Offer it to me and meet me on religious... after a week we get members to decide if you lose your 10k or not. I could do with a new guitar not to mention I need a new truck!

in those cultures back then, people could get engage when they are babies...so Muhammad could have married her when she was 9

GNI's members' opinions mean nothing. It has been proven time and again here that members side with who they like and not what is correct. Some were clear on that on the topic I opened just to establish that trend. But I am still interested in your argument.

I was thinking the other day that the name 'GNI Friends' is not appropriate for this site. Something like GNI connection is more appropriate. For example, I was only on the board for a few days a decade ago and while no one personally knew me, I was getting underground messages about people from people who act like they are friends with the people they were gossiping about. Putting stock on GNI members' word is making a huge mistake.

Around the time Muhammad entered the scene, Arabs were burying their girl children alive. He stopped that by asking the men to consider that their girl children who they bury alive would ask them on judgment day "for what crime was I punished"? He also advised that if a parent can only educate one of their children, they should educate the girl because they will educate the next generation. There are many more examples where Muhammad was a champion for women and none of them are consistent with him marrying a child. But it looks like Muhammad still attracts enough people. After all, that is the most popular name in the world.     

Members can evaluate what is said. They therefore do mean something.

I do not interact with people in the back ground. The site is clearly not a place for friends.

Arabs are still burying their girls on presumption of impropriety in many regions.  Saudi Arabia is the protector of mecca and also the best known place for systematic oppression of women. After that you have Afghanistan, Pakistan then India. Guyanese Indians only taught it worthy to send their girls to school in the 50's.

But those who responded to my query admitted that they side with who they like and not what is correct. So while they are free to pretend to evaluate what is said, it means nothing since it is by their own admission, flawed.

I agree with you about underground communication. The matter that was conveyed to me was so distasteful that it shocked me. And trust me, I am not shocked easily. 

I agree. But that is despite of Muhammad's advise.

Muhammad raised the level of women in the form of inheritance. Before him, they had none. While we can debate today on the merit of them getting half their brothers' inheritance, they got none before it. The mahar was instituted to give women a sense of independence as they give up their parent's home to enter into a virtually stranger's. That was not available before. Maybe these things don't seem significant today because the world had advanced beyond them but back then they were revolutionary changes.

Yuh keep forgetting that Mohammad was raised in a Jewish culture. And women had rights then too. Abraham and Sarah shared a deep relationship where rights and property were important.

The bible is full of stories of wonderful women...some leaders of their people and even rulers. There is only one such in Hindu literature, Gargi even though there goddesses of distinction.

I might add, the western world is also full of women some great queens. My favorite women in western history is Eleanor of Aquitaine

Indeed, jews are jews because of their women. Sarah was the decider of rights here even if by trickery. Then we have brave Queen Ester, Ruth, Rebecca, Leah, Rachel, Salome, etc etc

Muhammad was not raised in a Jewish culture.

Those rights were not available to women before Muhammad. The Bible treats women as substandard creatures. Even Paul who is supposed to be the moderator of Jesus' teachings said that women must be subservient to men. They did not have the kind of right that Muhammad afforded to women during his time.

The chick from Debbie does Dallas would be my pick for a great woman.

Everyone of the women mentioned were instrumental to the continuance of gods plan for a people if we see the bible as a morality tale weaved by god through the lives of a people. I do not care what Paul said. Pauline philosophy is an invention of Paul not Jesus. He did not know him except as was told to him by Stephen and the other disciples he met. The Jerusalem church split with Paul on account of his ideas. That he is the father of Christianity is one of the reason there is a schism with Jews

Dude Debbie aint got nothing on Bathsheba. David spoke to god, felt his presence, got saved by him a few times and one look at 'Sheba  bathing on the roof and he was willing to forget his teachings and murder a man to get between her and her linens!

The Bible told of those women but it did not give them the rights that is being suggested by them being who they are. Throughout the Bible, women are regarded as subservient even to the point where Judah, the father of Judaism would see it fit to send his son to co-habit with his dead brother's wife. He should have had his son marry her first. Regarding Jesus' teachings, they were all for the lost tribes of the House of Israel. At no point while he walked the earth did he ever care for anyone else. In fact he was most disrespectful to them and ignored their pleas for help. The Bible itself confirmed that he spoke in parables so that the common people would not understand him, thereby doing what he was teaching to his inner circle and be saved. By Jesus' own admission, he came only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

David got nothing on Rueben who was screwing his father's wife on their rooftop. We got a place down here call Rooftop Resort where groupies go and co-habit. Maybe they got the idea from Rueben.

That culture produced queens in the literature and queens in reality. That alone tells me it, for all its prohibitions, did not serve to limit women ability to rise to the top in a world where no other culture could match up...not indian...not chinese...not animists...not islamic and surely only surpassed by secularism

Alright, brothers. Let's walk through another alley. [No pun intended].

In the 1950s and 1960s I knew quite a number of Muslims in Guyana who had preferred to identify themselves as Mohammedans.

I don't know exactly when the word Mohammedan ceased being in vogue but by the 1990s every believer I knew preferred to be called a Muslim.

Any comment?

Well said Sheik.

Gilbaka has proven that he is a dankey to change his name all because he wants a muslim as a wife.

Stop fooling God.

I already did a year of two ago.  The wager was $1,000.00 and you wimped out when you conceded your source was the same as that proclaiming the moon was split in two. 

Why are you so daft?

Live up to a name, as simple as that.

Ray, name a few Arabs who got engaged as babies!

Terry do not waste your time.

Muhamad ( uwbp) is the best human being that touched this earth.

That is one old truck you will get for 10k.

Chief, with due respect, I was/am not the only non-Muslim in Guyana who married a Muslim and had/have to undergo the nikka with a Muslim name.

I never said I changed my name. I was required to choose a Muslim name for the wedding according to Muslim rites. I was not required to get a deed poll or name-change document.

Gilbacka,

In your heart what was the purpose of the name change? Did you nihka?

Chief, frankly, a Christian would dispute your claim.

A Jew would disagree with you.

Billions of people would disagree with you.

That is expected.

Jesus Christ was prophet, Moses was a prophet but the seal of all the Prophets is Mukamad on whom be peace!

You have to tell me, chief. I didn't ask for it. My Muslim in-laws told me that if I wanted to marry their daughter I had to choose a Muslim name and let them know before the wedding day.

During the ceremony the Moulvi addressed me as Feroze Mohamed in the presence of invited guests and at the end he pronounced us man and wife. The registration of the marriage took place later, at GRO in Georgetown, and I used my birth certificate name with the concurrence of my in-laws.

As I said, I am not the only one with that wedding experience.

If I did it was because of disinterest at the time. I am ready now. Now is your chance to completely establish your proposition with well established credible interpreting of your sources.

He aint got nothing on me from where I stand.

meet me wid some cash on religion

That is what he would not accept since he like any religious person ( including the billions who disagree with him) rely on the the criteria for theory selection that resides in faith in Nancy stories. The criteria for rational theory selection is not even acknowledged in these arguments except when it harmonizes with theology.

yall know that religion forum is not well moderated

big lang stew teeth...stuuuuuups

Like Terry giving away dough.

Gilly,

What you are describing there is the mistake that Guyanese muslims made then and to this day continue to make. Today when Guyanese muslims do differently, like explaining to the non muslim that they is no compulsion in religion and if he does not take the shahadah willingly it's a waste of time,  we are hearing from folks like Nehru and Raymond that we are now Arabnized.

As far as I am concerned you took the shahadah Gilbacka, willingly or unwillingly, you still have time to proclaim in the oneness of God.