him of an impending threat from Herod who is supposed to have wanted to kill him. In response to this warning, Jesus allegedly responds,

    Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal. In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day – for surely NO PROPHET CAN DIE OUTSIDE JERUSALEM!

    The last part in verse 13 is a clear negation by Jesus regarding the impossibility of a prophet to die outside of Jerusalem. According to the gospels he supposed to have died at a place called Golgotha in Aramaic, Calvary in Latin and Kranious Topos in Greek (Matthew 27:23, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33 and John 19:17). Let’s just take one of the four.
    “And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull),”

    So, according to the verse Jesus was taken to Golgotha to be crucified. Where was Golgotha? According to an article by Keith W. Stump Golgotha was outside of Jerusalem.
    “What does the Bible tell us about the location? The Gospel writers call the place where Jesus was crucified Golgotha—an Aramaic word meaning “the skull.” Calvary is the Latin form of the word. Scripture does not reveal the precise location of Golgotha. It simply states that Jesus’ crucifixion took place outside the city of Jerusalem, though near it (John 19:20; Hebrews 13:12). Jewish law did not permit executions and burials inside the city.”

    HarperCollins’ Bible Dictionary informs:
    “John 19:20 and Jewish and Roman execution customs indicate that it was located outside of Jerusalem’s city walls”. (Paul J. Achtemeier. HarperCollins’ Bible Dictionary(1996) pg. 164)

    Mercer Dictionary of the Bible tells us:
    “Jewish and Roman law would likely have required capital punishment to take place outside the city walls (John 19:20; Heb 13:12).” (Watson E. Mills. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible(1990). pg. 128)

    According to Encyclopedia Britannica Golgotha was outside Jerusalem:
    “The hill of execution was outside the city walls of Jerusalem, apparently near a road and not far from the sepulchre where Jesus was buried.”

    According to Online Etymology Dictionary it was near Jerusalem:
    “hill near Jerusalem,” via L. and Gk., from Aramaic gulgulta, lit. “place of the skull,” from Heb. gulgoleth “skull.” So called in reference to its shape (see Calvary)” (GOLGOTHA.” Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 23 Apr. 2009.

    In John 19:20 which is cited by Keith W. Stump in his article we read that the place was NEAR the city (Jerusalem):
    “Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek.”

    The word is eggus literally means near. What does it mean to be near? Near indicates being outside. If you said: “I am near my house.” Does it mean you’re inside your house? No, it means you’re in close to your house, but outside. If you said that you are near New York, you are not inside it but rather outside. So according to John Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha which was near (aka outside) of Jerusalem. If that is true then it is in clear opposition to Jesus’ own testimony in Luke 13:33 which we read and analysed earlier.

    SOOOOO…. using your logic, according to the gospels Jesus die as a false prophet.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    2. Joel

      stew

      I’m now going to prove your faulty reasoning. According to you there’s no such thing as a general statement with exceptions. Okay, for the sake of argument I’ll agree with you.

      This is laughable. You haven’t proven anything at all. LOL! Where did make an exception to his statement? You have embarrassed yourself.

      Jesus was obviously using hyperbole – unless you are, stupidly, trying to claim that Jesus did not know that executions don’t take place within the city walls? Are you even thinking?

      Plus jesus didn’t contradict himself, mohammed so clearly did – in a significantly embarrassing way. Firstly, allowing his followers to believe that they can wash in contaminated water because he asserted that nothing can make it impure, is just plain evil. If he was a true prophet, he should have known that perfectly clear, clean-smelling, and ostensibly pure water, could in fact be toxic and harmful when poured over the skin, or entered into the body through cuts and orifices.

      Secondly, by making contradictory statements in authentic hadiths, renders their credibility suspect. The hadiths assign opposing assertions on the same subject to the same man.

      Obviously, you can’t defend your position – it is indefensible.

      Like

      Reply
      1. stewjo004

        @ Joel
        No he is supposed to have said it is impossible for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem (which is wrong btw because Moses did) so using your same argument he was a false prophet who was cursed when you God couple it with Deut. and so was Moses.

        And you’re trying to move what was said remember? You have the argument that no one can have general statements so stay consistent. He died outside Jerusalem along with Moses so according to the gospels their both false prophets using the same logic you’re using.

        Next, quick question, when a fly falls into Kool-aid is all the container contaminated?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. well stew, here is doug shaver saying that jesus CONTRADICTED himself on divorce .

        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce.html

        i quote :

        Question: Is it possible for a person to get divorced and remarry without committing adultery?
        First, we see that the bible tells us quite clearly that remarriage after divorce is prohibited because it is adultery. Jesus clearly says so.

        Mark 10:2-5, 9-12

        And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?” tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, “What did Moses command you?” And they said, “Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.” And Jesus answered and said unto them, “For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept…What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
        Also see Luke 16:1, 18:

        And he said also unto his disciples,… “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”
        So the logical form of this is:

        (x)(Dx & Rx => Ax)

        where D is for “divorced,” R is for “remarried,” and A is for “commits adultery.” It is read, “For anything x, if x is divorced and x is remarried, then x commits adultery.” This is universal and applies without exception to any x, according to the above quotations from Jesus. “Whosoever” means “anyone,” applying universally.

        /////////////////////

        so shaver seems to be saying that THERE ARE absolutely no EXCEPTIONS in marks version .
        this is universal ruling WITHOUT EXCEPTION to any x …..

        Liked by 1 person

      3. stew,
        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce2.html

        DOUG
        Well, we finally, in his last sentence, find out his alleged solution to the problem.
        Turkel proposes that in the situation described in Mark 10, Jesus could have safely assumed that his listeners would know of the exception to the divorce-and-remarry rule, so he didn’t have to mention it. The exception was well-known, so Jesus didn’t bother to restate it because his listeners already knew it. It is not stated explicitly in Turkel’s “solution” whether Jesus was talking to two groups on two separate occasions or whether he did so on one occasion, but it seems most likely that Turkel intends for us to understand that Jesus was addressing two groups on two separate occasions, and that in one case Jesus omitted the exception because his audience was aware of it. Otherwise, if this was only one occasion, then Jesus did not say what is stated in Mark 10, so that would be a biblical error. So there were two occasions, and in one case Jesus gave a short version of the rule, apparently.

        This defense fails for several reasons.

        1. First, whether Jesus or his listeners knew of an exception to the rule or not, to state a rule that has an exception as a universal, exceptionless rule is still an error. If the rule has an exception, then to state it without an exception is an error, plain and simple. If ~[(x)(Dx & Rx => Ax)], then you shouldn’t state (x)(Dx & Rx => Ax). It’s that simple.

        An analogy might help.

        Exodus 22:14-15 tells us (NIV):

        ”If a man borrows an animal from his neighbour and it is injured or dies while the owner is not present, he must make restitution. But if the owner is with the animal, the borrower will not have to pay. If the animal was hired, the money paid for the hire covers the loss.”
        So to state the rule as “Anyone who borrows an animal and it dies, must pay restitution” is to commit an error. That isn’t true. The rule is: “Anyone who borrows an animal and it dies, must pay restitution unless the owner was present or the animal was hired.” Similarly, Exodus 21:28-29 says:

        Ex. 21:28 If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.
        So to say that “Anyone whose bull gores a man or woman to death is not held responsible” is to say something false, since the rule is: “”Anyone whose bull gores a man or woman to death is not held responsible unless the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up.”

        Similarly, if the rule is: “Anyone who divorces a spouse and marries another person commits adultery, unless he or she divorces for the crime of fornication,” then it is an error to state the rule as “Anyone who divorces a spouse and marries another person commits adultery.”

        2. Turkel’s solution makes no sense because in each case that Turkel addresses, in both Mark 10 and in Matthew 19, Jesus is addressing the same audience, the Pharisees. If he can assume that they know the exception in one case, he can assume it in the other case too.

        Mark 10:2-5, 9-12

        And the *Pharisees* came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto *them,* What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto *them,* For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept…What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto *them,* Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
        Matthew 19:3, 4, 6-9

        And the *Pharisees* also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto *them,*… What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. *They* say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto *them,* Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, _except it be for fornication_, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
        So there is no reason for Jesus to mention the exception in one case but not in the other case because in each case he is speaking to the same group. In fact, if Jesus is addressing the Pharisees, he can assume that they know not only the exception, but also the rule. So why did he mention that? Turkel’s solution makes no sense when the verses are seen in context.

        3. Turkel’s solution also makes no sense because the Pharisees were specifically asking Jesus about his views on marriage and divorce. They were inquiring about what he thought about divorce, so we should expect Jesus to answer with more detail than if the subject had just been brought up in passing. Because his doctrine on divorce was the explicit subject at hand, Jesus should not leave out any important details. An exception to an otherwise universal rule is certainly an important detail. In brief, the Pharisees asked Jesus, “What do you think of divorce?” and Jesus answered “No one can divorce and remarry.” Since divorce was the issue, he should not omit an important bit of information that is essential to his listeners’ understanding of his views on divorce. On Turkel’s view, that is what Jesus did, and this makes no sense.

        4. Turkel is only correct if Jesus lied. The Pharisees asked Jesus about his view on divorce. If Jesus believed that divorce and remarriage is sometimes allowed, then he lied in Mark 10 since he stated a rule in which it is not sometimes allowed. 5. Since Turkel does not take into account other verses that compound the problem, and which did not take place in the context of Jesus speaking to the Pharisees, Turkel’s solution does not adequately address the issue. 6. Finally, Turkel’s solution is only plausible when the verses are taken out of context. Perhaps this is why Turkel quotes so little of Matthew and Mark when he lays out the problem. When seen in context, it is obvious that the two descriptions are supposed to be of the same event. In each account, we have a long sequence of events described in similar words, and in many cases in identical words. Here are the events that the Mark and Matthew accounts have in common, and that are also in the same order in each of the two accounts.

        1. Jesus goes into the region of Judea across the Jordan.
        2. Large crowds followed him.

        3. Pharisees come.

        4. The Pharisees came to test him.

        5. The Pharisees bring up one issue.

        6. That issue is whether a man can divorce his wife.

        7. Jesus asks the Pharisees if they recall the OT view.

        8. Jesus cites Genesis 1:27.

        9. Jesus cites Genesis 2:24.

        10. Jesus states that what God has joined together, let man not separate.

        11. Jesus explains the divorce-and-remarry rule.

        12. People begin bringing little children to Jesus.

        13. The disciples rebuke the people for doing this.

        14. Jesus says that they should allow the children to approach.

        15. Jesus says that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these children.

        16. A man approaches Jesus.

        17. The man addresses Jesus as “good.”

        18. The man asks one question.

        19. The mans’ question is what he must do to inherit eternal life.

        20. Jesus asks him why he called Jesus good.

        21. Jesus states that there is only one who is good.

        22. Jesus tells the man to follow the commandments.

        23. The man asks which commandments he must follow.

        24. Jesus tells him to follow the commandments.

        25. Jesus gives a short list of commandments.

        26. The short list includes `Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, and to honor your father and mother.’

        27. The short list does not include any other of the ten commandments.

        28. The man says that he has already been keeping these commandments.

        29. It is stated that the man lacks one thing to gain life.

        30. The one thing the man lacks is that he must sell everything he has and give to the poor.

        31. If the man does this, he will have treasure in heaven, states Jesus.

        32. The man hears this and goes away sad.

        33. The reason the man is sad is that he has great wealth.

        34. Jesus addresses the disciples.

        35. Jesus tells them that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god.

        36. The disciples are then amazed.

        37. The disciples ask “Who then can be saved?”

        38. Jesus tells them that with man this is impossible, but with god all things are possible.

        39. Peter says, “We have left everything to follow you!

        40. Jesus tells them something that applies to everyone who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for him.

        41. Jesus says that those who given up those things this will receive a hundred times as much in return.

        42. Jesus says that those who have done this will also receive eternal life.

        43. Jesus talks to his disciples on the way to Jerusalem. (In Matthew, this is now in chapter 20.)

        44. Jesus takes the Twelve aside.

        45. Jesus tells them what is going to happen to him.

        46. Jesus says that what will happen to him is that the Son of Man will be betrayed.

        47. Those to whom he will be betrayed are the chief priests and teachers of the law.

        48. They will turn Jesus over to the Gentiles.

        49. Jesus gives a short list of things that the Gentiles will do to him.

        50. The list includes that the Gentiles will mock Jesus, flog him, and kill him.

        51. Jesus says that three days later he will rise.

        52. Jesus is approached about an issue regarding two sons of Zebedee.

        53. One son wants to sit at his right and the other at his left.

        54. Jesus says that the person doesn’t know what he (she, in Mark) is asking.

        55. Jesus asks whether they can drink the cup he drinks.

        56. It is stated that they can.

        57. Jesus states that they will.

        58. Jesus says that whether they will sit at his left or right is not for him to decide.

        59. Whether they will sit at his left or right is for his Father to decide.

        60. The ten become indignant.

        61. Jesus says that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.

        62. Jesus tells the ten “Not so with you.”

        63. Jesus tells them whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave.

        64. Jesus and his disciples go to Jericho.

        65. As they are leaving, a large crowd follows him.

        And so on.
        All these descriptions of events, in the same order, in almost the same language, are obviously intended to be descriptions of the same sequence of events. Since this is so, Turkel’s implicit claim that Jesus was addressing Pharisees in two separate occasions is not plausible. Given this fact, that Jesus giving one statement in Mark and a different statement in Matthew in the same event of answering is in itself a contradiction.

        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce2.html

        Like

      4. no you pagan scum bag, jesus did contradict himself, all crosstian apologetic excuses were RIPPED to pieces in this debate

        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce1.html
        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce2.html
        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce3.html
        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce4.html
        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce5.html
        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce6.html
        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce7.html
        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce8.html
        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce9.html
        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce10.html
        http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce11.html

        how does the feel joel?

        Like

      5. Joel

        stew

        Man, you’re so dodgy – or just plain dumb! Do you honestly think that no one has noticed that you have failed to defend your prophet’s contradictory statements? Either mohammed was a charlatan, or the hadith are unreliable – either way, your religion is left in ruins. Throwing out tu quoque arguments doesn’t help you. LOL!!

        Yet, still, you are avoiding the issues – mohamed states unequivocally that nothing can make water impure, yet elsewhere in “authenic” hadith, he backtracks. Two opposing assertions cannot be claimed to be mere “modifications”. That’s absurd. If the first statement is true, the second is false and vice versa.

        Now kindly explain how these two completely opposing assertions can both be true.

        Like

      6. What we have noticed is that you are a dancing little monkey who cannot make a coherent argument and is all bluster and personal opinions. No one takes you seriously, Coco. So what’s the deal with menstruation?

        Like

      8. hey pagan

        1. when you DIE, you will no longer have your flesh, HOW is your one person different from the fathers one person

        2. when jesus gave you NO exception to divorce, why do you ADD EXCEPTIONS to the “whosoever”

        3. WHERE does it say in the hebrew bible that one who HITS his wife is like one who FORNICATED with a woman

        4. jesus thinks that DIVORCE is like doing fornication . where did the hebrew bible support this NEW spin ?

        5. christian women are told to TURN the other cheek, due you TURN the other cheek when your NEIGHBOR abuses you?

        Like

      9. “I feel as though you didn’t actually understand the arguments you posted.”

        so you read all the responses to holding? since i didn’t understand, explain to me how doug ripped jp holding in this debate?

        but you gotto admit though, nearly all christian “how it could have been” scenarios were destroyed in that debate, right?

        Like

  15. “As for your “what aboutism” argument, there is a history in the OT of Yahweh calling those who disobey his laws adulterers – clearly to disobey God is to adulterate your relationship with him. ”

    1. the torah does say that worshiping a human who needs to eat, drink and breath oxygen is adultery. so if you poked a naked jesus and your feeling led you to declare that which you poke “god and lord” , you would be, in yhwhs eyes a filthy and dirty homosexual adulterer.

    worshiping jesus means you have committed spiritual homosexuality , if you are a girl, then you committed spiritual adultery.

    in all those passages about doing adultery with yhwh, one will note that it is worshiping other gods beside yhwh .

    yhwh gave his laws and rituals to a people he knew would not be able to keep them FLAWLESSLY. how could he? he knew there were weak people before he even gave the laws to the jews? yhwh never calls

    not loving someone , ADULTERY.

    “To disobey the commandment to love others as yourself – by, let’s say, abusing your wife – puts you in the category of adulterer to the Lord. There is clear precedent. It isn’t hard.”

    but jesus came to BRING the “new covenant” and “new definition”
    a wife who is in violent relationship cannot separate what “god set in stone”
    where did yhwh say that HITTING your wife = ADULTERY?
    when a violent HUSBAND beat his wife up and she “turns the other cheek” what makes you think he doesn’t love her?
    doesn’t yhwh PUNISH and BURN in the depths of hell and STILL love the punished who will suffer in hell?
    didn’t moses love yhwh when moses CUT the necks of 3 year old children?
    didn’t moses LOVE those children like he loved himself?
    when jesus WENT into temple and DROVE ANIMALS and people out with a WHIP, didn’t he love them like he loves himself?
    so if a husband who is “head” THINKS what is best for his wife and beats her up, then he is DOING it out of love , love and love.

    Like

    Reply

  16. “As for your “what aboutism” argument, there is a history in the OT of Yahweh calling those who disobey his laws adulterers – clearly to disobey God is to adulterate your relationship with him. ”

    israel which has GONE ASTRAY is called a HARLOT, not an adulterer you bimbo.

    it isn’t even LITERAL , it is metaphorical language. jesus on the other hand thinks ONE has already done sexual intercourse with woman/man if he/she DIVORCES . now where does beating up your wife imply DOING SEXUAL intercourse with another woman/man whether LITERAL or metaphorical in the ENTIRE hebrew bible?

    when nation of israel has gone ASTRAY it is called a HARLOT.

    jesus said that he did not come to bring peace but a SWORD

    he says how he wishes the fire was already KINDLED.

    now when jewish women made jesus their “savior” this would mean jesus DIVIDING familes ALREADY begun

    father against mother
    daughter against son

    so any woman who is getting beaten up, had no REASON to divorce because jesus MADE ABSOLUTELY NO a Exception as can be seen in the debate with holding and doug shaver.

    why did you, matthew and rest of crosstianity LIE for jesus and CREATE exception ?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  17. stewjo004

    First, don’t quote fallacies if you don’t actually understand them. Neither argument I presented is a Tu quoque or a moving the goalpost fallacy.

    I wish I had finger puppets to help you because you clearly don’t understand the argument. You have to have a sentence that makes the other impossible in the same CONTEXT. Why are you having such a hard time with this?

    The Water, taste smell is not from the Prophet that is from his disciples aka the people who learned directly underneath him. Here is the hadith again:

    “Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated: “It was said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Shall we use the water of Buda’ah well to perform ablution while it is a well in which menstruation rags, flesh of dogs and the putrid are dumped?” Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Indeed water is pure, nothing makes it impure.’”

    “You should not pass urine in stagnant water which is not flowing then (you may need to) wash in it.”

    Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “None of you should take a bath in stagnant water when he is sexually impure.”

    Can you please show how these statements make the other impossible?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Joel

      stew

      Why are you having a hissy fit? I actually do understand your use of logical fallacies, if you don’t like it, don’t use them.

      That aside, you might understand your religion more thoroughly if you actually understood how the English language works. Let’s look at your “authentic” hadith…

      Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated: “It was said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Shall we use the water of Buda’ah well to perform ablution while it is a well in which menstruation rags, flesh of dogs and the putrid are dumped?” Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Indeed water is pure, nothing makes it impure.’”

      Try really hard here, it isn’t that difficult. Do you notice the problems with your understanding and your (poor) reasoning?

      Mohammed is indeed making a general statement – nothing can make water impure. This is regardless of whether it is for drinking or voodoo. If mohammed was specifically referring to voodoo, he would have said so. Where in the text does mohammed say that? No, he is, indeed, making a general statement – water cannot be made impure, under any circumstances. Indeed, the use of the word “indeed” is your first clue – and this is where, indeed, English comprehension comes in handy. The “indeed” proves that mohammed believed – he actually believed this – that water cannot be made impure regardless of its purpose.

      The fact that other “authentic” hadith contradict this is not my fault. It is the fault of the unreliable hadith literature.

      The problem you have here – which you have avoided addressing, unsurprisingly – is that even if I grant you your twisted reading of a clear text, mohammed was still wrong and water used solely for voodoo can still cause harm even if it appears to be “pure”. This is because parasites, bacteria, viruses and toxins can enter the body through cuts, orifices and the like. Mohammed was clearly wrong however you look at it and his “wisdom” has probably harmed more muslims than the Crusades.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Coco, your pathetic attempts to sound coherent and intelligent will not fool anyone. I have known you long enough to know that you are an ignoramus who pretends to know what he is talking about, and then dances like a monkey when you are exposed. So please, stop making a fool of yourself. It’s for your own good.

        You got schooled on radiation and parasites, and I notice how you keep repeating the same stupid claim but have avoided responding to the posts I made refuting you on this point. Simply repeating the same refuted claim does not make it stronger. You need to try again with something else. And by the way…what’s the deal with menstruation?

        Like

      2. Joel

        qb

        Not sure what you are going on about. Stew nor you have come even close to refuting my arguments. Even if I accept that mohammed was speaking only about voodoo water, that does not resolve the issue of contaminated water that moahmmed claims cannot be made impure entering the body and harming muslims.

        Like

      3. Coco, it doesn’t matter what you think. You have been utterly embarrassed on this whole matter. Your facade is not fooling anybody, and the way you avoid responding to me only adds to your embarrassment.

        Like

      4. joel,

        First i quote :

        It was a perfect opportunity, a teachable moment if you will, for a Jesus who might have been divine to “reveal” to the disciples and mankind not only that “sexual immorality, stealing, etc.” were detrimental to a good life or a good society (to put it in context), but also to bestow upon them the divine knowledge that:

        “Lo, my god created these single-celled organisms, the planty photosynthetic kinds, such as algae on the Third Day, and the more animally kinds such as viruses and protozoa on the Fifth Day, some of which, if you don’t wash them off, will —–king kill you! And so, even though the Pharisees are dead wrong about WHY you should wash your hands before you eat, they are, nonetheless, 100% correct about the fact you should indeed be washing your hands before eating!”

        joel, why would an all knowing god not be aware of germs ? Why is it that jesus, like the jews saw nothing but ritual in the practice? why did jesus live unhygenic life style ? after hearing advice from jesus about DEFILED hands, how many would have ran to the nearest sink to wash their hands ?

        why didnt jesus give credit to pharisees where credit was due?

        Liked by 2 people

      6. Quoting faiz

        Hey Coco, so you finally worked up the courage to open your mouth after such a long time! I know you were scared after taking so many beatings at BloggingTheology.

        I am still waiting for a logical explanation of whether Christian men can have sexual intercourse with their wives during menstruation. We know the Tanakh banned any contact during this period, but your bumbling attempts to explain the Christian position exposed the irrationality of your religion. No wonder you’ve been running for so long!

        The really hilarious thing about your rant about water is how ignorant you really are! In your attempts to make yourself sound intelligent, you actually make yourself sound stupid. The fact is that all drinking water has some level of contamination from natural sources, such as background radiation, as well as industrial pollution, such as mercury. Most government agencies, such as the EPA in the US, has set standards for maximum allowable quantities of such contaminants in the water. They also give guidelines for public consumption. For example, the CDC states that in the event of a radiation emergency, using tap water is still safe for cleaning oneself and cleaning food:

        “You can still use tap or well water for cleaning yourself and your food.
        Even if the tap water is contaminated, you can still use it for decontamination. Any radioactive material that gets into surface water or ground water sources will be diluted to very low levels by the water and will be safe to use for washing skin, hair, and clothing.”

        https://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/watersafety.asp

        Now of course, it is not recommended to drink that water. Rather, using bottled water would be a safer alternative. However, the water is still safe for other uses. So, the bottom line is that you are an ignoramus trying to masquerade as a person of intelligence. No wonder you are a Christian!

        Even radiation from nuclear testing will inevitably find its way into drinking water! But usually, the levels are tolerable and will probably not cause any longterm health effects:

        “To some extent, all drinking water obtained from surface sources will reflect contamination from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.”

        And other radioactive materials, such as those from pharmaceutical companies or medical institutions have not been found to have any health risks:

        “The release of radioactive materials in the exhaust air and liquid wastes from medical institutions has been studied many times in different locales. No evidence yet suggests a drinking-water hazard from medical effluents.”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234160/

        So all this confirms what brother Stew has said: small contamination in a large body of water does not render the water impure.

        It also confirms how desperate idiots like you are in trying to stop the relentless march of Islam and the slow death of your religion. 😜

        Speaking of the death of Christianity, see here for a small list of scientific errors in your “scriptures”: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/revisiting-the-scientific-errors-in-the-bible-christian-apologist-cerbie-digs-himself-into-a-bigger-hole/

        Like

      7. stewjo004

        I’m sorry, lol did you just use English to give an interpretation? I know this might be hard for you to believe but neither Prophet Muhammad or Jesus are Europeans walking around speaking English in the Middle East. The Disciples names aren’t, “Peter” and his name isn’t “Paul”. Their real names are Shimone and Baulus. So he(saw) has never said the word “indeed” once in his entire life. A translation is an interpretation and not what the text states.

        Now coming back to the text before we get to what you said we have to establish if theirs a contradiction. Once we settle that we can move to the next part of the discussion. A contradiction in very simple terms has to make what you said previously impossible. Please look at the 3 statements below and show how one makes the other impossible.

        Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated: “It was said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Shall we use the water of Buda’ah well to perform ablution while it is a well in which menstruation rags, flesh of dogs and the putrid are dumped?” Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Indeed water is pure, nothing makes it impure.’”

        “You should not pass urine in stagnant water which is not flowing then (you may need to) wash in it.”

        Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “None of you should take a bath in stagnant water when he is sexually impure.”

        Liked by 2 people

      8. Stew, just to help this kafir with definition of stagnant

        stagnant
        ˈstaɡnənt/
        adjective
        (of a body of water or the atmosphere of a confined space) having no current or flow and often having an unpleasant smell as a consequence.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. Joel

        stew

        Do you mean that nothing making water impure and some things making water impure are not contradictory? Only in Islam. LOL!!

        And you keep avoiding the issue. Water can appear to be pure but loaded with toxins and harmful microbes – nohammed was just plain wrong.

        Like

      11. Yousuf Aslam

        joel, Fuck you and Fuck your whore mother. The hadith in context clearly shows that it is NOT talking about all kinds of waters. You are an ignorant ass hole who cannot understand the hadith. You bloody bastard christian swines cannot understand the hadith. So, blame yourself before attacking our Beloved Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu’alaihi’wassalam).

        Liked by 1 person

  18. “I feel as though you didn’t actually understand the arguments you posted.”

    according to the bible you are a spiritual harlot for worshiping a jew.

    jesus said that god makes marriages, god makes “one flesh” and do not SEPARATE what god “joined”
    jesus is saying NOTHING can separate the two after they are one flesh

    an ABUSED wife
    a beaten up wife
    a husband who goes around fornicating

    an idolatrous husband

    NO one can SEPARATE what god JOINED

    Your pagan god PROHIBITED divorce . he was asked about whether divorce was PERMITTED, he said “whosoever BREAKS what god has JOINED, commits adultery”

    a wife’s job is to LOVE her enemy in the form of husband or neighbor

    1. do you love your ENEMIES coco?
    2. have you ever been ABUSED by your neighbor? do you love him/her?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Paulus

      “Ibn al-Mundhir said:
      The scholars are unanimously agreed that if something impure falls into water, of a small or great amount, and the impurity changes the water in taste, colour or smell, then it is najis (impure) so long as it remains like that, and it is not acceptable for the purpose of doing wudoo’ or ghusl.”

      This was the weak hadith you first appealed to. They agree it becomes najis (impure). Contradiction.

      “The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas said:
      The basic principle concerning water is that it is pure, but if its colour, taste or smell is changed by contact with something impure, then it becomes impure, whether it is a small or great amount. But if the impurity does not change it, then it is valid as a means of purification.”

      Notice your scholars again base their ruling on a weak Hadith. Contradiction

      Like

      Reply
      1. stewjo004

        Ibn al-Mundhir and the scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were quoting the consensus and you have personally ad-libbed the hadith in there none of them quoted hadith in what you posted. Next point is this is irrelevant because you all are claiming a contradiction in the hadith. Please stick with your contention of contradiction. Here are the 3 hadith you have to work with:

        “Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated: “It was said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Shall we use the water of Buda’ah well to perform ablution while it is a well in which menstruation rags, flesh of dogs and the putrid are dumped?” Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Indeed water is pure, nothing makes it impure.’”

        “You should not pass urine in stagnant water which is not flowing then (you may need to) wash in it.”

        Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “None of you should take a bath in stagnant water when he is sexually impure.”

        Can you please show how any of these statements make the others impossible?

        Like

      2. Paulus

        You asked which text. I provided a text you used as evidence. Now you want to pretend it’s not relevant? Just admit you’re wrong.

        Your scholars say water becomes impure. This contradicts muhammad who says NOTHING makes water impure.

        Your religion has to accomodate this contradiction. Or as Joel suggested, it’s probably for more to do with the unreliability of the Sunna.

        Like

  20. stewjo004

    You are claiming a contradiction in the HADITH. I asked which hadith of the 3 is contradictory? I’ll post em again:

    “Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated: “It was said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Shall we use the water of Buda’ah well to perform ablution while it is a well in which menstruation rags, flesh of dogs and the putrid are dumped?” Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Indeed water is pure, nothing makes it impure.’”

    “You should not pass urine in stagnant water which is not flowing then (you may need to) wash in it.”

    Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “None of you should take a bath in stagnant water when he is sexually impure.”

    Please show how any of these statements make the others impossible?

    Like

    Reply
  21. stewjo004

    @ Joel
    I swear I’m in a time loop. I’ll just repost again with emphasis this time:

    Now coming back to the text BEFORE WE GET TO WHAT YOU SAID we have to establish if theirs a contradiction. Once we settle that we can MOVE to the NEXT part of the discussion. A contradiction in very simple terms has to make what you said previously impossible. Please look at the 3 statements below and show how one makes the other impossible.

    Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated: “It was said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Shall we use the water of Buda’ah well to perform ablution while it is a well in which menstruation rags, flesh of dogs and the putrid are dumped?” Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Indeed water is pure, nothing makes it impure.’”

    “You should not pass urine in stagnant water which is not flowing then (you may need to) wash in it.”

    Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “None of you should take a bath in stagnant water when he is sexually impure.”

    The point is none of me stating this is not a contradiction is because none of these statements make the other impossible. I’m just waiting for it to click for you guys and then we can move on.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Joel

      stew

      I swear I’m in a time loop. I’ll just repost again with emphasis this time:

      LOL!! You’re not in a time loop, you just keep moving the goalposts. But at least you have stopped the tu quoque arguments.

      I’ll say it again, mohammed says nothing makes water impure, other hadith say that some things make water impure. It shouldn’t be that hard. Why are you having such trouble with it?

      Like

      Reply
      1. stewjo004

        @ Joel
        It’s not moving the goal post(like seriously you really don’t know what that means). I’m breaking each section down. After a section is finished I’ll move on to the next. That is the logical sequence of discussion. None of the hadith quoted say water is impure. You’re ad-libbing into the text.

        “Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated: “It was said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Shall we use the water of Buda’ah well to perform ablution while it is a well in which menstruation rags, flesh of dogs and the putrid are dumped?” Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Indeed water is pure, nothing makes it impure.’”

        “You should not pass urine in stagnant water which is not flowing then (you may need to) wash in it.”

        Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “None of you should take a bath in stagnant water when he is sexually impure.”

        Like I said before in regards to Judas’s death it is not a contradiction because “they both say he died” like you said. It’s because neither statement negated the other. Neither text says he fell down and his bowels spilled out. We RECONCILE the two statements by saying he fell down and guts spilled out. In the same way, you have the 3 statements above you have a general statement and exceptions because you can RECONCILE them.

        Like

      2. Joel

        stew

        Oh dear. Non-muslims seem to have better memories than their muslim bros. You claimed this in the other thread…

        If you couldn’t follow all that. “Don’t use impure water.”

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/16/the-blessing-of-the-quran/#comment-1370

        So, clearly you have previous acknowledged that water can be made impure, and you supported your claim with your own scriptures. Now you are making a fool out of yourself by seeming to claim that this does not contradict the explicit, clear and specific assertion of your prophet that “NOTHING” can make water impure.

        Your prophet does not a say “there are some circumstances where water is made impure”, he states that he NOTHING can make it impure.

        This is a clear contradiction, and a huge problem for the faithful.

        Like

  22. stewjo004

    Wow, I didn’t know you believed my writing overturns Prophet Muhammadﷺ. Well, it doesn’t.

    Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated: “It was said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Shall we use the water of Buda’ah well to perform ablution while it is a well in which menstruation rags, flesh of dogs and the putrid are dumped?” Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Indeed water is pure, nothing makes it impure.’”

    “You should not pass urine in stagnant water which is not flowing then (you may need to) wash in it.”

    Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “None of you should take a bath in stagnant water when he is sexually impure.”

    How does one make the other impossible? I might have to start assuming you guys are seeing it because no one is answering this question. You’re both quoting everything but the hadith. Next and I’m trying to use text so you can see.

    Matthew 27:5
    Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
    Acts 1:18
    Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.

    Does either text say both happened at the same time? No, we r.e.c.o.n.c.i.l.e by combining the text together.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Joel

      stew

      Yawn! Back to the tu quoque arguments? And why is it that muslim apologists just can’t reason logically?

      The first text in Matthew does not state that Judas did not fall headlong and spill his guts, so the second verse in Acts can be easily reconciled without contradiction.

      Your unreliable hadith states that mohammed claimed that nothing makes water impure, meanwhile you and other muslims claim that mohammed was wrong and that some things can make water impure. The two cannot be reconciled without either your prophet or the hadith being unreliable. You are being deliberately obtuse, or maybe just obtuse.

      So can water be made impure or can it not? You obviously disagree with mohammed – he says no, you say yes.

      Like

      Reply
      1. stewjo004

        (Sigh) A tu quo que would be if I said: “The Bible has contradictions too!” Hence it meaning the “You too argument”. This is not what I am saying. You’re reading what you want and ignoring me because I never said their contradictory. I’m explaining WHY they’re not contradictory.

        In the SAME way, you can reconcile these as a general statement with exceptions because
        1. They don’t make the other impossible
        2. His followers didn’t believe what you’re claiming

        Even if I drop 2 for the sake of discussion you have not shown how one statement makes the other impossible. All your doing is talking for the sake of talking. Once again here are the 3 statements:

        “Abu Sa’eed AI-Khudri narrated: “It was said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Shall we use the water of Buda’ah well to perform ablution while it is a well in which menstruation rags, flesh of dogs and the putrid are dumped?” Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Indeed water is pure, nothing makes it impure.’”

        “You should not pass urine in stagnant water which is not flowing then (you may need to) wash in it.”

        Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “None of you should take a bath in stagnant water when he is sexually impure.”

        I’m going to need you to either:
        1. Show how any of the three statements QUOTED make the other impossible?
        2. Say they’re not contradictory

        Or else I’ll have to respectfully end this discussion because this is like my fifth time asking this question.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Paulus

        Joel.

        He’s done this a few times now. First, he used his fiqh class notes which relied on a weak Hadith. When he dismissed another weak Hadith he realised that his inconsistency was compromised. The criteria his imams use is based on a weak Hadith.

        Then he started this thread with another argument. Apparently he believes that unless the two hadiths are identical in wording, they are not contradictory. It’s as if saying “Jesus died” and “Jesus did not pass away” wouldn’t be a contradiction. You’ve now exposed this nonsense by quoting himself from another thread 😂😂

        Until he deals with the word “nothing”, I think he realises he’s lost the argument.

        Like

      4. Awww, Cerbie is trying to save his buddy Coco after seeing him go down in flames. So cute…

        You idiots are pathetic. Brother Stew has completely demolished your arguments, even when you jumped back and forth by moving the goalpost. But what can you expect from Crosstians? The poor dears suffer from the delusions that come with Christianity. I call it “holy spirit syndrome”, Lol…

        Like

      5. Joel

        stew

        You’re reading what you want and ignoring me because I never said their[sic] contradictory.

        Sure you are. You have quoted the NT to “prove” seemingly contradictory verses can be reconciled – tu quoque, right back at yer.

        The problem is, when mohammed uses terms like NOTHING makes water impure, then he is making a definitive statement – NOTHING means NOTHING. For you to then quote other supposedly authentic hadith that contradict this calls your scriptures into question.

        Answer the question, can water be made impure? You say yes, mohammed says NOTHING can make it impure. Are you right and mohammed wrong?

        You are dancing around like a jumping bean.

        Like

  23. Paulus

    Britney.

    It seems your fasting is making you delirious.

    Oh, who am I kidding, I bet your sneaking a few beef jerkies here and there, aren’t you?

    Like

    Reply
      1. Paulus

        I think I’ve saved yours. At least you will hopefully think twice before marrying a six year old child 😜😜

        Your current wife will thank me for that.

        P.s when do the royalties arrive? 😜

        Like

    3. Paulus

      Ah, it’s begun. Remember when you said you’d never moderate comments?

      Are you embarrassed that you sahih Hadith encourage such idiot things such as drinking camel urine to heal sickness?

      Now you have two problems. Your prophet encourages you to drink water surrounded by dead donkey AND camel urine.

      If I was you, I’d think about those two Hadith when you’re really hungry just to tide you over. Cause as a westerner I doubt you accept such Koranic teaching from your prophet. I support you in that decision 😜

      Like

      Reply

      3. Hahaha, moderation is sometimes needed when morons spam blogs with irelevant junk to distract from discussions. Sorry, that’s just the way it is when dealing with Crosstians like you! Now stick to the topic, if you please. ; )

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Paulus

        “I call on brother Ijaz to not censure brother Paul’s posts. It is not the right thing to do”

        Haha oops Britney is exposed for his/her hypocrisy again.

        Like

      5. Oh Cerbie, you brainless idiot! All blogs have certain rules of conduct. For example, if you started using foul language, I would give you a warning not to do it again. If you kept at it, then I would be forced to delete your posts. Your “urine” video was a deliberate attempt to distract from the discussion, and thus it was spam and was deleted. We can certainly talk about that hadith, which you losers seem to have an unhealthy obsession with, but it should be as a separate discussion.

        Besides, I already humiliated your buddy Coco on this matter several months ago on BT. Check it out here: https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/10/01/england-chose-the-sira-not-the-gospel-to-confront-hitler-3/#comment-58190

        Did you know that your European ancestors used to wash their clothes in urine? Of course, I wouldn’t recommend it…

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Paulus

        Haha, so you’ll delete my comment but post your own rebuttal? Thought it was a distraction? See, that’s a pathetic religion you follow. Just like your example, you censure people. And let’s not forget the half or dozen other “distractions” you’ve dropped as bait in this discussion already.

        See ya pal. We all know you’re a lieing hypocrite.

        Like

      7. Running away again? Are you married, Cerbie? Is that why you keep asking for money?

        LOL, you’ve be posting here for months now, you moron. This was the first time I deleted a post. You have said terrible things about Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but I have allowed them for the sake of exposing you as the bigot that you are.

        As I said, you were trying to distract from the issue. That is why the video was deleted. You are free to comment on my post at BT, if you think you have what it takes. That is, of course, you are not afraid? Or how about this? How about I open a new thread on that hadith? Let’s see what you have to say. OK? Are you up for it?

        Like

Leave a comment