"Fatima's Fiancé"-Oh Bush...We Destroyed the [WTC] Tower, & We Will Make You Bow Your Head

MEMRI ^ | 2-15-06

[jackibutterfly]

OK, so the problem IS Muslim, NOT Islam. Correct?

[jackibutterfly]

Geeez! Where'd YOU come from???

[jackibutterfly]

And by the way, where did nmh EVER say that Abraham had an illegitimate son?? AND, where do you get off coming at nmh that way. You sound like a terrorist thug. Clean up your act!

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Go back to du!

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Guess you guys noticed Thug's comment has been removed and his account has been banned. Looks like we had a sleeper troll dating back to 2001.

[nmh]

That is not true.

Sarah and Abraham were married. Hagar never was the WIFE of Abraham, hence Isaac is the LEGITMATE son - between tow married people. NEVER is Hagar referred to as Abrahams's wife because she is not - she is just a maid to Sarah.

[nmh]

The problem is fundamental Muslims that "practice" Islam. Most Arabs practice some form of Islam and according to our politically correct idiots they call it the "radical" Islam. It's not "radical". They are practicing precisely what is in their Koran. It is a totally evil religion with an UGLY, bloody history as its legacy. Read up on it. Their massacres and tyranny lasted longer that the Crusades and Inquisition combined. In fact, they make the Inquisition and the Crusades look like a Boy Scout meeting gone awry.

Even today, people hesitate to discuss the gruesome cruelty they routinely "practiced" in the name of their allah (Satan as far as I am concerned). It is NOT a religion of "peace" by any stretch of the warped imagination.

The "moderates" are similar to the humanistic "Christian". They are in name only but don't practice legitimate Christianity. They're really secular humanists that want a feel good label.

[nmh]

Even in the OLD Testament a man was supposed to have ONE wife. Yes, many still disobeyed Him.

Gen.17:15,17

[15] And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.

Sarah was the wife of Abraham. Hagar was a lowly maid to Sarah.

[17] Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

Sarah was not convinced that she'd have children being so old so she took matters in her own hands and allowed her husband, Abraham to conceive a child with her maid Hagar and Ishmael was that child. Of course Sarah shouldn't have done that ... .

[schu]

BTTT

[muawiyah]

We are discussing the legitimacy of the offspring in what was clearly a polygamous society. That has absolutely nothing to do with the marriage a man might have made with one, two or a dozen women, or whether or not it was considered appropriate to share one's handmaiden for purposes of procreation (only, of course)!

The children were Abram's, and that's all that counted in that society at that time. It is inappropriate to read modern understandings into events in his life.

[nmh]

Dead wrong!

Polygamy was NOT approved by God however people did it anyway. Just because Kings had concubines doesn't mean it meant with God's approval. It did not. It never has. It never will.

I am not reading "modern interpretation" into anything.

Perhaps you should read the Bible and see what took place before making statements.

Gen.25:5,6,11,19

[5] And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.

[6] But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

[11] And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and Isaac dwelt by the well Lahai-roi.

[19] And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham begat Isaac:

So again, I say Isaac was the LEGITIMATE son and received ALL the appropriate blessings for a legitimate son. If you still disagree with me, perhaps you need to argue it out with God.

Children by concubines didn't matter and that included Ishmael. YOU are reading modern day humanism into what took place in the Bible.

[nmh]

Something else to keep in mind if you open the Bible:

Exod.6:3,6,8

[3] And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Do you see Ishmael's name there?

[8] And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.

I still don't' see Ishmael's name there.

God does keep His promises through LEGITMATE seed.

[muawiyah]

When you have Moses writing the story, I suppose he assigns the "rights" to lineage he seeks to join.

However, the earlier part of the story, where Abraham is writing the story (presumably in Sumerian), I think he got the story right, and unless there's something in there that specifically EXCLUDES Ishmael and his descendants from God's promise to Abraham, the fact that he's not included in a specific Hebrew oriented text does not mean that he is, in fact, excluded.

[schu]

nmh,

OK, I buy it, makes a lot of sense. My understanding is that their is clearly identified lineage between Abraham/Isaac and Jesus (via Joesph). Does such lineage exist for Ishmael and Muhammad? What group in Biblical times were the descendents of Ishmael?

Txs, appreciate your insight, schu