Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: I NEED TRUE BELIEVERS IN JESUS Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 12 Next >>
Author Message
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 24 December 2012 at 7:59pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by TG12345

Salaam Alaikum.
MahditheSeeker claims that the day he will find a "true believer" anywhere in the universe (based on Mark 16:15) he will believe the Bible, and islamispeace claims he feels the same way.

MARK 16:15-18 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well" 

I want to preface the following by stating I believe this was meant for the early church, and these signs were meant to demonstrate God's power to the unbelievers. I do not believe that Christians today are called to do these things, although I do believe that in some cases God does these things through people.


Walaikum as-salaam. 

I understand how you feel, but the fact is that even if the verses only applied to the "early church", they were not completely fulfilled.  How many people in the "early church" were able to drink poison and survive.  Some of the Christians on the forum have pointed out that Paul was not bitten by a snake when its latched on to his arm (Acts 28:5-6).  There are also examples in Acts of Christians healing the sick.  But, there are no examples of Christians drinking poison, whether on purpose or by force, and surviving.  If the verses from Mark 16 only applied to the early church, why were they not completely fulfilled? 

Originally posted by TG12345

Having said this, you claim that if you find a person anywhere in the universe doing the things in Mark 16:15, you will believe the Bible.


Yes, let's see if you can provide examples. Smile

Originally posted by TG12345

James Nye from Mail Online visited a pentecostal church in the US whose members have handled poisonous snakes and drank strychinine during servcies... and continue to do so. It is one of many such churches, which takes Mark 16:15 literally and believes it applies to believers in the 20th/21st century.

Between 1920s and when this article was written, around 100 church snake bite related deaths have been documented. However, thousands have handled these snakes.

It is estimated that up to 100 people have died in the 100 or so years since the practice began, which supporters claim is a small number considering thousands of worshipers have handled thousands of deadly snakes in that time.

Also, the snake handlers also take in strychinine.

Aware of the public fascination with serpent handling, Wolford wanted to use his platform to spread his beliefs to a new younger congregation.

But, even if holding the rattlesnakes and copperheads wasn't dangerous enough, serpent handlers also ingest deadly strychnine during services.

'In my life I’ve probably drunk two gallons of it,' said Wolford.



I must say that I am disappointed.  I am fully aware of these "snake handlers" and they don't want me to convert to Christianity. 

There are some issues which you have overlooked that prove that this phenomenon of "snake handling" is no "miracle".  The article in the DailyMail points out:

"When a worshiper is bitten by a snake and dies, congregation members accept it as God's decision that it was time for that person to die."

What this shows is that these people expect deaths to occur, and they do occur.  Yet, would not the fact that hundreds of people have died show that this is not a miracle?  These people have even convinced themselves that the deaths do not mean that the promise of Mark 16 is wrong, but that it is God's will.  It turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Also, the article clearly states that most people do not handle snakes at the services:

"Not everyone who attends the high energy services will handle snakes..."

It also needs to be pointed out that snakes are highly unpredictable.  According to an article in DiscoveryNews:

"Experts say there’s no sure way to tell when a venomous serpent like the timber rattlesnake -- the kind that probably killed Wolford -- will strike. Nor is it easy to tell whether you’ll get a harmless “dry bite," or a deadly injection of toxins that can kill a full-grown human within hours." [1]

Finally, I am sure you have heard of so-called "snake charmers" in places like India.  Would the fact that these people are able to handle cobras make you believe that they have some divine power?  Probably not.  Here are a couple of videos which show cobras and humans in close contact.  The second video is both shocking and scary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVEhnoYJtok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxkYmD-Krmo

Regarding the claim of drinking strychnine and surviving, I think it is very telling that Wolford (the guy who recently died from a snake bite) did not reveal how much strychnine he drank at any one time.  He only made the vague statement that he had drank "two gallons" in his life.  I point this out because strychnine can be deadly at different amounts for different people.  According to one source:

"The lethal does for adults varies.  The minimal oral human lethal dose ranged from 30 to 120mg.  When given intravenously or subcutaneously, the lethal dose is significantly lower." [2]

Moreover, he claimed that he "drank" strychnine, but strychnine is a powder, not a liquid.  Therefore, he must have been mixing it with a liquid, possibly water, and then ingesting it.  But how much he ingested at any one time was never revealed.  Clearly, this guy was hiding something.

Also, Wolford admitted that after "drinking" strychnine, he had muscle spasms and trouble breathing.  Clearly, it was harming his body even if it was not a fatal dose.  Yet Mark 16 clearly states that true believers will be able to drink poison and not be harmed, let alone die:

"...they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”" (Mark 16:18)

Since he had symptoms and was in a lot of pain, he did not meet the qualifications of Mark 16:18. 

Originally posted by TG12345

I believe the Bible is true, but not on the basis of such things. It is true because it is God's word and shows God for Who He is and what He has done for us, this is what I believe

I understand but from the above proofs, it is clear that the relevant verses from Mark 16 cannot be "true".  It is also known that there are "snake charmers" in places like India, and these people are not Christians.  Also, as I pointed out before, the verses in question are not even authentic, which is one more reason to question their veracity.  How can a forged passage be considered to be "God's word"?

Originally posted by TG12345

However, you stated you would believe it to be true if you found one person in the entire universe who can do the things in Mark 16. Well, there certainly are Christians today who can handle snakes and drink poison without being harmed.

All you showed was that these Christians are playing with fire.  The fact that many have died proves that there is no "miracle".  Those who have survived are simply lucky.  It has more to do with the unpredictability of snakes than with God's power.  Based on this, you have not provided any rational reason for me to convert to Christianity.  Smile

If you think these people are proof that the miracles in Mark 16 can happen, then you should logically convert to Hinduism, because they do essentially the same thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tydOJm4_E88

Notice how the guy is holding the snake as if he was holding a child!



Edited by islamispeace - 24 December 2012 at 8:26pm
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 24 December 2012 at 9:19pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Muhammad said that the dates should be taken in the morning, according to the hadith. If the man was bitten by a scorpion sometime not in the morning, then it would have been senseless to offer him the dates. Number 663 and 664 do not say to take the dates after something bad has happened, but to take them in the morning and if one does so, one will not be touched by poison or magic.


But as I pointed out, if by "poison", he meant any harmful substance, then he would have also stated that the person who eats dates would be protected from snake bites and scorpion stings.  Yet, he didn't. 

Originally posted by TG12345

Number 5083 makes clear that the dates contain antidote affects in the morning.


And that confirms that dates have a medicinal, not spiritual, value.  The medicinal value is well-known, as I have already shown.

Originally posted by TG12345

Sunan Abu Dawud is not an authentic hadith, unlike Bukhari and Muslim, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up. The man who came to see Muhammad for help was not suffering from poisoning, but from heart sickness.


I never said that all of Sunan Abu Dawud is not authentic.  Rather, I said that some hadiths are considered to be weak. 

The reason I brought it up was to prove further that dates were considered to have medicinal value.  That is why Imam Bukhari put the hadiths you mentioned in the section under "Medicine".  Moreover, I showed scientific evidence that dates have beneficial effects on the heart, so the hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud has scientific backing. 

Originally posted by TG12345

There are some Christians who handle poisonous snakes and do not get bitten. There are some Christians who drink poison like strychnine and do not get harmed or die (see previous post, when it passes the review lol).  There are cases where people have claimed to have been healed by prayer.


Then perhaps you can explain why Hindus can also handle snakes and not get bitten. 

Originally posted by TG12345

In the Book of Acts, the early church did all these things, and it was on a widespread scale. I believe that Mark 16 was in regards to the early church, and I cited Biblical scholars who agree.


Please show me where the "early Church" members were able to drink poison and not be harmed.

Originally posted by TG12345

Did the hadith say that 7 dates in the morning protect against liver malondialdehyde, or that they protect against magic and poison?


You missed the point.  You are claiming that by "poison", he meant any harmful substance.  I showed that this is not the case, but rather that the hadiths are saying that dates have general medical benefit.  To support this, I showed a peer-reviewed study which confirmed that date seeds have a protective effect against certain toxic chemicals in the body. 

Originally posted by TG12345

I am basing it on what the hadith says.
 

Yet, you have not provided a single Islamic source which states that Muslims can drink all the poison they want and still be protected if they eat 7 ajwa dates in the morning.  There is simply no evidence that the hadiths were ever interpreted that way.  Therefore, you are interpreting them on your own authority.  Imam Bukhari interpreted the hadith as saying that dates have a medicinal benefit and that as a result, Muslims should eat them on a regular basis.  In any case, there is scientific evidence that dates can provide a protective effect against certain toxic substances.  You have not been able to refute this.

Originally posted by TG12345

No offense intended, but you need to start taking your own advice. Albert Barnes knows more about the Bible than you do, yet you ignored his words that I posted earlier.


When did you post this?  I must have missed it.  I have looked at Barnes' Commentary and it actually creates more problems that it solves:

"They shall take up serpents - When it is necessary for the sake of establishing religion, they shall handle poisonous reptiles without injury, thus showing that God was with them to keep them from harm. This was literally fulfilled when Paul shook the viper from his hand. See Acts 28:5-6.

Any deadly thing - Any poison usually causing death.

Shall not hurt them - There is a similar promise in Isaiah 43:2.

They shall lay hands on the sick ... - See instances of this in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 3:6-7; Acts 5:15, etc." [1]

Nothing in the commentary states that these verses only applied to the early church.  All he says was that the promise was partially fulfilled by Paul and the other apostles.  Notice also that he is silent on the "drinking poison" part.  Why was that part not fulfilled?  

So, how can you insist from Barnes' Notes that the promise of Mark 16 only applied to the early church?  Meanwhile, you also attempted to show above that some Christians in the modern world do perform these miracles (allegedly).  So which is it?  Did Mark 16 apply only to the early church or does it apply even today?

Originally posted by TG12345

The other two hadith you showed did absolutely nothing to dispel the notion that dates prevent poison from harming a person if they are eaten in the morning.

The hadiths are true, as I showed.  Dates do have a protective effect against harmful substances like liver malondialdehyde.  Your insistence that if must apply to all poisons known to man is based on your own interpretation and is not supported by Islamic sources.  I challenge you to provide one example of Islamic scholars advising Muslims to eat dates in the morning and then drink poison.  If you can provide this, then you will have proven your point.  Of course, I know that you will fail for the simple reason that Islamic scholars have never interpreted the hadiths that way.  That is your own interpretation. 

If I may ask, how did you find those hadiths?  Did you search a hadith database or did you read them on an Islamic website?

Originally posted by TG12345

Read Barne's commentary that I pasted for you. Furthermore, there are people who do drink poison and church and survive. However, these signs were meant for the early church.

I still can't find where you pasted it, but it doesn't matter, since I have already pasted it as well.  There is nothing in the commentary to indicate that the verses only applied to the early church.  It just states that they were partially fulfilled by the apostles.  There is also the problem of one of the miracles not being fulfilled.  No where in Acts or the other books is it mentioned that an apostle drank poison and survived.  Therefore, Mark 16 was not completely fulfilled by the early church.

Originally posted by TG12345

I'm not ready to renounce God, and never will be.
 

Don't get me wrong.  I don't want you to renounce God.  I am simply pointing out that by changing the subject from Mark 16 to the hadiths, you were not solving the problem of Mark 16. As a result, we would both need to renounce our faiths (if you were right about the hadiths).






Edited by islamispeace - 24 December 2012 at 9:24pm
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
TG12345
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 December 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 966
Quote TG12345 Replybullet Posted: 25 December 2012 at 8:37am
Originally posted by islamispeace

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...[/Quote]

Originally posted by TG12345

Salaam Alaikum.
MahditheSeeker claims that the day he will find a "true believer" anywhere in the universe (based on Mark 16:15) he will believe the Bible, and islamispeace claims he feels the same way.

MARK 16:15-18 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well" 

I want to preface the following by stating I believe this was meant for the early church, and these signs were meant to demonstrate God's power to the unbelievers. I do not believe that Christians today are called to do these things, although I do believe that in some cases God does these things through people.


Originally posted by islamispeace

Walaikum as-salaam. 

I understand how you feel, but the fact is that even if the verses only applied to the "early church", they were not completely fulfilled.  How many people in the "early church" were able to drink poison and survive.  Some of the Christians on the forum have pointed out that Paul was not bitten by a snake when its latched on to his arm (Acts 28:5-6).  There are also examples in Acts of Christians healing the sick.  But, there are no examples of Christians drinking poison, whether on purpose or by force, and surviving.  If the verses from Mark 16 only applied to the early church, why were they not completely fulfilled?  [/Quote]

Because the examples were not mentioned in the Book of Acts does not mean they didn't happen at all. The examples of casting out demons, healing, speaking in tongues and Paul briefly holding a snake all did happen so it isn't illogical to assume that some in the early church drank poison as well. The Book of Acts does not claim to document every single event that happened in the early church.

The passage in Mark did not say that Christians will survive snake bites, it says they will be able to pick up snakes. A snake latched on to Paul's hand. He shook it off. It was in his hands, he shook it off. Nothing more nothing less.


Originally posted by TG12345

Having said this, you claim that if you find a person anywhere in the universe doing the things in Mark 16:15, you will believe the Bible.


Originally posted by islamispeace

Yes, let's see if you can provide examples. Smile[/Quote]

[Quote=TG12345]
James Nye from Mail Online visited a pentecostal church in the US whose members have handled poisonous snakes and drank strychinine during servcies... and continue to do so. It is one of many such churches, which takes Mark 16:15 literally and believes it applies to believers in the 20th/21st century.

Between 1920s and when this article was written, around 100 church snake bite related deaths have been documented. However, thousands have handled these snakes.

It is estimated that up to 100 people have died in the 100 or so years since the practice began, which supporters claim is a small number considering thousands of worshipers have handled thousands of deadly snakes in that time.

Also, the snake handlers also take in strychinine.

Aware of the public fascination with serpent handling, Wolford wanted to use his platform to spread his beliefs to a new younger congregation.

But, even if holding the rattlesnakes and copperheads wasn't dangerous enough, serpent handlers also ingest deadly strychnine during services.

'In my life I’ve probably drunk two gallons of it,' said Wolford. [/Quote]


[QUOTE=islamispeaceI must say that I am disappointed.  I am fully aware of these "snake handlers" and they don't want me to convert to Christianity. 

There are some issues which you have overlooked that prove that this phenomenon of "snake handling" is no "miracle".  The article in the DailyMail points out:

"When a worshiper is bitten by a snake and dies, congregation members accept it as God's decision that it was time for that person to die."

What this shows is that these people expect deaths to occur, and they do occur.  Yet, would not the fact that hundreds of people have died show that this is not a miracle?  These people have even convinced themselves that the deaths do not mean that the promise of Mark 16 is wrong, but that it is God's will.  It turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Also, the article clearly states that most people do not handle snakes at the services:

"Not everyone who attends the high energy services will handle snakes..."

It also needs to be pointed out that snakes are highly unpredictable.  According to an article in DiscoveryNews:

"Experts say there’s no sure way to tell when a venomous serpent like the timber rattlesnake -- the kind that probably killed Wolford -- will strike. Nor is it easy to tell whether you’ll get a harmless “dry bite," or a deadly injection of toxins that can kill a full-grown human within hours." [1]

Finally, I am sure you have heard of so-called "snake charmers" in places like India.  Would the fact that these people are able to handle cobras make you believe that they have some divine power?  Probably not.  Here are a couple of videos which show cobras and humans in close contact.  The second video is both shocking and scary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVEhnoYJtok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxkYmD-Krmo

Regarding the claim of drinking strychnine and surviving, I think it is very telling that Wolford (the guy who recently died from a snake bite) did not reveal how much strychnine he drank at any one time.  He only made the vague statement that he had drank "two gallons" in his life.  I point this out because strychnine can be deadly at different amounts for different people.  According to one source:

"The lethal does for adults varies.  The minimal oral human lethal dose ranged from 30 to 120mg.  When given intravenously or subcutaneously, the lethal dose is significantly lower." [2]

Moreover, he claimed that he "drank" strychnine, but strychnine is a powder, not a liquid.  Therefore, he must have been mixing it with a liquid, possibly water, and then ingesting it.  But how much he ingested at any one time was never revealed.  Clearly, this guy was hiding something.

Also, Wolford admitted that after "drinking" strychnine, he had muscle spasms and trouble breathing.  Clearly, it was harming his body even if it was not a fatal dose.  Yet Mark 16 clearly states that true believers will be able to drink poison and not be harmed, let alone die:

"...they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”" (Mark 16:18)

Since he had symptoms and was in a lot of pain, he did not meet the qualifications of Mark 16:18. [/Quote]

  I did not say that the church members' actions were 'miraculous', I was simply responding to the claim that MahditheSeeker made and you backed up that if you saw one person doing what Mark 16 says you will believe the Bible.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24387&PN=6

Mark 16 does not say that people will not die from handling snakes, it says they will handle them. That is what some people (Christians as well as non-Christians) do.

The poison example may not be a good one, I agree. But there are some Christians who do handle snakes, thus one could argue fulfilling the passage in Mark and meaning he`d have to believe the Bible if I were to hold you to your word.

[Quote=TG12345]I believe the Bible is true, but not on the basis of such things. It is true because it is God's word and shows God for Who He is and what He has done for us, this is what I believe


[QUOTE=islamispeace]I understand but from the above proofs, it is clear that the relevant verses from Mark 16 cannot be "true".  It is also known that there are "snake charmers" in places like India, and these people are not Christians.  Also, as I pointed out before, the verses in question are not even authentic, which is one more reason to question their veracity.  How can a forged passage be considered to be "God's word"? [/Quote]

I was responding to Mahdi's statement that he would believe the Bible if he saw people doing what was written in Mark 16. I showed you an example of that (people handling snakes).

What evidence do you have that the verses are not authentic?

[Quote=TG12345]However, you stated you would believe it to be true if you found one person in the entire universe who can do the things in Mark 16. Well, there certainly are Christians today who can handle snakes and drink poison without being harmed.

[QUOTE=islamispeace]All you showed was that these Christians are playing with fire.  The fact that many have died proves that there is no "miracle".  Those who have survived are simply lucky.  It has more to do with the unpredictability of snakes than with God's power.  Based on this, you have not provided any rational reason for me to convert to Christianity.  Smile

If you think these people are proof that the miracles in Mark 16 can happen, then you should logically convert to Hinduism, because they do essentially the same thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tydOJm4_E88

Notice how the guy is holding the snake as if he was holding a child!


I didn't say that the snake handling churches in Appalachia are 'miraculous', and as I stated earlier, I believe these signs were meant for the early church, and that in some cases God still works through people today. I did not say that this was what was happening in Appalachia.

"I want to preface the following by stating I believe this was meant for the early church, and these signs were meant to demonstrate God's power to the unbelievers. I do not believe that Christians today are called to do these things, although I do believe that in some cases God does these things through people."

I'm not the one who stated that if I can find one person doing what is written in Mark 16, I'll believe the Bible. MahditheSeeker did. And you backed him up on that.

I gave you an example of people picking up snakes with their hands, since the passage says true believers will be able to do that. If I were to hold you to your word, I would demand you convert.

But of course I won't do that. I would recommend though being more careful with what you write. Wink

And I'll keep praying for you. Smile



Edited by TG12345 - 26 December 2012 at 9:06am
IP IP Logged
TG12345
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 December 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 966
Quote TG12345 Replybullet Posted: 25 December 2012 at 10:52am
Originally posted by islamispeace

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...


Originally posted by TG12345

Muhammad said that the dates should be taken in the morning, according to the hadith. If the man was bitten by a scorpion sometime not in the morning, then it would have been senseless to offer him the dates. Number 663 and 664 do not say to take the dates after something bad has happened, but to take them in the morning and if one does so, one will not be touched by poison or magic.


Originally posted by islamispeace

But as I pointed out, if by "poison", he meant any harmful substance, then he would have also stated that the person who eats dates would be protected from snake bites and scorpion stings.  Yet, he didn't. 

Why would he have had to state that?

If the man who was bitten by the scorpion did not have dates that morning, feeding him dates would have not been effective, since the hadith states a person will unaffected by poison or magic if he eats 7 of them in the morning.

If the person bitten by the scorpion had something else for or before breakfast, feeding him dates wouldn't have done him any good.



Volume 7, Book 71, Number 663:

Narrated Saud:

The Prophet said, "If somebody takes some 'Ajwa dates every morning, he will not be effected by poison or magic on that day till night." (Another narrator said seven dates).


Volume 7, Book 71, Number 664:

Narrated Saud:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "If Somebody takes seven 'Ajwa dates in the morning, neither magic nor poison will hurt him that day."

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/071-sbt.php#007.071.582



"Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: While we were on one of our journeys, we dismounted at a place where a slave girl came and said, "The chief of this tribe has been stung by a scorpion and our men are not present; is there anybody among you who can treat him (by reciting something)?" Then one of our men went along with her though we did not think that he knew any such treatment. But he treated the chief by reciting something, and the sick man recovered whereupon he gave him thirty sheep and gave us milk to drink (as a reward). When he returned, we asked our friend, "Did you know how to treat with the recitation of something?" He said, "No, but I treated him only with the recitation of the Mother of the Book (i.e., Al-Fatiha)." We said, "Do not say anything (about it) till we reach or ask the Prophet so when we reached Medina, we mentioned that to the Prophet (in order to know whether the sheep which we had taken were lawful to take or not). The Prophet said, "How did he come to know that it (Al-Fatiha) could be used for treatment? Distribute your reward and assign for me one share thereof as well."" (Sahih Bukhari, Book 61, Number 529)


Originally posted by TG12345

Number 5083 makes clear that the dates contain antidote affects in the morning.


Originally posted by islamispeace

And that confirms that dates have a medicinal, not spiritual, value.  The medicinal value is well-known, as I have already shown.

But the #663 and 664 does not say they have antidote effects, but that a person who eats 7 of them in the morning will not be affected by poison or magic that day.

As medicine, they are supposed to protect people from poison and spells as long as you have 7 of them in the AM.

That would not work with many poisons. And if MahdiTheSeeker or you or me or anyone would dare try that out on anyone, we'd be either in prison or an insane asylum.

If this is medical advice, it is not very sound. If a person were to take it as literally as you some Muslims expect Christians to take Mark 16:18, there would be a lot of dead people.

Originally posted by TG12345

Sunan Abu Dawud is not an authentic hadith, unlike Bukhari and Muslim, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up. The man who came to see Muhammad for help was not suffering from poisoning, but from heart sickness.


Originally posted by islamispeace

I never said that all of Sunan Abu Dawud is not authentic.  Rather, I said that some hadiths are considered to be weak. 

As a bit of an aside, how do you know which are which?

Originally posted by islamispeace

The reason I brought it up was to prove further that dates were considered to have medicinal value.  That is why Imam Bukhari put the hadiths you mentioned in the section under "Medicine".  Moreover, I showed scientific evidence that dates have beneficial effects on the heart, so the hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud has scientific backing. 

So you showed that dates have medicinal value. That's great, but it isn't what we were discussing. I never claimed they don't have medicinal value, and in the hadiths I cited, Muhammad was not arguing that they do... he was arguing that if one takes 7 of them in the morning he or she will be immune to poison and magic for that day. That is simply not true.

Originally posted by TG12345

There are some Christians who handle poisonous snakes and do not get bitten. There are some Christians who drink poison like strychnine and do not get harmed or die (see previous post, when it passes the review lol).  There are cases where people have claimed to have been healed by prayer.


Originally posted by islamispeace

Then perhaps you can explain why Hindus can also handle snakes and not get bitten. 

Perhaps, like some or most of the Christians who handle snakes today, they are lucky. Perhaps God does not want them to die, so He is protecting them.

I believe the signs were meant for the early church, and I think there are some cases where God does act this way still today. This may or may not be what is happening in Appalachia.

I'm not the one who claims his belief on whether the Bible is true or not true is based of whether Christians today can handle snakes.

Originally posted by TG12345

In the Book of Acts, the early church did all these things, and it was on a widespread scale. I believe that Mark 16 was in regards to the early church, and I cited Biblical scholars who agree.


Originally posted by islamispeace

Please show me where the "early Church" members were able to drink poison and not be harmed.

There are no specific examples of that in the Book of Acts. Show me please an example from the hadiths where a person was not harmed by magic due to him or her eating 7 dates in the morning.

Originally posted by TG12345

Did the hadith say that 7 dates in the morning protect against liver malondialdehyde, or that they protect against magic and poison?


Originally posted by islamispeace

You missed the point.  You are claiming that by "poison", he meant any harmful substance.  I showed that this is not the case, but rather that the hadiths are saying that dates have general medical benefit.  To support this, I showed a peer-reviewed study which confirmed that date seeds have a protective effect against certain toxic chemicals in the body.

I am claiming that by poison, Muhammad meant poison. A poison is a harmful substance.

I am not arguing that date seeds do not have a protective element against certain toxic chemicals in the body, I am arguing it is simply not true that eating 7 of them in the morning will protect you from being harmed by poison later that day. 

Originally posted by TG12345

I am basing it on what the hadith says.
 

Originally posted by islamispeace

Yet, you have not provided a single Islamic source which states that Muslims can drink all the poison they want and still be protected if they eat 7 ajwa dates in the morning.

Where did I say the hadiths state Muslims can drink all the poison they want and still be protected if they eat 7 ajwa dates that morning? I said, if the hadith is true, a Muslim (or any person for that matter) who eats 7 dates in the morning will not be harmed by poison that day. I don't believe that to be true, and I wouldn't encourage anyone to try it.

Originally posted by islamispeace

  There is simply no evidence that the hadiths were ever interpreted that way.  Therefore, you are interpreting them on your own authority.   Imam Bukhari interpreted the hadith as saying that dates have a medicinal benefit and that as a result, Muslims should eat them on a regular basis.

Where did he say that #663 and #664 mean that dates have a medicinal benefit, and not that they will not protect against poison?

Originally posted by islamispeace

  In any case, there is scientific evidence that dates can provide a protective effect against certain toxic substances.  You have not been able to refute this.

Nor have I ever argued that they don't or tried to refute it.

Originally posted by TG12345

No offense intended, but you need to start taking your own advice. Albert Barnes knows more about the Bible than you do, yet you ignored his words that I posted earlier.


Originally posted by islamispeace

When did you post this?  I must have missed it.  I have looked at Barnes' Commentary and it actually creates more problems that it solves:

"They shall take up serpents - When it is necessary for the sake of establishing religion, they shall handle poisonous reptiles without injury, thus showing that God was with them to keep them from harm. This was literally fulfilled when Paul shook the viper from his hand. See Acts 28:5-6.

Any deadly thing - Any poison usually causing death.

Shall not hurt them - There is a similar promise in Isaiah 43:2.

They shall lay hands on the sick ... - See instances of this in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 3:6-7; Acts 5:15, etc." [1]

Nothing in the commentary states that these verses only applied to the early church.  All he says was that the promise was partially fulfilled by Paul and the other apostles.  Notice also that he is silent on the "drinking poison" part.  Why was that part not fulfilled?  

So, how can you insist from Barnes' Notes that the promise of Mark 16 only applied to the early church?

I posted his commentary here:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24387&PN=4

If you read the commentary on verse 17 (that I coincidentally pasted as well on the above page), you will see he believed it applied to the early church. I will paste it again for your convenience.

The problem is not with the commentary, but with you looking only at its explanation of one verse, while missing the others...

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

And these signs - These miracles. These evidences that they are sent from God.

Them that believe - The apostles, and those in the primitive age who were endowed with like power. This promise was fulfilled if it can be shown that these signs followed in the case of any who believed, and it is not necessary to suppose that they would follow in the case of all. The meaning is, that they would be the result of faith, or of the belief of the gospel. It is true that they were. These signs were shown in the case of the apostles and early Christians. The infidel cannot say that the promise has not been fulfilled unless he can show that this never occurred; the Christian should be satisfied that the promise was fulfilled if these miracles were ever actually wrought, though they do not occur now; and the believer now should not expect a miracle in his case. Miracles were necessary for the establishment of religion in the world; they are not necessary for its continuance now.

In my name - By my authority, and using the power that I would in such cases, if bodily present. This was done; and in this they differed essentially from the manner in which Jesus himself wrought miracles. He did it in "his own name," and as possessing original, underived authority. See the account of his stilling the sea (Matthew 8:26, etc.); of his healing the sick Matthew 9:5-6; of his raising Lazarus, John 11. The prophets spoke "in the name of the Lord." The apostles did likewise, Acts 3:6, etc. There was, therefore, an important difference between Jesus and all the other messengers that God has sent into the world. He acted in his own name; they in the name of another. He wielded his own power; they were the instruments by which God put forth the omnipotence of his arm to save. He was therefore God; they were men of like passions as other men, Acts 14:15.

Shall they cast out devils - See the notes at Matthew 4:24. Compare Acts 16:16-18.

Shall speak with new tongues - Shall speak other languages than their native language. This was remarkably fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:4-11. It existed, also, in other places. See 1 Corinthians 12:10.

http://bible.cc/mark/16-17.htm

That drinking of poisons is not mentioned in Acts does not mean it didn't happen. The other things did, so I have no reason to assume it didn't happen at some point in the ministry of the early church.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Meanwhile, you also attempted to show above that some Christians in the modern world do perform these miracles (allegedly).  So which is it?  Did Mark 16 apply only to the early church or does it apply even today?

As I said previously, it applied to the early church. I believe God still may make things like that happen sometimes today. However, the signs were meant mostly for the early believers, and as the Book of Acts attests, they did do these things.

Originally posted by TG12345

The other two hadith you showed did absolutely nothing to dispel the notion that dates prevent poison from harming a person if they are eaten in the morning.

Originally posted by islamispeace

The hadiths are true, as I showed.  Dates do have a protective effect against harmful substances like liver malondialdehyde.  Your insistence that if must apply to all poisons known to man is based on your own interpretation and is not supported by Islamic sources.  I challenge you to provide one example of Islamic scholars advising Muslims to eat dates in the morning and then drink poison.  If you can provide this, then you will have proven your point.  Of course, I know that you will fail for the simple reason that Islamic scholars have never interpreted the hadiths that way.  That is your own interpretation.

Dates protecting against liver malondialdehyde, but not true for other poisons. If the passage said they are good for some poisons, it would be true. But it just says "poison".

The passage doesn't tell Muslims to eat 7 dates and drink poison, it tells them if they eat 7 dates in the morning they will not be harmed by poison. 

I am not arguing whether or not Islamic scholars advise Muslims to eat poison or feed poison to friends after ingesting 7 dates in the AM, that is not the issue.

The issue is that Muhammad said that after a person eats 7 awja dates in the morning, he or she will not be harmed by poison later that day. He didn`t say that these statements apply only to a certain kind of poison, he used `poison`, which is a general term.

Let`s say if a doctor gave you a prescription to take (like an antibiotic, for example) to help fight off an infection of some sort. He would tell you `take these pills 3 times a day for x number of days, and it will help with this inflammation`. That would be medically sound. If he gave you the pills and said `take these pills 3 times a day for x number of days, and disease will not harm you`, he would be an ***** and could be probably sued for malpractice. It wouldn`t matter how a person interprets or misinterprets his words, if he said the pill will ensure disease will not harm you he would be wrong, plain and simple. The pill would protect against the inflammation, but not against other kinds of disease or disease in general, which is what is understood by someone saying `if you take this disease will not harm you`.

Originally posted by islamispeace

If I may ask, how did you find those hadiths?  Did you search a hadith database or did you read them on an Islamic website?

My buddy Robert Spencer emailed them to me, and then sent me to IC to torment Muslims. Shocked

LOL no just kidding. I was reading through Sahih Bukhari (http://sahih-bukhari.com/) and came across these hadith which I found interesting to say the least. I set them aside, then I joined this site and learned of this discussion. I tried looking for them again, and found them on the site listed below.

Originally posted by TG12345

Read Barne's commentary that I pasted for you. Furthermore, there are people who do drink poison and church and survive. However, these signs were meant for the early church.

Originally posted by islamispeace

I still can't find where you pasted it, but it doesn't matter, since I have already pasted it as well.  There is nothing in the commentary to indicate that the verses only applied to the early church.  It just states that they were partially fulfilled by the apostles.  There is also the problem of one of the miracles not being fulfilled.  No where in Acts or the other books is it mentioned that an apostle drank poison and survived.  Therefore, Mark 16 was not completely fulfilled by the early church.

Answered already.

Originally posted by TG12345

I'm not ready to renounce God, and never will be.
 

Originally posted by islamispeace

Don't get me wrong.  I don't want you to renounce God.  I am simply pointing out that by changing the subject from Mark 16 to the hadiths, you were not solving the problem of Mark 16. As a result, we would both need to renounce our faiths (if you were right about the hadiths).



I responded to the claims about Mark 16, and MahditheSeeker`s ridiculous challenge, then I compared it to some things that Muhammad said, and posted a challenge of my own.

Glad to hear you aren`t trying to `atheisize me` Big%20smile
Salaam. Smile


Edited by TG12345 - 25 December 2012 at 9:35pm
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 26 December 2012 at 2:06pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by TG12345

I didn't say that the snake handling churches in Appalachia are 'miraculous', and as I stated earlier, I believe these signs were meant for the early church, and that in some cases God still works through people today. I did not say that this was what was happening in Appalachia.


Then why would use them to respond to the challenge that MahdiSeeker and I issued?  What do you think we were asking for if not actual (authentic) examples of these miracles being performed by modern Christians?

Originally posted by TG12345

I'm not the one who stated that if I can find one person doing what is written in Mark 16, I'll believe the Bible. MahditheSeeker did. And you backed him up on that.


Yes I did and you didn't prove that those people were actually performing miracles, as I showed.  You know full well what we were asking for, and you failed to provide authentic examples. 

Originally posted by TG12345

I gave you an example of people picking up snakes with their hands, since the passage says true believers will be able to do that. If I were to hold you to your word, I would demand you convert.


You could demand anything, but that does not mean you are entitled to it.  I showed that there is nothing "miraculous" in what those people do, because Hindus can do the same thing!  Therefore, you did not meet the challenge.  By the way, did those people "drive out demons" or "heal the sick"? 

Originally posted by TG12345

But of course I won't do that. I would recommend though being more careful with what you write. Wink


I would recommend that you read more carefully as well as research more carefully.  Tongue

Originally posted by TG12345

And I'll keep praying for you. Smile


No need to pray for me, my friend.  I am already blessed with faith and I am abundantly thankful to Allah (swt) for it.  No amount of prayer to Jesus will make me leave Islam.  There is a 0% chance of that ever happening, inshaAllah.

By the way, you did not answer my question about why there are no examples in the New Testament of any members of the early church being able to drink poison and surviving.  If your claim that Mark 16 only applied to the early church is true, then it was unfulfilled.  Even Barnes' Notes was silent on the issue.
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
TG12345
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 December 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 966
Quote TG12345 Replybullet Posted: 26 December 2012 at 2:29pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...


Originally posted by TG12345

I didn't say that the snake handling churches in Appalachia are 'miraculous', and as I stated earlier, I believe these signs were meant for the early church, and that in some cases God still works through people today. I did not say that this was what was happening in Appalachia.


Originally posted by islamispeace

Then why would use them to respond to the challenge that MahdiSeeker and I issued?  What do you think we were asking for if not actual (authentic) examples of these miracles being performed by modern Christians?


Originally posted by TG12345

I'm not the one who stated that if I can find one person doing what is written in Mark 16, I'll believe the Bible. MahditheSeeker did. And you backed him up on that.


Originally posted by islamispeace

Yes I did and you didn't prove that those people were actually performing miracles, as I showed.  You know full well what we were asking for, and you failed to provide authentic examples. 

You asked for even one example of people doing things described in Mark 16. The passage in question describes people handling snakes. I showed you examples of Christians doing that today. MahditheSeeker said he would give his life to Jesus if he could find only one person doing these things. Plenty of people, Christians as well as non-Christians, handle snakes.


This is what he wrote:

MahditheSeeker


MARK 16;15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well"




i am tired of talking to pretend believers. all i need is one person in the whole world who can do these things and i will give my life to Jesus. if these things can be proven to be true, even if by only one person, everything else will not matter to me. so please, if there is any believer in Jesus, or anybody who knows a believer in Jesus, please help me out.

Then later:

MahditheSeeker

still waiting.all i am getting is excuses.guess there are no true believers on this forum.the day i find one anywhere in the universe, i will believe the Bible.


Then you came in to back him up:

islamispeace

Well said.  I feel the same way!


So I showed an example of Christians picking up snakes with their hands. He said if he finds one person who can do these things, he will give his life to Jesus, and later that he will believe the Bible. So I gave him an example.

I'm not saying he has to keep his word, and give his life to Jesus. I'd prefer if he (and you) did it because you believe in what the Bible teaches.

Originally posted by TG12345

I gave you an example of people picking up snakes with their hands, since the passage says true believers will be able to do that. If I were to hold you to your word, I would demand you convert.

Originally posted by islamispeaceYou could demand anything, but that does not mean you are entitled to it.  I showed that there is nothing miraculous in what those people do, because Hindus can do the same thing!  Therefore, you did not meet the challenge.  By the way, did those people drive out demons or heal the sick?  [/Quote


Where did I say that the snake handling in Appalachia is miraculous? Nowhere.

He didn't state if people can miraculously do what is in Mark 16, he will give his life to Jesus. He said if he can find one person who does such a thing, he will do so. I found him (and you) several examples.

Originally posted by TG12345

But of course I won't do that. I would recommend though being more careful with what you write. Wink

Where did I say that the snake handling in Appalachia is miraculous? Nowhere.

He didn't state if people can miraculously do what is in Mark 16, he will give his life to Jesus. He said if he can find one person who does such a thing, he will do so. I found him (and you) several examples.

Originally posted by TG12345

But of course I won't do that. I would recommend though being more careful with what you write. Wink


Originally posted by islamispeace

I would recommend that you read more carefully as well as research more carefully.  Tongue

I answered his silly challenge. Funny how he hasn't responded yet.

Originally posted by TG12345

And I'll keep praying for you. Smile


Originally posted by islamispeace

No need to pray for me, my friend.  I am already blessed with faith and I am abundantly thankful to Allah (swt) for it.  No amount of prayer to Jesus will make me leave Islam.  There is a 0% chance of that ever happening, inshaAllah.

I'll keep praying. Smile

[QUOTE=islamispeace]By the way, you did not answer my question about why there are no examples in the New Testament of any members of the early church being able to drink poison and surviving.  If your claim that Mark 16 only applied to the early church is true, then it was unfulfilled.  Even Barnes' Notes was silent on the issue.

Because it was not mentioned in the Book of Acts does not mean it didn't happen at all. Did you answer my question about documented accounts in the hadith of instances when awj dates stopped magic? Thanks.


Edited by TG12345 - 26 December 2012 at 7:07pm
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 26 December 2012 at 6:07pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by TG12345

Why would he have had to state that?

If the man who was bitten by the scorpion did not have dates that morning, feeding him dates would have not been effective, since the hadith states a person will unaffected by poison or magic if he eats 7 of them in the morning.

If the person bitten by the scorpion had something else for or before breakfast, feeding him dates wouldn't have done him any good.


Why not?  It would have been important to mention in that instance that dates have a protective effect against snake bites and scorpion stings.  In fact, in the hadith I mentioned about the scorpion sting, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not say that eating dates would have protected against the venom and did not advise the other people of that.  He only mentioned what the treatment was.  If dates were meant to protect against every single poisonous substance, this would have been the perfect time to mention it. 

Originally posted by TG12345

But the #663 and 664 does not say they have antidote effects, but that a person who eats 7 of them in the morning will not be affected by poison or magic that day.

As medicine, they are supposed to protect people from poison and spells as long as you have 7 of them in the AM.

That would not work with many poisons. And if MahdiTheSeeker or you or me or anyone would dare try that out on anyone, we'd be either in prison or an insane asylum.

If this is medical advice, it is not very sound. If a person were to take it as literally as you some Muslims expect Christians to take Mark 16:18, there would be a lot of dead people.


Except that there is no example of a Muslim deliberately drinking poison after eating dates, while there are examples of Christians taking Mark 16 literally.  The reason for this is that there in nothing in the hadith to indicate that dates can protect against any poisonous substance like cyanide and that Muslims can deliberately drink poison and expect to survive.  That is why Imam Bukhari placed the hadith in the "Medicine" section. 

Originally posted by TG12345

As a bit of an aside, how do you know which are which?
   

That requires some research.  As far as I know, the hadith I mentioned is considered authentic.

Originally posted by TG12345

So you showed that dates have medicinal value. That's great, but it isn't what we were discussing. I never claimed they don't have medicinal value, and in the hadiths I cited, Muhammad was not arguing that they do... he was arguing that if one takes 7 of them in the morning he or she will be immune to poison and magic for that day. That is simply not true.


Just because you say "it isn't what we were discussing" doesn't make it so.  As I said, the hadiths were placed in the section under "Medicine".  I showed that dates have medicinal value.  How then can you insist that "it isn't what we were discussing"?  Your interpretation has no weight compared to Imam Bukhari's interpretation. 

You have yet to prove that any Islamic scholar has interpreted this hadith to mean that a Muslim can drink any poisonous substance and survive as long as he/she ate 7 ajwa dates in the morning.  That would be the easiest way for you to prove that your interpretation is true.

In fact, IslamQA compares the hadith to taking vaccinations to prevent disease.  As such, the hadith is interpreted to mean that dates have a medical use, as I have been saying all along:

"There is nothing wrong with giving medicine to ward off the feared disease, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, according to the saheeh hadeeth, “Whoever eats seven dates of Madeenah in the morning will not be harmed by witchcraft or poison.” This is a kind of warding off a problem before it happens. So if there is the fear of sickness and a person is vaccinated against an infection that is present in the land or elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with that, because it is a kind of protection." [1]

Also, according to the website "HealthyMuslim", the famous Islamic scholar Ibn Qayyim:

"...said that dried dates were one of the most nourishing of fruits for the body, and could strengthen the liver and clear a sore throat. He also said that they were especially beneficial when eaten with pine kernels. He mentioned that for those not used to eating dates - like those who lived in cold countries, they could cause negative effects like headache, obstructions, and harm the teeth, but eating them with almond or poppy could reduce these effects.

Ibn al-Qayyim classed dried dates as a fruit, food, medicine, drink." [2]

Notice that he did not say that dates could be used to protect a person against any poisonous substance.  The reason for this is that the hadiths have not been interpreted that way.  They have always been interpreted to mean that dates have medical benefits and as such, they should be eaten on a regular basis.

Originally posted by TG12345

There are no specific examples of that in the Book of Acts. Show me please an example from the hadiths where a person was not harmed by magic due to him or her eating 7 dates in the morning.

If there are no such examples in Acts, then how can you claim that Mark 16 applied to the "early church"?  Was it not an unfulfilled prophecy?

As far as I can tell, there are no examples of people eating ajwa dates and being protected from magic, but then, unlike Mark 16, the hadith was not meant to be a prophecy.  Instead, it was meant to be general advice. 

Originally posted by TG12345

I am claiming that by poison, Muhammad meant poison. A poison is a harmful substance.

I am not arguing that date seeds do not have a protective element against certain toxic chemicals in the body, I am arguing it is simply not true that eating 7 of them in the morning will protect you from being harmed by poison later that day.

You are arguing this on your merit, whereas I have shown overwhelming evidence that:

1.  Muhammad (pbuh) meant that dates have medical benefits,

2.  There is scientific proof that dates have medical benefits, and,

3.  No Islamic scholar has ever taught that Muslims can drink any poisonous substances and survive as long as they ate dates in the morning.

Originally posted by TG12345

Where did I say the hadiths state Muslims can drink all the poison they want and still be protected if they eat 7 ajwa dates that morning? I said, if the hadith is true, a Muslim (or any person for that matter) who eats 7 dates in the morning will not be harmed by poison that day. I don't believe that to be true, and I wouldn't encourage anyone to try it.

You have been claiming all this time that the hadiths teach that a Muslim who eats 7 ajwa dates in the morning will be protected from poison.  I have shown that it does not teach that.  Rather, I have shown that the hadiths meant that ajwa dates have medical benefits (and also has a protective effect against certain harmful substances), all of which has been scientifically validated.

Originally posted by TG12345

Where did he say that #663 and #664 mean that dates have a medicinal benefit, and not that they will not protect against poison?

As I have pointed out several times already, Imam Bukhari placed the hadiths under the "Medicine" section.  Moreover, I also showed other hadiths which state that dates have medicinal uses.

Originally posted by TG12345

That drinking of poisons is not mentioned in Acts does not mean it didn't happen. The other things did, so I have no reason to assume it didn't happen at some point in the ministry of the early church.
 

Then, you cannot prove that Mark 16 applied (in its entirety) to the early church.  Why would the Book of Acts mention the other miracles but not the miracle of drinking poison? 

Originally posted by TG12345

As I said previously, it applied to the early church. I believe God still may make things like that happen sometimes today. However, the signs were meant mostly for the early believers, and as the Book of Acts attests, they did do these things.

But the Book of Acts does not "attest" to any examples of Christians drinking poison and surviving. 

And if you believe that "God still may make things like that happen sometimes today", then you cannot logically insist that Mark 16 only applied to the "early church".

Originally posted by TG12345

Dates protecting against liver malondialdehyde, but not true for other poisons. If the passage said they are good for some poisons, it would be true. But it just says "poison".

The word used in the hadith is "summ", which has multiple meanings.  It can mean "poison", "toxin" or "venom" [3].  You could just as easily translate the word as "toxin" or "venom".  Therefore, it is clear that the hadith is not saying that dates can be used as a preemptive antidote to any poison but is making a general statement of its medicinal benefits. 

Originally posted by TG12345

The passage doesn't tell Muslims to eat 7 dates and drink poison, it tells them if they eat 7 dates in the morning they will not be harmed by poison. 

I am not arguing whether or not Islamic scholars advise Muslims to eat poison or feed poison to friends after ingesting 7 dates in the AM, that is not the issue.
 

Of course it is!  It is much more important how Islamic scholars interpret the hadith than it is how you interpret it. 

Originally posted by TG12345

The issue is that Muhammad said that after a person eats 7 awja dates in the morning, he or she will not be harmed by poison later that day. He didn`t say that these statements apply only to a certain kind of poison, he used `poison`, which is a general term.Let`s say if a doctor gave you a prescription to take (like an antibiotic, for example) to help fight off an infection of some sort. He would tell you `take these pills 3 times a day for x number of days, and it will help with this inflammation`. That would be medically sound. If he gave you the pills and said `take these pills 3 times a day for x number of days, and disease will not harm you`, he would be an ***** and could be probably sued for malpractice. It wouldn`t matter how a person interprets or misinterprets his words, if he said the pill will ensure disease will not harm you he would be wrong, plain and simple. The pill would protect against the inflammation, but not against other kinds of disease or disease in general, which is what is understood by someone saying `if you take this disease will not harm you`.


That is a bad analogy given that Muhammad (pbuh) was not prescribing dates to anyone.  He was only stating that dates have medicinal value, which is true. 

Originally posted by TG12345

My buddy Robert Spencer emailed them to me, and then sent me to IC to torment Muslims. Shocked


Aha!  I knew it!  LOL

Originally posted by TG12345

I responded to the claims about Mark 16, and MahditheSeeker`s ridiculous challenge, then I compared it to some things that Muhammad said, and posted a challenge of my own.

You responded but your response left more questions than answers. 

As for your counter-challenge, it has no logical basis as no where in the hadith did it say that dates can be used as an antidote for any poison.  You are assuming that the word "poison" can mean any poison, but there is no evidence for this. 

Originally posted by TG12345

Glad to hear you aren`t trying to `atheisize me` Big%20smile
Salaam. Smile

It would do you no good but would rather move you further away from salvation!  Wink

Walaikum as-salaam.

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
TG12345
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 December 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 966
Quote TG12345 Replybullet Posted: 26 December 2012 at 8:21pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Allah Akhbar. At least that is something we can agree on. Smile

Originally posted by TG12345

Why would he have had to state that?

If the man who was bitten by the scorpion did not have dates that morning, feeding him dates would have not been effective, since the hadith states a person will unaffected by poison or magic if he eats 7 of them in the morning.

If the person bitten by the scorpion had something else for or before breakfast, feeding him dates wouldn't have done him any good.


Originally posted by islamispeace

Why not?  It would have been important to mention in that instance that dates have a protective effect against snake bites and scorpion stings.  In fact, in the hadith I mentioned about the scorpion sting, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not say that eating dates would have protected against the venom and did not advise the other people of that.  He only mentioned what the treatment was.  If dates were meant to protect against every single poisonous substance, this would have been the perfect time to mention it. 

It would have been a terrible time to say such a thing! If the man was bitten after the morning but a few good hours before night set in, it would have been pretty useless advice, kind of like "if you had done this you would have been ok"...

Originally posted by TG12345

But the #663 and 664 does not say they have antidote effects, but that a person who eats 7 of them in the morning will not be affected by poison or magic that day.

As medicine, they are supposed to protect people from poison and spells as long as you have 7 of them in the AM.

That would not work with many poisons. And if MahdiTheSeeker or you or me or anyone would dare try that out on anyone, we'd be either in prison or an insane asylum.

If this is medical advice, it is not very sound. If a person were to take it as literally as you some Muslims expect Christians to take Mark 16:18, there would be a lot of dead people.


Originally posted by islamispeace

Except that there is no example of a Muslim deliberately drinking poison after eating dates, while there are examples of Christians taking Mark 16 literally.  The reason for this is that there in nothing in the hadith to indicate that dates can protect against any poisonous substance like cyanide and that Muslims can deliberately drink poison and expect to survive.  That is why Imam Bukhari placed the hadith in the "Medicine" section. 

Most Christians do not hold snakes or try to ingest poison, as we believe this was meant for the early church.

The hadith does not explain anywhere that by "poison" Muhammad did not mean deadly poisons, it says only that if you have 7 dates in the morning, poison will not harm you later that day.

Originally posted by TG12345

As a bit of an aside, how do you know which are which?
   

Originally posted by islamispeace

That requires some research.  As far as I know, the hadith I mentioned is considered authentic.

Can you show me some proof please? Thank you.


Originally posted by TG12345

So you showed that dates have medicinal value. That's great, but it isn't what we were discussing. I never claimed they don't have medicinal value, and in the hadiths I cited, Muhammad was not arguing that they do... he was arguing that if one takes 7 of them in the morning he or she will be immune to poison and magic for that day. That is simply not true.


Originally posted by islamispeace

Just because you say "it isn't what we were discussing" doesn't make it so.  As I said, the hadiths were placed in the section under "Medicine".  I showed that dates have medicinal value.  How then can you insist that "it isn't what we were discussing"?  Your interpretation has no weight compared to Imam Bukhari's interpretation. 

Please show me where Bukhari said, as you are claiming that the hadiths about not being harmed by poison do not apply to most poisons, and all they really mean is that dates have some antidotes.

Originally posted by islamispeace

You have yet to prove that any Islamic scholar has interpreted this hadith to mean that a Muslim can drink any poisonous substance and survive as long as he/she ate 7 ajwa dates in the morning.  That would be the easiest way for you to prove that your interpretation is true.

You have yet to prove that Bukhari meant that 663 and 664 apply to only some poisons and that if Muslims eat poison after eating 7 dates, then in spite of what Muhammad said, they would be harmed.

Originally posted by islamispeace

In fact, IslamQA compares the hadith to taking vaccinations to prevent disease.  As such, the hadith is interpreted to mean that dates have a medical use, as I have been saying all along:

"There is nothing wrong with giving medicine to ward off the feared disease, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, according to the saheeh hadeeth, “Whoever eats seven dates of Madeenah in the morning will not be harmed by witchcraft or poison.” This is a kind of warding off a problem before it happens. So if there is the fear of sickness and a person is vaccinated against an infection that is present in the land or elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with that, because it is a kind of protection." [1]

Also, according to the website "HealthyMuslim", the famous Islamic scholar Ibn Qayyim:

"...said that dried dates were one of the most nourishing of fruits for the body, and could strengthen the liver and clear a sore throat. He also said that they were especially beneficial when eaten with pine kernels. He mentioned that for those not used to eating dates - like those who lived in cold countries, they could cause negative effects like headache, obstructions, and harm the teeth, but eating them with almond or poppy could reduce these effects.

Ibn al-Qayyim classed dried dates as a fruit, food, medicine, drink." [2]

Notice that he did not say that dates could be used to protect a person against any poisonous substance.  The reason for this is that the hadiths have not been interpreted that way.  They have always been interpreted to mean that dates have medical benefits and as such, they should be eaten on a regular basis.

Ibn al-Qayyim also to my knowledge does not say that dates will not protet against poisonous substances. I didn't find anything on Islam QA saying this either.

IslamQA compares the dates to vaccines that are meant to ward off feared diseases. Would eating 7 dates a day prevent a person from catching the ebola virus? Malaria? AIDS?

The hadith does not say "disease", it says poison so comparing the 7 dates a day to a vaccination against disease isn't really addressing what Muhammad actually said.

Thanks btw for the "HealthyMuslim" site! It lists another fascinating thing Muhammad said.

Referring to eating seven Ajwa dates, the Messenger (Sallallaahu alayhi Wasallam) said, "He will not be harmed by anything until he reaches the evening." [Saheeh Muslim (2047)].

http://www.healthymuslim.com/articles/qsswx-ibn-al-qayyim-dates-are-a-nourishing-fruit.cfm

Allegedly, nothing can harm a person who eats 7 of these dates! My friend, this is not saying the dates only protect a person against some kind of toxins. Muhammad clearly stated these dates protect people from poison and magic in general, and he clearly believed this was true for most, if not all of them. More evidence below in the response.

Originally posted by TG12345

There are no specific examples of that in the Book of Acts. Show me please an example from the hadiths where a person was not harmed by magic due to him or her eating 7 dates in the morning.

Originally posted by islamispeace

If there are no such examples in Acts, then how can you claim that Mark 16 applied to the "early church"?  Was it not an unfulfilled prophecy?

Given the fact that healing, snake holding, speaking in tongues, everything else mentioned took place, I see no reason to assume why the poison drinking would also not have taken place.

Originally posted by islamispeace

As far as I can tell, there are no examples of people eating ajwa dates and being protected from magic, but then, unlike Mark 16, the hadith was not meant to be a prophecy.  Instead, it was meant to be general advice. 

It was actually meant to be medical advice. If there were no cases of 7 dates preventing magic, then one could argue it is useless advice because it has not been proven and there is no way to check if it is right or wrong.

Originally posted by TG12345

I am claiming that by poison, Muhammad meant poison. A poison is a harmful substance.

I am not arguing that date seeds do not have a protective element against certain toxic chemicals in the body, I am arguing it is simply not true that eating 7 of them in the morning will protect you from being harmed by poison later that day.

Originally posted by islamispeace

You are arguing this on your merit, whereas I have shown overwhelming evidence that:

1.  Muhammad (pbuh) meant that dates have medical benefits,

Which I did not deny, but it is not what 663 and 664 states.

Originally posted by islamispeace

2.  There is scientific proof that dates have medical benefits, and,

See above.

Originally posted by islamispeace

3.  No Islamic scholar has ever taught that Muslims can drink any poisonous substances and survive as long as they ate dates in the morning.

Which doesn't change the fact that according to the hadith eating 7 of them a day will ensure that poison or magic will not harm a person until night... this is simply not true.

The study you showed claimed that dates reduce the poison signficantly, not that they make it go away and not that whatever if left inside does not harm the rat.

:

The results showed that date seeds significantly (P<0.05) reduced liver and serum malondialdehyde (a lipid peroxidative damage product) and serum lactate dehydrogenase and creatine kinase.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21480263

Originally posted by TG12345

Where did I say the hadiths state Muslims can drink all the poison they want and still be protected if they eat 7 ajwa dates that morning? I said, if the hadith is true, a Muslim (or any person for that matter) who eats 7 dates in the morning will not be harmed by poison that day. I don't believe that to be true, and I wouldn't encourage anyone to try it.

Originally posted by islamispeace

You have been claiming all this time that the hadiths teach that a Muslim who eats 7 ajwa dates in the morning will be protected from poison.  I have shown that it does not teach that.

But it does. Here it is again:

Volume 7, Book 71, Number 663:

Narrated Saud:

The Prophet said, "If somebody takes some 'Ajwa dates every morning, he will not be effected by poison or magic on that day till night." (Another narrator said seven dates).


Volume 7, Book 71, Number 664:

Narrated Saud:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "If Somebody takes seven 'Ajwa dates in the morning, neither magic nor poison will hurt him that day." 

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/071-sbt.php#007.071.582

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

Rather, I have shown that the hadiths meant that ajwa dates have medical benefits (and also has a protective effect against certain harmful substances), all of which has been scientifically validated.

Number 5083 states that dates have medical benefits. Numbers 663 and 664 state that if someone eats 7 of them in the morning, he will not be hurt by poison or magic that day.

Also, do the scientific studies you show claim that the 7 dates works only until night, as Muhammad said? According to what he taught, the poison will not harm the person until night.

Originally posted by TG12345

Where did he say that #663 and #664 mean that dates have a medicinal benefit, and not that they will not protect against poison?

Originally posted by islamispeace

As I have pointed out several times already, Imam Bukhari placed the hadiths under the "Medicine" section.  Moreover, I also showed other hadiths which state that dates have medicinal uses.

That's not what I asked you. The question I asked was where did Bukhari state, as you are claiming, that #663 and 664 do not mean that eating 7 dates will prevent poison from harming a person, but that Muhammad meant that dates have medicinal benefit and that's it?


Originally posted by TG12345

That drinking of poisons is not mentioned in Acts does not mean it didn't happen. The other things did, so I have no reason to assume it didn't happen at some point in the ministry of the early church.
 

Originally posted by islamispeace

Then, you cannot prove that Mark 16 applied (in its entirety) to the early church.  Why would the Book of Acts mention the other miracles but not the miracle of drinking poison?

There is no indication that it covered every single event that happened in the early church. 

Originally posted by TG12345

As I said previously, it applied to the early church. I believe God still may make things like that happen sometimes today. However, the signs were meant mostly for the early believers, and as the Book of Acts attests, they did do these things.

Originally posted by islamispeace

But the Book of Acts does not "attest" to any examples of Christians drinking poison and surviving. 

And if you believe that "God still may make things like that happen sometimes today", then you cannot logically insist that Mark 16 only applied to the "early church".

Key word is "may". It may or may not happen still. It did happen in the early church.

Earlier I wrote "God makes things like that happen sometimes today", I will change it to may happen.

Originally posted by TG12345

Dates protecting against liver malondialdehyde, but not true for other poisons. If the passage said they are good for some poisons, it would be true. But it just says "poison".

Originally posted by islamispeace

The word used in the hadith is "summ", which has multiple meanings.  It can mean "poison", "toxin" or "venom" [3].  You could just as easily translate the word as "toxin" or "venom".  Therefore, it is clear that the hadith is not saying that dates can be used as a preemptive antidote to any poison but is making a general statement of its medicinal benefits. 

So then the hadith is mistranslated into English. A toxin is defined as a poison produced by a living organism, such as a microorganism, a plant, or an animal

http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ph-Py/Poisons-and-Toxins.html

Given this definition, a snake bite would be a toxin. So if a person were to eat 7 dates in the morning and a cobra were to bite him later in the day, according to the hadith he or she would be fine.

The author of "turning the tables" lists Musnad Ahmad's hadith 23592, where it is stated that in the state of fasting the dates will contain healing for all magic or toxins.

‘Aisha reported Allah’s Messenger as saying, “The ‘ajwah dates of al-‘Aliya taken as the first thing in the morning, in the state of fasting; contain healing for all (kinds of) magic or toxins.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 23592)

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/07/hadith-ajwa-dates-and-science.html

So although there may not have been Muslims who believed eating 7 dates in the morning will provide protection against all kinds of poison, some Muslims obviously  believed that it will provide protection against all kinds of toxins.

If you were MahditheSeeker, I'd encourage you to try this out and after having 7 dates in the morning to pet a cobra or play with a black widow spider. Since you did not offer the same *****ic challenge that he did, I will not.

However, here you have evidence that according to some Muslims the dates heal from all kinds of toxins (even if not poisons, which is what the translation of #663 and 664 actually says).

I initially assumed this hadith is not authentic since it is not from Bukhari or Muslim, and would anyways state that it shows that some Muslims believe 7 dates protect against any toxins.

Interestingly, however, it was regarded as very much authentic by Muslim scholars.


The Musnad of Ibn Hanbal is probably the first of the six books of hadīth considered authentic by Sunni Muslims, since its author died 15 years before the death of the senior-most of the six hadīth compilers, Muhammad bin Ismā‘īl al-Bukhārī (d. 256 AH), and 62 years before the last of them, Ahmad bin Shu‘ayb al-Nasā’ī, passed away (303 AH).  Throughout history, Sunni scholars have attached great importance to Ibn Hanbal’s Musnad and eulogized it. Hāfiz Abu Musā Madyanī (581 AH), writes:

 

This book is a great source and a reliable reference work for researchers of hadīth. The author has selected from the bulky hadīth literature, a large number of narrations to serve as guidelines and support for the people so that when differences arise they take refuge in them and cite them as authentic. [3]

 

Shams al-Dīn Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Dhahabī (748 AH) writes:

 

This book focuses on the hadīth of the Prophet. There are very few hadīth not included (in this collection) whose authenticity has been confirmed...One of the fortunate things about the Musnad is that we find very few hadīth which are considered inauthentic. [4]

 

Ibn al-Jazarī (833 AH) is even more ecstatic about Ibn Hanbal’s Musnad, and says: 

 

On the face of the earth no better book of hadīth has been compiled. [5]

 

Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī writes in Tajrīd Zawā’id al-Musnad al-Bazzāz:

 

If a hadīth is mentioned in Musnad Ibn Hanbal, other Masānīd are not cited for its sources.

 

Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyutī (849-911 AH) [6] says:

 

Even the weak hadīth found in it are near to hasan (fair). [7]


http://www.al-islam.org/mot/musnad/2.htm


So not only some Muslims believed that Muhammad claimed eating 7 dates in the morning will protect against all kinds of toxins, but him saying this was included in a hadith collection which was very highly regarded.

It is up to you to show me hadith which state that 663 and 664 are reference to only some types of poisons or toxins, and that they do not mean what Muhammad said, namely that eating 7 dates in the AM will cause a person to not be harmed by magic or poison.

Originally posted by TG12345

The passage doesn't tell Muslims to eat 7 dates and drink poison, it tells them if they eat 7 dates in the morning they will not be harmed by poison. 

I am not arguing whether or not Islamic scholars advise Muslims to eat poison or feed poison to friends after ingesting 7 dates in the AM, that is not the issue.
 

Originally posted by islamispeace

Of course it is!  It is much more important how Islamic scholars interpret the hadith than it is how you interpret it. 

The author of IslamQA inteprets the Quran and hadith in a way that causes him to state it is ok to forcefully convert non People of the Book non-Muslims to Islam.
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/43087/jihad

His interpretation is much more important than yours or mine, so I guess he is right.

Originally posted by TG12345

The issue is that Muhammad said that after a person eats 7 awja dates in the morning, he or she will not be harmed by poison later that day. He didn`t say that these statements apply only to a certain kind of poison, he used `poison`, which is a general term.Let`s say if a doctor gave you a prescription to take (like an antibiotic, for example) to help fight off an infection of some sort. He would tell you `take these pills 3 times a day for x number of days, and it will help with this inflammation`. That would be medically sound. If he gave you the pills and said `take these pills 3 times a day for x number of days, and disease will not harm you`, he would be an ***** and could be probably sued for malpractice. It wouldn`t matter how a person interprets or misinterprets his words, if he said the pill will ensure disease will not harm you he would be wrong, plain and simple. The pill would protect against the inflammation, but not against other kinds of disease or disease in general, which is what is understood by someone saying `if you take this disease will not harm you`.


Originally posted by islamispeace

That is a bad analogy given that Muhammad (pbuh) was not prescribing dates to anyone.  He was only stating that dates have medicinal value, which is true. 

He said they have medicinal value. He also said that if one has 7 of them in the morning, he or she will be immune to poison (or toxins) or magic that day, until night time. According to at least one hadith writer, he meant all toxins and magic. I am unaware of hadith which states that he did not mean in 663 and 664 any poisons except for a few.

If a doctor were to go on tv and say that a certain antibiotic if eaten thrice a day will prevent people from being harmed by disease, he would be giving false information.

Originally posted by TG12345

My buddy Robert Spencer emailed them to me, and then sent me to IC to torment Muslims. Shocked



Originally posted by islamispeace

Aha!  I knew it!  LOL

There is no hiding anything from you. I decided it would be best to just come clean. Wink

Originally posted by TG12345

I responded to the claims about Mark 16, and MahditheSeeker`s ridiculous challenge, then I compared it to some things that Muhammad said, and posted a challenge of my own.


Originally posted by islamispeace

You responded but your response left more questions than answers. 

As for your counter-challenge, it has no logical basis as no where in the hadith did it say that dates can be used as an antidote for any poison.  You are assuming that the word "poison" can mean any poison, but there is no evidence for this.

There is no evidence that 663 and 664 mean anything except what Muhammad said. And I found evidence that at least one Muslim believed it applied to all toxins. He wrote it down in a hadith collection that many scholars of the time very highly regarded.

Originally posted by TG12345

Glad to hear you aren`t trying to `atheisize me` Big%20smile
Salaam. Smile


Originally posted by islamispeace

It would do you no good but would rather move you further away from salvation!  Wink

Walaikum as-salaam.



I'm already saved in Christ Jesus my Lord. Hope one day you come to Him too. Smile


Edited by TG12345 - 27 December 2012 at 12:48pm
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 12 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com