Rebuttal to Silas' article


MUHAMMAD, AISHA, ISLAM, AND CHILD BRIDES

 

By Sami Zaatari

 

 

Answering-Islam author and missionary Silas has come out with his own article on the issue of the prophet's marriage with Aisha, his article can be located here:

 

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

 

As we shall shortly see, Silas was so desperate to simply attack Islam that he did not think properly when he made his arguments, and as we shall soon see this lapse of his led to him refuting his own Bible as the word of God. So I must thank Silas for that, although he is known for making arguments that usually backfire against him, see these rebuttals for some examples:

 

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_silas_4.htm

http://muslim-responses.com/Kab_al_Ashraf_/Kab_al_Ashraf_

 

Before refuting his article, let me post links that deal with the prophet's marriage with Aisha, this site has efficiently dealt with this subject:

 

http://muslim-responses.com/Marriage_with_Aisha/Marriage_with_Aisha_

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/aisha_and_prophet_muhammad.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/true_face_of_ali_sina_2.htm

 

With all that said let us now refute Silas' arguments (his comments in red):

 

INTRODUCTION

Muhammad was 52 and Aisha was 9 when they married and sexually consummated their marriage. Muhammad followed an Arab custom in marrying a child who had her first menstrual cycle. This action must be questioned, regardless of it being a cultural norm, because Muhammad's action and teachings on marriage established an Islamic precedent: a girl is judged an adult following her first menses, and is eligible for marriage and sexual relations. Thus Muslim men are allowed to marry and have intercourse with young girls who have happened to have an early first menstrual cycle. As will be shown, this leads to physical and psychological damage to the child.

 

Muhammad's first wife - Khadija, died a few years before he fled to Medina. Later, he was encouraged to take another wife. At the age of 49 he was betrothed to Aisha, age six. Aisha was his closest friend's, Abu Bakr's, daughter. At that time, she had already been betrothed to another man but by mutual consent the betrothal was dissolved. Three years later, following her first menstrual cycle, he then formally married and sexually consummated his marriage with her.

 

RESPONSE

 

I am glad to see Silas mentioning the fact that in Islam once a girl who goes through her puberty is fit for marriage and is viewed as a lady, this is something that many Christian apologists never seem to mention, they like to conveniently leave this point out and make it seem that Muhammad just married a young girl while leaving this crucial part out.

 

The prophet Muhammad completed the marriage with Aisha when she had gone through her menstrual cycle; this in itself refutes every single accusation that a Christian has. Because for the sake of argument just say the prophet Muhammad was a pedophile (Estaghfurillah! May Allah curse those who make such a claim on the blessed prophet) then he would have just completed the marriage with Aisha when she was 6, rather than when she was 9 and when she had gone through her first menstrual cycle.

 

Now since Silas knows he has no real case, what he will do now is say that marrying girls at this age and girls who are still going through their first menstrual cycle is harmful, physically and psychologically. This line of argument will BACKFIRE badly against Silas, in fact Quennal Gale used this same line of argument which backfired against him, we shall do the same with Silas. What I shall do is show that the Bible allows several things that cause physical, and psychological effects on people, by doing so it will prove that the Bible is not from God since Silas is reasoning that since marrying Aisha could cause physical and psychological effects then that means the prophet Muhammad was not a prophet. Likewise since the Bible is a cause of many harmful and psychological affects then it too is not from God.

 

But why then do we find it objectionable? After all, Muhammad did not live in our culture or under our law. He lived under a Semitic culture. And this custom of marrying girls after their first menses existed in the Mideast long before Muhammad. What is the basis for rejection of this Semite custom and Muhammad's precedent? Are there any valid reasons to criticize it? Or should it simply be rejected based upon our own cultural bias?

 

The only reason to object to it is because you hate Islam, and hate the prophet Muhammad, how funny it is that Silas and his missionary pals never attack any other people at the time for marrying young girls, but primarily concentrate all their efforts on the blessed prophet Muhammad alone. This alone exposes Silas and his friends, had they really had a problem with marrying young girls, then they would not only attack the blessed prophet Muhammad, but they would attack European countries, Asian countries, and the USA itself since these countries allowed marriage to girls as young as 9 just a little over a century ago.

 

Now Silas also says is there a valid reason to criticise the marriage with a young lady, this is a line of desperation since there is a valid reason to criticise everything! So are we now going to disbelieve in everything since there is always a valid reason to attack it? It amazes me to how desperate some people can really get.

 

What I do find interesting though is that Silas has no problems with his Jewish brethren who are allowed to marry girls at the age of 3, and remember Silas still believes the Jews are God's chosen people, what a hypocrite wouldn't you say? Here is the Jewish source:

 

"....The Tannaītic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the above quoted commandment of MOSES to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children...."

 

"....According to the Tannaīte Rabbis, MOSES therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." [138 <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html> ]...."

 

"Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse....."

"A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old."....."

 

The following was taken from

 

<http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html>  regarding Numbers 31:17-18 in the Bible:

 

Numbers 31:17-18 <http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Numbers+31%3A17-18&NIV_version=yes&language=english&x=15&y=7>  "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."


Children

 

Sometimes one has to read a passage twice to believe what has been written in the Sacred Books of Judaism: what has been decreed the way to a holy life by the "sages of blessed memory... whose words are the natural sounds of Judaism" [131 <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html> ]:

 

Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4].
Sanhedrin 7/55B [132 <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html> ]

 

R. Nahman bar Isaac said. "They made the decree that a gentile child should be deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15], so that an Israelite child should not hang around with him and commit pederasty [as he does]."
For said R. Zira, "I had much anguish with R. Assi, and R. Assi with R. Yohanan, and R. Yohanan with R. Yannai, and R. Yannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi [on this matter]: 'From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]'? And he said to me, 'On the day on which he is born.' But when I came to R. Hiyya, he said to me, 'From the age of nine years and one day.' And when I came and laid the matter before Rabbi, he said to me, 'Discard my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya, who declared, "From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]? From the age of nine years and one day."'
[37A] Since he is then suitable for having sexual relations, he also is deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [of Lev.15]."
Said Rabina, "Therefore a gentile girl who is three years and one day old, since she is then suitable to have sexual relations, also imparts uncleanness of the flux variety."
That is self-evident!



Abodah Zarah 36B-37A [133 <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html> ]

 

The basis for these rulings is the following Mishnaic passage of Tractate Niddah (filth):

 

A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old."
And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. If she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. If one of those who are unfit for marriage has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her did so, they are put to death on her account. But she is free of responsibility.
If she is younger than that age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye.
(Mishnah Niddah 5:4) [134 <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html>]

 

Thus, one "of the many important issues worked out in the Mishnah concerns proper conduct with women," [135 <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html> ] and the "entire society of Judaism - that is, the community formed by the Torah - found in the Talmud those modes of thought and inquiry, those media of order and value, that guided the formation of public affairs and private life as well." [136 <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html> ]

 

While it is reassuring to see there was at least some limit as to what the sages would declare holy and moral, this ruling had severe implications on the interpretation of other topics as well. The Tannaītic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the above quoted commandment of Moses to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children:

 

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by sleeping with him.(Num 31:17).
[This] refers to her who has slept with a man as well as her who is suitable for intercourse, even when she has not slept with a man...


But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. From here R. Shimon b. Yohai used to say: a Proselyte girl who became a proselyte in the age of less than three years and one day, is rendered fit to marry into the priesthood." [137 <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html> ]

 

According to the Tannaīte Rabbis, Moses therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." [138 <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html> ]

 

Bibliography:

 

[131] Ibid., vol.XXI.A-D, Tractate Bava Mesia, Atlanta: Scholars Press 1990, p.ix-x.

[132] Ibid., vol.XXIII.B, Tractate Sanhedrin 1984, 150. See also vol.XIX.A, Tractate Qiddushin 10a-b, 1992, 33. "Menstruating" here of course refers to the ritual "flux uncleanness" described in Lev.15.

[133] Ibid., vol.XXV.A, Tractate Abodah Zarah, 1991, 168. Emphasis original.

[134] J. Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia. A complete outline, Part IV. The Division of Holy Things. B. Number 37. 1995, 704.

[135] Neusner 1993, 41.

[136] Neusner 1995, 7.

[137] Kuhn 1959, §157, 652f. My translation. In general, proselytes are not allowed to marry into the priesthood.

[138] Ibid., §157, footnote 86, 653.

 

So it is strange that Silas and fellow Christians have no problems with Jews being allowed 3-year-old girls who have not even passed puberty. This is enough to refute Silas' lie that he OBJECTIVELY has a problem with marriage with young girls, he could care less, it is just that he is inspired by shaytan and shaytan hates Islam and hates the prophet Muhammad, so off course the devil will use any argument he can to discredit God's messengers. This is to be expected. And I do not say this to insult, but just stating the obvious fact.

 

To further expose Silas and his fellow Christians, they say they have a problem with marrying young girls, but they no problems with killing young girls, or raping women, or telling a virgin to marry her rapist! How ludicris is that? Here are the passages from the Bible that no Christian objects to, rather they try to justify it:

 

Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

 

Below John Calvin's (1509-1564 ) classical bible commentary,

Calvin's Commentaries (Hosea 13:16)

 

<http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_index.htm>  :

This is the conclusion of the discourse: this verse has then been improperly separated from the former chapter

 

<http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol26/htm/xx.xi.htm> ; for the Prophet enters not here on a new subject, but only confirms what he had said of the ultimate destruction of Samaria and of the whole kingdom. Samaria then shall be desolated; as though he said "I have already often denounced on you what you believe not, that destruction is nigh at hand; of this be now persuaded; but if you believe not, God will yet execute what he has determined, and what he now pronounces by my mouth." At the same time he adds the cause, For they have provoked their God. That they might not complain that they were severely dealt with, he says, that they only suffered the punishment which they deserved. He also specifies the kind of destruction that was to be, They shall fall by the sword, their children shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women squall be torn asunder, that the child may be extracted from the womb. In saying that the citizens of Samaria, and the inhabitants of the whole country, shall fall by the sword, he doubtless intimates that God would make use of this kind of punishment by sending for enemies who would consign them to destruction.

 

We now then see what is included in the words of the Prophet. He first shows that it was all over with Samaria and the whole kingdom of Israel; as God could by no means bring them to repentance, he would now take vengeance on so desperate an obstinacy. He afterwards shows that God would do this justly, because he had been provoked; and, lastly, he shows what kind their punishment would be. That they might not think that the Assyrians would come by chance, the Prophet says that this army, which was to invade and destroy the country of Samaria, would be, as it were, conducted by the hand of God; for though the Assyrians wished to extend their own borders, and were influenced by their own avarice and cupidity, yet God would use them as instruments to execute his own judgement; and that they might know how dreadful the vengeance would be, he relates two kinds of evils, -- that their children would be dashed in pieces, and that their women would be rent asunder, and their offspring extracted from their wombs. Even to speak of this is horrible; and it is what never takes place, except when enemies are greatly enraged and extremely provoked. We now then comprehend the meaning of the Prophet.

 

But if any one objects and says, that infants, and babes as yet concealed in the wombs of their mothers, deserve not such a grievous punishment, as they have not hitherto merited such a thing; it may be answered, that the whole human race are guilty before God, so that infants though not yet come forth to the light, are yet included as being under guilt; so that God cannot be charged with cruelty, though he may use his own right towards them. And further, we hear what he declares in many places, that he will devolve the sins of parents on their children. Since it is so, let us learn to acquiesce in these awful judgements of God, though very repugnant to our feelings; for we know that we must not contend with God, and that it would be extreme presumption to do so; nay, it would be impious audacity. Though then the reason for this punishment may not appear to us, we ought yet reverently to regard this judgement of God.

 

Source: <http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol26/htm/xx.xi.htm>  

These electronic texts of Calvin's Commentaries were prepared through the labor of volunteers for the OnLine Bible project and the Christian Classics Ethereal Library in conjunction with the good folks at Ages Software <http://www.ageslibrary.com/> .

 

Christian's do not object to this? Pregnant ladies getting ripped open with their babies falling out?! The audacity of Silas is amazing!

 

Silas then writes:

 

The Baker Ency. of the Bible says about Jewish marriage customs in volume 2, page 1407, under "Marriage":

 

"Subsequently, minimum ages (for marriage) of 13 for boys and 12 for girls were set."

 

And Jim West, ThD, writes online, [at http://www.theology.edu/marriage.htm], in

"Ancient Israelite Marriage Customs":

 

"The wife was to be taken from within the larger family circle (usually at the "outset of puberty" or around the age of 13) in order to maintain the purity of the family line".

Even in the Mishnah, the age of maturity for a female is 12.5 years:

"she won her case in court before she matured [at the age of twelve years and six months], lo, they belong to the father." Mishnah Ketubot, 4:1.

 

So we see that Jewish culture also allowed young girls to be married at an early age. Not as young as 9, but as young as 12. The beginning of puberty was not the cultural norm for the Jewish culture to allow marriage. I assume marriage was allowed if the girl had her menarche, AND she reached the age of 12. This is superior to Islam's standard. Judaism insists that a girl must be at least 12, Islam allows for marriage following the first menses. I believe that there have been documented cases of girls having menarche as young as 8.

 

Notice the hypocrite has no problems with girls of 12 getting married, how can someone have a dialog with such a blatant hypocrite? At the beginning of his article he said he objected marriages to young girls, now he shows us Jews being allowed to marry 12-year-old girls and he does not object to it! Although he is a liar, since as we saw Jewish sources allow a Jew to marry a girl at the age of 3, Silas is conveniently trying to hide this.

 

But now here comes the funniest part of Silas' articles which have desperation written all over it:

 

A quick review of Aisha's life, during and following Muhammad's death, shows that she exhibited some psychological problems:

 

1) She was extremely jealous of some of Muhammad's other wives.

 

From Bukhari, 5.164:

 

Narrated 'Aisha:

I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija (although) she died before he married me, for I often heard him mentioning her, and Allah had told him to give her the good tidings that she would have a palace of Qasab (i.e. pipes of precious stones and pearls in Paradise), and whenever he slaughtered a sheep, he would send her women-friends a good share of it.

 

Is this a joke or is this real? A lady feeling jealous of some other people means she has psychological problems?! Then I guess nearly every single lady on this planet has psychological problems!!!!! This is by the far the funniest argument I have heard; a jealous lady is psychologically harmed! Does Answering-Islam really expect to convince anyone with this complete nonsense?

 

It is natural for a lady in love with a man to feel jealous of other women, this is a natural effect, but since Silas has no argument, he wants to now try and say this is a real major psychological problem! So to all our female readers, if you ever felt jealous then please be aware that you have psychological problems and should go see your doctor as soon as possible. :) I hope Answering-Islam keep this up, since it does for a good laugh and shows how bankrupt Christian apologetics really is.

 

But now folks save yourself for the biggest laugh, Silas has just attacked his own God! The Bible calls God a JELOUS GOD! SO ACCORDING TO SILAS THE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS PSYCOLOGICALLY DAMAGED! here is the passages: 

 

Exd 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

 

Exd 34:14  For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:

 

Deu 4:24  For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God

 

Nah 1:2  God [is] jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and [is] furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth [wrath] for his enemies.

 

Zec 8:2  Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I was jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury.

 

So the God of the Bible is psychologically damaged according to Silas, since if you are jealous or extremely jealous then this means you have some psychological defect. It can't get any better than this can it? I really urge Jochen Katz to continue hiring clowns to write for him, since this is a great service to Islam showing how low and lame the enemies of Islam will go to attack it. Satan always makes a fool of himself.

 

2) She conspired with other wives and lied to and deceived Muhammad.

 

From Bukhari 7.192:

 

Narrated 'Ubaid bin 'Umar:

 

I heard 'Aisha saying, "The Prophet used to stay for a long while with Zanab bint Jahsh and drink honey at her house. So Hafsa and I decided that if the Prophet came to anyone of us, she should say him, "I detect the smell of Maghafir (a nasty smelling gum) in you. Have you eaten Maghafir?' " So the Prophet visited one of them and she said to him similarly. The Prophet said, "Never mind, I have taken some honey at the house of Zainab bint Jahsh, but I shall never drink of it anymore." So there was revealed: 'O Prophet ! Why do you ban (for you) that which Allah has made lawful for you ... If you two (wives of Prophet) turn in repentance to Allah,' (66.1-4) addressing Aisha and Hafsa. 'When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to some of his wives.' (66.3) namely his saying: But I have taken some honey."

 

So if you make something up you are psychologically damaged? The problems for Silas never ends! He just attacked Abraham now! Since Abraham himself lied so therefore using Silas' logic Abraham is psychologically damaged, and so is every human for lying. This is too funny; anyway here is the story of Abraham lying from the Bible:

 

Genesis 20 1 And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.

3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife. 4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, LORD, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? 5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. 6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. 7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.


So note Abraham claimed that Sarah was his sister, not his wife, although it is technically true that Sarah is Abraham's wife, however so Abraham was simply making it out that Sarah was his sister only and not his wife making her eligible for the king's pleasure, thankfully God told the king of this in a dream. So therefore Abraham must be psychologically affected since he lied here.

 

Silas then goes on to quote references showing that marrying a young girl could cause some harms, by doing this Silas contends that Muhammad cannot be a true prophet since he should know better etc.

 

Let us now turn the tables on Silas and his own Bible showing how the Bible itself causes physical and psychological effects, we shall bring up 4 cases:

 

- Marrying your own sister

- Allowing alcohol

- Allowing pork consumption

- Marrying the rapist

 

We first start with the Abraham marrying his own sister Sarah:

 

"From there Abraham journeyed toward the territory of the Negeb, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar. And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, 'She is my sister.' And Abim'elech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. But God came to Abim'elech in a dream by night, and said to him, 'Behold, you are a dead man, because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a man's wife.' Now Abim'elech had not approached her; so he said, "Lord, wilt thou slay an innocent people? Did he not himself say to me, "She is my sister"? And she herself said, "He is my brother." In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this.' Then God said to him in the dream, 'Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me; therefore I did not let you touch her. Now then restore the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you, and all that are yours.' So Abim'elech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told them all these things; and the men were very much afraid. Then Abim'elech called Abraham, and said to him, 'What have you done to us? And how have I sinned against you, that you have brought on me and my kingdom a great sin? You have done to me things that ought not to be done.' And Abim'elech said to Abraham, 'What were you thinking of, that you did this thing?' Abraham said, 'I did it because I thought, There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. Besides she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. And when God caused me to wander from my father's house, I said to her, "This is the kindness you must do me: at every place to which we come, say of me, He is my brother."' Then Abim'elech took sheep and oxen, and male and female slaves, and gave them to Abraham, and restored Sarah his wife to him." Genesis 20:1-14

 

So as you can see, Abraham married his own sister Sarah, and God did not have a problem with it at the time, let us now look at the defects of marrying into your own family, such as marrying your mother, sister etc:

 

Other specialists claim that this notion betrays a misunderstanding of basic genetics and natural selection. They argue that, while technically possible, the proposed positive long-term effects of inbreeding are almost always unrealized because the short-term fitness depression is enough for selection to discourage inbreeding. Such a scenario has only occurred under extremely unusual circumstances, either in major population bottlenecks, or forced artificial selection by animal husbandry. In order for such a "purification" to work, the offspring of close mate pairings must only be homozygous dominant (free of bad genes) and recessive (will die before reproducing). If there are heterozygous offspring, they will be able to transmit the defective genes without themselves feeling any effects. What's more, this model does not account for multiple deleterious recessives (most people have more than one), or multi-locus gene linkages. The introduction of mutations negates the weeding out of bad genes, and evidence exists that homozygous individuals are often more at risk to pathogenic </wiki/Pathogen>  predation. Because of these complications, it is extremely difficult to overcome the initial "hump" of fitness penalties incurred by inbreeding. (see Moore 1992, Uhlmann 1992)

 

Therefore, it is not surprising that inbreeding is uncommon in nature, and most sexually-reproducing species have mechanisms built in by natural selection to avoid mating with close kin. Pusey & Worf (1996) and Penn & Potts (1999) both have found evidence that some species possess evolved psychological aversions to inbreeding, via kin-recognition heuristics </wiki/Heuristic> .

Given such overwhelming evidence of inbreeding depression as being an important force in sexual reproduction, evolutionary psychologists </wiki/Evolutionary_psychologist> have argued that humans should possess similar psychological heuristics against incest. The Westermarck effect </wiki/Westermarck_effect> is one strong piece of evidence in favor of this, indicating that children who are raised together in the same family find each other sexually uninteresting, even when there is strong social pressure for them to mate. In what is now a key study of the Westermarck's hypothesis, the anthropologist </wiki/Anthropology> Melford E. Spiro </wiki/Melford_E._Spiro> demonstrated that inbreeding aversion between siblings is predicatably linked to co-residency. In a cohort </wiki/Cohort_%28statistics%29> study of children raised as communal </wiki/Commune_%28intentional_community%29>, that is to say, fictive, siblings in the Kiryat Yedidim </w/index.php?title=Kiryat_Yedidim&action=edit> kibbutz </wiki/Kibbutz> in the 1950s </wiki/1950s>, Spiro found practically no intermarriage between his subjects as adults, despite positive pressure from parents and community. The social experience of having grown up as brothers and sisters created an incest aversion, even though genetically speaking the children were not related. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest)

 

Now the Bible does not ban alcohol neither, in fact Jesus' first miracle recorded in the Bible is him turning water into wine at a party! Here are the problems of alcohol:


<http://www.publichealthnews.com/news/showcontent.asp?id={EB27D857-8E77-4F01-8FFB-CCD949C8A161}>


Alcohol-related deaths in the UK have risen by a massive 18.4 per cent in the past five years, new figures have shown. The figures, obtained from the Office for National Statistics by the Liberal Democrats, reveal an alarming increase in deaths where the underlying cause could be directly related to alcohol use - diseases such as cirrhosis of the liver. Yorkshire and Humber showed by far the biggest increase at 46.5 per cent.

Also showing ?worrying' increases were the north-east with 28.4 per cent, the west midlands with 24.2 per cent, the north-west with 24.1 per cent and Wales at 21.4 per cent. The north-west saw the most drink-related deaths last year with 1,179, followed by the south-east with 842, London with 772, the west midlands with 750 and Yorkshire and the Humber at 627. Wales had the lowest count, with 419, and there were 430 alcohol-related deaths in the north-east. The only area to show a decreasing rate was London, which saw 806 drink-related deaths in 2000 compared to the 772 in 2004 - a drop of 4.2 per cent.

Alcohol was recorded as the primary cause of death on 6,544 people's death certificates in 2004, compared with 5,525 in 2000. Tens of thousands more will have died as an indirect result of alcohol, from conditions like heart disease or cancer.

The revelations came just days after the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges warned that plans to relax licensing laws could lead to an increase in violent crime, including rapes and serious assaults. Lynne Featherstone, Lib Dem spokesperson on home affairs, who requested the figures in a parliamentary question, said: ?These figures are deeply worrying. The government must address the underlying reasons why people are drinking themselves literally to death.'

?I'm worried that the proposed change to licensing laws will add to this startling increase in drink-related deaths. The government should pause for more thought before it brings in changes to the licensing laws in November.'

A spokesperson for Alcohol Concern said: ?The increase in alcohol-related deaths is deeply worrying but, rather sadly, not surprising. Alcohol consumption has been rising for the last 50 years in the UK, and unfortunately many people do drink above the recommended daily benchmarks of two units a day for women and three for men.

?Alcohol directly causes thousands of deaths a year, and contributes massively to deaths from cancer, stroke and heart attack. We urge the government to think beyond its obsession with binge drinkers and antisocial behaviour, and look at investing much more in specialist alcohol services that meet the needs of those problem drinkers who may or may not be binge drinkers.'



<http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5194258-103690,00.html>  

 

Excessive drinking causes brain damage in women more quickly than in men, according to a team of scientists.

 

The finding is especially worrying in the light of reports that binge drinking among women is soaring, according to the charity Alcohol Concern.

Scientists at the University of Heidelberg in Germany took brain scans of 158 volunteers, 76 of whom were alcoholic men and women. They found they could use the brain scans to trace the progression of alcohol dependency in women.

 

The scans also revealed that alcohol-induced brain damage could be picked up much earlier in women than men.

 

"The women developed equal brain-volume reductions as the men after a significantly shorter period of alcohol dependence," said Karl Mann, who led the study.

 

The study, which appears in the May issue of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, supports evidence that the harmful effects of alcohol differ between the sexes.

<http://corp.aadac.com/for_women/the_basics_about_women/women_effects_alcohol.asp>

Alcohol is often believed to be a stimulant, because it lowers inhibitions and impairs planning and judgment. But alcohol actually acts as a depressant on the central nervous system, slowing down brain functioning.

 

omen are more sensitive to the effects of alcohol than men, and experience its harmful medical complications in a shorter period of time.

 

Women who drink heavily tend to develop liver or heart disease after fewer years of heavy drinking than men. (5, 11) These women also experience greater damage to their brain structure after fewer years of heavy drinking than men who are heavy drinkers. (11)

Women who consume as few as two drinks per day are at increased risk of developing high blood pressure. (5)

 

With as few as two or three drinks a day, a woman is at increased risk of dying from liver disease, cancer or injury. (5)

 

Consumption of as many as four drinks per day increases the risk of stroke among women. (5)

Higher levels of alcohol consumption may have negative effects on a woman's menstrual cycle. She may have more painful, heavy, or irregular periods as a result. (5, 8, 14)

Heavy alcohol consumption may lead to the deterioration of female reproductive health. Ovarian wasting (shrinkage) or abnormal function, endometriosis (cysts outside the uterus), infertility and sexual dysfunction have all been observed in alcoholic women. (5, 8, 14)

Effects during pregnancy

 

Drinking while pregnant may harm the developing fetus. Much research is being done, but to date there is still no known safe level of alcohol consumption for pregnant women. Most doctors and researchers believe it is safest not to drink while pregnant.

 

It is unclear whether a child's health problems are caused solely by a mother's use of alcohol during pregnancy or in combination with other factors including

 

* poor nutritional habits

* smoking

* other drug consumption

* use of more than one drug

* lack of sleep

* a mother's general health prior to pregnancy

* genetics

* how much alcohol, tobacco or other drugs are consumed during pregnancy

* at what stage in the pregnancy the substance is consumed

* the length of time the substance is consumed

 

The effects of alcohol have been difficult to study because these other factors also have an impact on the pregnancy. Until more is known about the specific effects of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, it is safest to avoid using them while pregnant.

 

Any harm done to the fetus as a result of drinking during pregnancy cannot be reversed, but reducing or eliminating alcohol intake at any time during pregnancy is healthiest for the fetus. (10) It's never too late to quit or cut down on drinking.

 

Effects during birth

 

Pregnant women who consume 10 or more drinks per week, or one to two drinks per day, are at higher risk of premature labour and delivery than women who rarely drink. (13)

Use of alcohol during pregnancy has been related to miscarriage or stillbirth. (6, 7)

Even one drink per day is associated with intrauterine growth restriction (the fetus not growing at a normal rate) and reduced birth weight. (7, 13)

Effects on breastfeeding

 

The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends that mothers who consume alcoholic beverages infrequently should breasted their children. However, breastfeeding is not recommended for women who regularly consume more than a moderate amount of alcohol (more than two drinks per day). (15)

A nursing mother who consumes alcohol tends to produce less milk. (16)

The infant may feed more frequently, but ingests less milk. (4)

 

Infants who are regularly exposed to alcohol in their mother's breast milk may have more difficulty in learning to co-ordinate their movement, and in developing their mental abilities. (6, 16) In addition, infants tend to have less restful sleep and sleep for shorter periods of time after consuming breast milk containing alcohol. (16)

 

Effects on child development

Effects on early development

 

Short-term effects at birth may include withdrawal symptoms such as sleeplessness, irritability, diarrhea, vomiting, breathing problems, seizures and lack of sucking during breastfeeding. (1)

A growing fetus ingests alcohol when alcohol passes from the mother through the placenta. Because the liver of the fetus is underdeveloped, it cannot break down the alcohol as quickly as a fully developed liver can. As a result, the fetus is exposed to alcohol for longer periods of time, and developing organs may be harmed by this long-term exposure. (18)

Moderate alcohol use during pregnancy has been linked to developmental and behavioral difficulties in infants. (6)

 

Effects on long-term development

 

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), partial fetal alcohol syndrome (p-FAS), fetal alcohol effects (FAE), alcohol-related neurodevelopment disorder (ARND) and alcohol-related birth defects (ARBD) are all terms used to describe the physical and/or mental difficulties a child exposed to alcohol before being born may experience. These difficulties do not go away or change -- they last a lifetime.

 

Health Canada states that heavier drinking like binge drinking (consuming five drinks or more per occasion) or frequent drinking (consuming seven or more drinks per week) during pregnancy is linked to both FAS and FAE. (10)

 

Physically, alcohol-exposed children may exhibit problems with co-ordination, movement, vision and hearing, and/or have birth defects that may include

 

* bone and muscle deformities

* heart defects

* other deformities of the face or head

* kidney and organ problems (9)

 

Children exposed to alcohol before birth (even in light to moderate amounts) may have intellectual, behavioral, emotional or social problems that persist throughout their entire lives. These alcohol-exposed individuals may have

 

* mental handicaps (9)

* problems with learning, memory and problem solving (2, 17)

* poor judgment or failure to consider consequences (12)

* destructive, aggressive, inattentive, nervous or overactive behaviors (12)

* trouble with the law (12)

* a tendency to develop their own alcohol and other drug problems (3)

 

There is no known safe level of alcohol consumption for pregnant women.

<http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Alcohol>

 

What are its short-term effects?

 

the effects of moderate alcohol intake include dizziness and talkativeness; the immediate effects of a larger amount of alcohol include slurred speech, disturbed sleep, nausea, and vomiting. Alcohol, even at low doses, significantly impairs the judgment and coordination required to drive a car safely. Low to moderate doses of alcohol can also increase the incidence of a variety of aggressive acts, including domestic violence and child abuse. Hangovers are another possible effect after large amounts of alcohol are consumed; a hangover consists of headache, nausea, thirst, dizziness, and fatigue.

What are its long-term effects?

Prolonged, heavy use of alcohol can lead to addiction (alcoholism). Sudden cessation of long term, extensive alcohol intake is likely to produce withdrawal symptoms, including severe anxiety, tremors, hallucinations and convulsions. Long-term effects of consuming large quantities of alcohol, especially when combined with poor nutrition, can lead to permanent damage to vital organs such as the brain and liver. In addition, mothers who drink alcohol during pregnancy may give birth to infants with fetal alcohol syndrome. These infants may suffer from mental retardation and other irreversible physical abnormalities. In addition, research indicates that children of alcoholic parents are at greater risk than other children of becoming alcoholics.

 

<http://www.alcohol-addiction.org/>

 

UNDERSTANDING ALCOHOL ADDICTION

 

Alcohol is known to man as one of the oldest addictions there is.

The University of Amsterdam and the Leiden University conducted a study in 2002 and concluded that a person's ability to function normally is effected after even one drink.

Alcohol addiction is a road of destruction for an individual suffering through alcohol addiction.

 

TWO PROBLEMS, ONE ADDICTION.

 

This is not a mysterious brain disease. People begin drinking to solve some perceived problem or problems in his or her life and before they realize it there's a dependency and an addiction. Alcohol dependence and addiction originates from the continued use of alcohol to combat the perceived problems. Either a physical and/or an emotional dependence causes addiction.

By the time reality kicks in the alcohol addiction is a greater problem than the original problem or problems the alcohol was suppose to solve.

 

Now the result is there are two problems for the person to deal with: Number one is the possibly forgotten original problem and number two is the new found alcoholism to contend with.

ONE SOLUTION SOLVES BOTH PROBLEMS WITH TREMENDOUS SUCCESS!

 

Getting someone to stop drinking is not a simple matter of someone having self-control or self-discipline as many people think. Only one of the problems is a persons ability to quit drinking but the combination of the original problem that started the drinking and the added problem within the addiction to stop drinking makes the endeavor seem impossible.

 

Overcoming these real life problems with real life solutions is an essential component to a successful rehabilitation. The right tools and life skills to surpass common barriers encountered by people on a daily basis are necessary for beating the addiction long-term. In order for those suffering through any type of addiction they must be able to apply these tools to their every day lives consistently.

For an alcoholic to become a happy, healthy, and productive member of society both the drinking problem and the underlying reasons for it have to be solved.

 

Christians like to claim that the Bible allows alcohol use in moderation, this still does no good for them:

 

 

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20051202-16242100-bc-newzealand-alcohol.xml>

AUCKLAND, New Zealand, Dec. 2 (UPI) -- The benefits of drinking alcohol in moderation may be outweighed by the harms, according to New Zealand researchers.

Many studies dating back more than 25 years suggest a 20-percent to 25-percent reduction in heart disease risk linked to light drinking, reported the BBC Friday.

However, lead researcher Dr. Rod Jackson, of the University of Auckland, said any coronary protection from light-to-moderate drinking would be very small and unlikely to outweigh the harms.

"If so, the public health message is clear. Do not assume there is a window in which the health benefits of alcohol are greater than the harms -- there is probably no free lunch," said Jackson.



Also if the Bible taught that alcohol should be consumed in moderation then why did Jesus turn water into wine during a wedding party? Obviously during parties and weddings people drink a lot of alcohol, not a little, by Jesus turning water into wine during a party where alcohol will be consumed in large amounts means that the Bible advocates that it is okay to consume large amounts of alcohol during parties and gatherings. And we all know the problems of that as I just showed.

 

Now what about the harm of pork? Christians claim that the NT now allows pork consumption, here are its harms:

 

<http://www.55a.net/firas/english/?page=show_det&id=6>

The healthy harms which are related to eating the pork

The dissimilitude between the pork & the other Cattle's meat:

 

The pork includes a big quantity of sebum and marked by inosculating the sebum inside the muscular cells in the meat fro by its coexisting outside the cell in the connective tissues in high turbidity

While the sebum of cattle's meat are isolated from the muscular tissue and it isn't posturize inside its cells but it is posturize outside the cells and in the connective tissues

The scientific studies proved that the herbivore's fats are emulsified and absorbed in the human's intestines when he eats it, then it is converted in his body inspite of that the emulsification is difficult in his intestines and the flyzren triple molecules pork's fats are absorbed without any conversion or deposition in human's tissues as zoologically or porky fats

 

And the cholesterol, which results from pork's analysis in the body appear in the blood in the form of semi-cholesterol pleomorphic which led to arise in the blood pressure a lot and arteriosclerosis and they are from the dangerous factors that introduced filling of the heart muscle, and professor Roff found that cholesterol that are found in the cancer rover cell are like the cholesterol which are found when eating the pork

The pork is rich with the compounds that contains a high rate of sulfur and all affect the tissues absorption ability to the water as sponge that take the shape of vast bag and this led to the deposition of the mucous substance in sinews, ligaments, cartilages between vertebrae and to degeneration in the bones

And the tissues that contains sulfur are damaged by rotten producing a spread bad odor and caused hydrogen sulphate gas and it was noticed that the containers that contains the pork although it is perfectly closed it's odor spreads from the room after few days as a result of it's bad rotten odor and it's unsustainable odor

 

Contrastly, other types of meat was passed by the same experiment and it was found that the rotten of beef is more slower than the pork and this rotten odor doesn't spread from it. The pork contains a high ratio of growth hormone which has a great effect on the infection (material's ends), also it has an effect on the stomach growth (The potbelly) and increase the growth rate especially the designed for growth and cancer development

 

According to professor Roff studies these fatty meals that contain pork consider essential in cell's cancer turning as it contains the growth hormone and it has a great effect in rising blood cholesterol

Diseases transported by pork:

 

Islamic forbids pork and Muslims apply it obeying to the order of Allah without argument in the causes of this forbidden but modern scientists reached to this astonished results in this field.

It's amazing that pig is rich pasture for more than 450 epidemic diseases and it is playing the role of intermediary to transform 57 diseases to man, in addition to these diseases that are caused from eating pork as dyspepsia, the atherosclerosis and many others.

 

The pig itself is responssible alone to transform 27 epidemic diseases to human and some other animals participate it in other diseases but it stills the store and the main source of these diseases as: The liar hydrophobia, Wile disease, Japanese fever, Malta fever, Scrofula, Meningitis, krip epidemics, The pig's flu & others.

 

Reference : Medical Islamic wonders (Rawee Al- Teb Al- Islamy)

Dr. Mohamed Nezar Al-Dakr.

Back Send To Friend

http://www.diseasesfromanimals.org/yersi.php

 

ersinia Enterocolitica and Pigs: What is yersiniosis?

 

Yersiniosis (yer-SIN-ee-O-sis) is a disease caused by the bacterium Yersinia enterocolitica. People with yersiniosis can have different symptoms depending on how old they are. People can start to get sick 4 to 7 days after infection and can be sick for 1 to 3 weeks. Young children usually have fever, stomach pain, and diarrhea. Adults do not get sick with yersiniosis as often, but they can feel pain on their right side and may have a fever. Usually, these signs go away after about 3 weeks but sometimes pain in joints, such as knees or wrists, can start after that and last for several months.

 

Can animals transmit yersiniosis to me?

 

Yes, some animals pass Yersinia enterocolitica in their feces (stool) and people can get sick from contact with infected feces. Several kinds of animals can carry this disease, but usually people get sick from pigs that are sick with yersiniosis. Other animals that can carry this disease include cats, dogs, horses, cows, rodents, and rabbits. People can also get yersiniosis by eating pork that is not cooked completely or by drinking contaminated milk.

 

How can I protect myself from getting yersiniosis?

 

* Avoid eating raw or undercooked pork.

* Consume only pasteurized milk or milk products.

* Wash hands with soap and running water before eating and preparing food, after contact with animals, and after handling raw meat.

* After handling raw chitterlings (food prepared from small intestine of pigs), clean hands and fingernails thoroughly with soap and water before touching infants or their toys, bottles, or pacifiers. Someone other than the foodhandler should care for children while chitterlings are being prepared.

* Prevent cross-contamination in the kitchen: Use separate cutting boards for meat and other foods, and carefully clean all cutting boards, countertops, and utensils with soap and hot water after preparing raw meat.

* Dispose of animal feces in a sanitary manner.

 

Last but not least, the Bible tells the raped virgin to marry her rapist:

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 22

 

25-29

 

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days

 

So a rapist who rapes a virgin will have to marry her! We all know that rape causes psychological and physical effects, especially if the raped victim is a virgin. Can you imagine the other major psychological effects that would arise in her when she would have to live and sleep beside this rapist?! No female would want to marry her rapist, yet that is what the Bible calls for. Disgusting.

 

In light of all this, this means the Bible is not from God since it advocates things that cause physical and psychological defects, now note I did not advocate this argument, Silas did, and I simply turned his argument against him showing him how weak his flimsy claims are.

 

So in conclusion Silas brought no real arguments to the table, once again he shows Christians have no real case on the prophets marriage to Aisha, what Silas did show is that Christians are now finding new ways to try and tackle this issue of the prophets marriage to Aisha, and it must be said that this new approach is very funny indeed.

 

And Allah Knows Best and much better than this ignorant missionary Silas.

 

www.muslim-responses.com