Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

His life, his examples and his psychology
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote: Thing is they did corrupt the Koran: While they couldn't alter the words themselves, they deviated the meanings
and contexts through the tafsirs/hadiths... you're otherwise defending!
You are contradicting yourself heavily which is nothing new for me. How can the above statement in red be true especially when you wrote the following???

The Cat wrote:Isa wasn't a proper name by the time the Koran was compiled, nowhere found around not in Arabia and nowhere in the Middle-East...
This means word "ISA" was inserted into quran after it was compiled. How can the statement in red be true in that case? IT means quran was corrupted and words of quran were altered . :D
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:
yeezevee wrote:
The Cat wrote:
For example, it's only in the tafsirs that we find how the Bible has been 'corrupted'. Never so in the Koran!
Good point.. The Cat., But then., if bible is NOT corrupted, why do we need Quran?? unless you come up with an excuse/explanation that Quran is just translation of bible for Arabic speaking people.

And when you say bible.. what book are you talking?? you know well that so called Bible is the collections of religious texts of Judaism and Christianity. Don't you?? So which book are you talking or do you mean to say Quran is nothing but ALL Bible books put together?
Quran claims that Jesus wasn't the son of God however bible says otherwise. Quran doesn't directly accuse previous scriptures of corruption ..........
I understand that and I believe Quran is right in that context., I also believe that claim"Jesus wasn't the son of God" was not put in to Quran by Muslims but by either Jews or Christian theologists of that time., Some Muslim guy just copied that in to Quran when it was put together after the death of Muhammad(if he was real character)

But the problem is., if that is ONLY THE THING that is wrong with bible(NT) then we don't need 114 chapters of rubbish as book of allah/god..

what all one needs in Quran/modified modern Abarahamic monotheism is one statement " Christ was not son of God, or Christ never claimed he was son of God".. .. rest of Quran should checked out in to trash. I said this many times in the forums as well as in person to those Muslims who says.. Bible is corrupted..

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

Yeezevee wrote: I understand that and I believe Quran is right in that context.,
How is it right?

Yeezevee wrote:I also believe that claim"Jesus wasn't the son of God" was not put in to Quran by Muslims but by either Jews or Christian theologists of that time., Some Muslim guy just copied that in to Quran when it was put together after the death of Muhammad(if he was real character)
I don't think Muhammad was an imaginary character. Someone would not take so much of pains to describe about every minute detail of Muhammad;s life including how to sh!t. They also wouldn't bother to record chains of transmission if Muhammad was an invented character. They would simply started their ahadith as "Muhammad said......" but instead we see a long chain of narrations.


I also remember reading some non islamic sources of history from 5th or 6th century talking about Muhammad and I will try finding it. Anyway I also don;t think some jewish/christian guy put that stuff in the quran. Its very much likely that some muslim guy copied that into quran. Remember that Uthman and Umar giving invitation to people to blog their thoughts in the quran (provided they bring 2 witness)? :lol:
Yeezevee wrote: But the problem is., if that is ONLY THE THING that is wrong with bible(NT) then we don't need 114 chapters of rubbish as book of allah/god..
That is correct and now you can watch this con man dance around this issue. Basically no matter what excuses he provides he is here to defend the quran.
Yeezevee wrote: what all one needs in Quran/modified modern Abarahamic monotheism is one statement " Christ was not son of God, or Christ never claimed he was son of God".. .. rest of Quran should checked out in to trash. I said this many times in the forums as well as in person to those Muslims who says.. Bible is corrupted..
Agreed.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:Quran claims that Jesus wasn't the son of God however bible says otherwise. Quran doesn't directly accuse previous scriptures of corruption
The Koran states that ISA (not Jesus) isn't the WALID of God (biological son).
Isa is the IBN (abna/abnu) of Mary/God, meaning of the same spiritual likeness.

Isa (Isha) is originally Hindu and a divine attribute, ie. the Lord over the Seen (manifest).
See (for example) the Isa Upanishad...
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/isaintrod.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/isa.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:How can the above statement in red (see above) be true especially when you wrote the following???.... This means word "ISA" was inserted into quran after it was compiled. How can the statement in red be true in that case?
I've said that, through the tafsirs/hadiths, the Abbasids changed meanings, NOT words, thus corrupting the message.
This just show how you can't ever reason properly and jump to hasty generalizations from building on wrong premises.
skynightblaze wrote:I don't think Muhammad was an imaginary character. Someone would not take so much of pains to describe about every minute detail of Muhammad;s life including how to sh!t. They also wouldn't bother to record chains of transmission if Muhammad was an invented character. They would simply started their ahadith as "Muhammad said......" but instead we see a long chain of narrations.
And that very long chain of narrations is proving that we have no first hand narrations directly from Muhammad or any shahada.
Certainly NOTHING before the Abbasids & nothing authoritative before Bukhari, indicating that the legend was being fabricated.

Your Senility might get it in a decade or two, as for the difference between 'authentic' and 'authenticity'...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
Alex
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:37 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Alex »

Wait... *a lot of the posts in this thread appears blank to me :oops:*

Doesn't 2:79 speak of the Bible being corrupted (made by man's hand)? I remember reading a verse where it talks about the Torah and the Bible and how it was corrupted and that's why the Qur'an came -- unmolested. :thinking:

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

Alex wrote:Wait... *a lot of the posts in this thread appears blank to me :oops:*

Doesn't 2:79 speak of the Bible being corrupted (made by man's hand)? I remember reading a verse where it talks about the Torah and the Bible and how it was corrupted and that's why the Qur'an came -- unmolested. :thinking:
The following article addresses the claim about 2:79 ..

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Corruption_of ... an_2:79%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quran actually doesn't directly accuse the previous scriptures of corruption and hence we find gross errors in the quran like Jesus not being son of God, the misunderstanding about trinity etc.

Anyway if you keep debating this CAT you will come to the conclusion that he lacks in reasoning terribly.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
Alex
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:37 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Alex »

Okay then, so it does and doesn't? :???: Some of the verses sorta suggest that the meaning was altered, from what I'm reading. Maybe I am not understanding (dyslexic). I'll read again. :P

If Allah made the ʾInǧīl and stated such and such (that it isn't corrupted etc), why do Muslims disregard the ʾInǧīl as trash/corrupted when their own religious book tells them otherwise?

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Alex wrote:Wait... *a lot of the posts in this thread appears blank to me :oops:*

Doesn't 2:79 speak of the Bible being corrupted (made by man's hand)? I remember reading a verse where it talks about the Torah and the Bible and how it was corrupted and that's why the Qur'an came -- unmolested. :thinking:
You are correct. The Quran and Muhammad's claim of being a legitimate prophet can never happen unless the charge of corruption is leveled against the previous scriptures. That's the only way Muhammad could find a legitimate way to wedge himself in there and hijack the past religions. Otherwise, there was no room for him. It's pretty obvious when you think about it. A key component is Jesus' sacrifice for mankind. Read 4:78 to 4:80. The Quran works really really hard to nullify this. It doesn't like it and the reason why is because it puts Jesus above what Muhammad was willing to do. So that was the part he definitely had to get rid of before people got any funny ideas of him doing something like that too.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

Alex wrote:Okay then, so it does and doesn't? :???: Some of the verses sorta suggest that the meaning was altered, from what I'm reading. Maybe I am not understanding (dyslexic). I'll read again. :P

If Allah made the ʾInǧīl and stated such and such (that it isn't corrupted etc), why do Muslims disregard the ʾInǧīl as trash/corrupted when their own religious book tells them otherwise?
:lol: This is the quran for you. Like you I am also confused on this issue because on one hand quran say that those who follow previous scripture are assured a place in heaven which would mean that quran doesn't believe the scriptures are physically corrupted. Consider for e.g 6:92 from quran .

6.92
And this is a Book which We have sent down, bringing blessings, and confirming (the revelations) which came before it: that thou mayest warn the mother of cities and all around her. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in this (Book), and they are constant in guarding their prayers.


It says that quran came as a confirmation of previous scripture and people should look into them so that they can warn others about quran which means quran didn't consider the previous scriptures to be corrupted but on the other hand as you said it does appear that quran thinks that the actual scriptures themselves were corrupted. The article I linked says that Quran actually accuses these people of distorting the message by hiding or not obeying it and not by ACtually corrupting the physical text.

Now basically we all are confused because quran talks about contradictory things so don't blame yourself for not understanding :lol: You are rightly not understanding what is going on just like me.

Now my take on this issue was that Muhammad wanted to replace himself as the final prophet and override the previous scriptures by claiming that his quran was just a continuation of previous scriptures and an updated version. Muhammad seems to be making mistakes about previous scriptures but I think they were due to ignorance of Muhammad about previous scriptures or due to corruption of quran.

Now to answer your question as to why muslims would want to claim that previous scriptures are corrupt is because they then find a good excuse to cover up the errors in the quran like misunderstanding of trinity, Jesus being not Son of God, misunderstanding that Uzair was the son of God (jewis belief) or Maryam was sister of Aaron etc. If they don't claim that previous scriptures are corrupt then this would mean quran is in error.

To be honest I am equally confused like you and I would like anyone to sort this problem out. :D
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

skynightblaze wrote:The article I linked says that Quran actually accuses these people of distorting the message by hiding or not obeying it and not by ACtually corrupting the physical text.
If that were true, then the entire story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection would have to be accepted by the Quran, while the Quran clearly denies it.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:The article I linked says that Quran actually accuses these people of distorting the message by hiding or not obeying it and not by ACtually corrupting the physical text.
If that were true, then the entire story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection would have to be accepted by the Quran, while the Quran clearly denies it.
I am of the opinion that Muhammad incorporated all these errors due to faulty understanding of previous scriptures. He includes these stories based on hearsay. Ali Sina says that this error crept into the quran because Muhammad had very little understanding of Christianity. He merely incorporated this error based on some Nestorian Christians talking about this. There is a possibility that Muhammad thought that bible says that Jesus was never crucified and it were some of the people who were parroting this erroneous claim.
Ali Sina wrote: At the time of Muhammad, the Christians of the Northern Arabia and Damascus were Nestorian. They thought that it is impossible to kill the Son of God. Based on this belief they had developed a doctrine that maintained God must have tricked the Pharisees and the person who was crucified must have been someone else who took the resemblance of Jesus.This is how Muhammad came to know about the story of crucifixion. Even though he could read, he was not fond of books and learning. Narcissists think they know everything, and there is nothing anyone can teach them.
Why this discrepancy? Why would Muhammad say something that is contrary to all Gospels? It is because Muhammad’s knowledge of the Scriptures was based on hearsay. He personally had not read the Bible.
http://alisina.org/crucifixion-in-quran/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think this issue is confusing and its because the author of quran was f!cked up and was himself confused as on one hand he himself says that quran came to confirm previous scriptures which would mean it should have got the story of resurrection and crucifixion of Jesus correctly.

One can never underestimate Muhammad's stupidity. It goes very long. Remember birds fly in the air and its a sign that quran is true and Muhammad is his prophet? :lol:
Last edited by skynightblaze on Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

and Ofcourse Muhammad wanted to replace all the previous scriptures and that's why I think he put all the fake pretense of confirming previous scriptures because he wanted to win jews and christians to his religion.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
marduk
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:39 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by marduk »

From the length of this thread, apparently Ali Sina didn't know about a lot of things, 23 pages worth.

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:your inability to address the points I made speaks volumes. You have no answers to what I said.
So what is anybody supposed to think?? Why shouldn't anyone see you as a manipulative charlatan?
Thanks for underlying my point. Then I rarely address your whinings because they are mostly hysterical like this one, based on
two logical fallacies: Poisoning the Well and Argumentum ad Populum. You're in the habit of constantly attacking personally ANY
opponent, looking out for street-figthing 'arguments'. Or else indulging into semantics and sophistry on an industrial level.
So, yes, I avoid you.

Let us analyses the ibn Khatir you brought (about 9.28)
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him (!)..... Therefore, their claimed faith in
an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets.
What a load of Sunnite's apologetic junk, directly contravening the statements in 2.136/2.285 and 3.84 (We make no distinction...)

Back to my devoted silence toward you.
So on the thread about who was Hanan, you accused me of not answering you, even though YOU said "back to my devoted silence toward you". So why would you be expecting me to answer this? You chose it, not me. But, since you later accuse me of not answering, I am answering. Maybe it is merely Kathir's opinion, but what does that do to dismiss my point?
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote: -- I never said Shakir was a dishonest translator. Why do you think i use him?"...
-- Which verse are you talking about?? Let's take a look at the other translators.
-- I never quoted Asad you incompetent moron.
Liar. You certainly didn't quote Shakir, nor Ali or Pickthall, in the plethora of verses you brought.
You've quoted 3.32; 4.13; 4.80; 5.92 among many others always with 'apostle', not 'messenger'.
viewtopic.php?p=158608#p158608" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These are all Shakir. I quoted Shakir you stupid lunatic.
3:32. Say: Obey Allah and the Apostle; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers.
4:13. These are Allah's limits, and whoever obeys Allah and His Apostle, He will cause him to enter gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them; and this is the great achievement.
4:80. Whoever obeys the Apostle, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them.
5: 92. And obey Allah and obey the apostle and be cautious; but if you turn back, then know that only a clear deliverance of the message is (incumbent) on Our apostle.

Check your facts before you spout off, OK? It's going to be really interesting to see how you avoid admitting the blunder you have made.

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:You said that messengers are directly linked with Gabriel and thus with God and then said that they aren't apostles,
merely propagandists, advertisers. See?? You don't even know what you write.
I've explained the difference between the Semitic 'rasul' and the Greek 'apostolos' (apostolic).
viewtopic.php?p=158703#p158703" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well Shakir does not agree with you even though you claim he does. go back and check it in 3:32, dumbass. But we know you'll only find an excuse for this blunder and attempt a diversion.
The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote: 33:21. Certainly you have in the Apostle of Allah an excellent exemplar
for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.
See how you're relying on a strange translation, certainly not Shakir, Ali or Pickthall.
See how stupid you are? Certainly IS Shakir. Now, where do we get Muhammad's example from? Certainly not the Quran.
The Cat wrote: Shakir: Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar
for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.


Prove us that you didn't forge it on your own, since even Asad is slightly different too.
Read it and weep, loony.
http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/tran ... ir/033.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Prove us that you didn't forge it on your own
The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:He said Muhammad was the last and mightiest of messengers and that Allah commanded that Muhammad be obeyed.
How could the other prophets be asked to obey Muhammad when they lived before him?? Silly moron.
Let's find who's the moron here!
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him...
!!!
There goes Khatir's reliability down the drain.... and illustrate your 'Sunnite' credulity.
It's claiming the prophets before Muhammad predicted him and said that people should obey and follow him when he comes. It's talking about Deuteronomy 18:18 among others, you idiot. Look at how stupid and/or insane you actually are. And you asked me to answer this post on that Hanan thread?? What were you thinking?? This has to be your most blundered post ever. Do you drink heavily or did you forget to take your meds?
The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:24:56. And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and obey the Apostle, so that mercy may be shown to you.
Shakir: And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and obey the Messenger, so that mercy may be shown to you.
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/24/56/default.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Shakir says Apostle, you dummy. that's who i was quoting.

The Cat wrote: Even among the parsimonious few who used 'apostle' your wording isn't found anywhere.
Look at what an absolute fool you are NOW. :lol:
The Cat wrote: So you
either forged the line or quoted a bad translation and certainly didn't use Shakir as you've said...
Look at what an absolute fool you are NOW. :lol:
The Cat wrote: In all cases, you've have proven to be a deceitful fellow, unworthy of respect.
Who's not worthy of respect?? Who got it all wrong??
The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:I consider them (Socrates & Jefferson) discredited. Jesus, on the other hand, was not.
Matthew 10.34-36:
''Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her
mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law''
. Does it discredit Jesus too?
No, because there was a deeper meaning behind it. Jesus was never even close to being literal about anything.
The Cat wrote: You're the one who has thoroughly discredited himself herein once again.
:lol: I'll bet you had no idea you would be eating your words. And the best part, is you even asked for it on the Hanan thread when you chided me for not answering this post. I don't think i have ever seen anybody embarrass themselves so badly. And to think that you actually went out of your way on another thread and asked for it is simply mesmerizing.
The Cat wrote: In fact not to answer you is showing compassion for some pitiful fellow...
Did you ever think that this is why I didn't answer YOU until you chided me to do so?? :lol:
Last edited by Muhammad bin Lyin on Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

MBL wrote:Maybe it is merely Kathir's opinion, but what does that do to dismiss my point?
Yet on this thread itself he was asking me where Ibn Kathir spoke about Maria and Muhammad affair in the quran but when it comes to looking for tafsir about following Muhammad this person rejects it! Why? because it exposes Muhammad and quran ! Now he will give excuse like He considers these sources as historical. Now time and again he keeps on claiming that Abbasids corrupted all the non quranic material and yet he thinks that the corrupted books can provide us with a correct history!

Secondly, he rejected the tafsir relating to 2:22 in the quran which clearly talks about FLAT Earth in the other thread. Those tafsirs say that Allah made the earth FLAT.Check the tafsirs that I quoted..

viewtopic.php?p=161866#p161866" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and yet on the other hand he himself quoted tafsir related to some verse from chapter 91 to make some claim ( though it never disproved the idea of flat earth) in the thread regarding "Haman".

This person is a troll and that's why I stop responding to his posts after sometime because I cannot bear the stupidity. Another example of his stupidity is that he claimed that the name ISA didn't exist when Quran was compiled which would mean that the name ISA Was added after the quran was compiled . This would mean quran was corrupted however inspite of showing him how his post indicates corruption of quran , he denies corruption of quran and says that people after Muhammad didnt corrupt quran but only ahadith and tafsir.Do you see what a highly inconsistent and gross troll he is?? To summarize he picks up whenever he suits his case i.e in support of quran but he rejects them especially when they expose muhammad or quran.He provides no justification for doing so.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Oh, he truly made a fool out of himself this time. And he actually asked me to do this on that Hanan thread. Amazing, isn't it? I think he might actually have true mental problems. Maybe i should stop laughing because it's more serious than I thought and for all I know, he's writing from a hospital bed.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
Alex
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:37 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Alex »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Alex wrote:Wait... *a lot of the posts in this thread appears blank to me :oops:*

Doesn't 2:79 speak of the Bible being corrupted (made by man's hand)? I remember reading a verse where it talks about the Torah and the Bible and how it was corrupted and that's why the Qur'an came -- unmolested. :thinking:
You are correct. The Quran and Muhammad's claim of being a legitimate prophet can never happen unless the charge of corruption is leveled against the previous scriptures. That's the only way Muhammad could find a legitimate way to wedge himself in there and hijack the past religions. Otherwise, there was no room for him. It's pretty obvious when you think about it. A key component is Jesus' sacrifice for mankind. Read 4:78 to 4:80. The Quran works really really hard to nullify this. It doesn't like it and the reason why is because it puts Jesus above what Muhammad was willing to do. So that was the part he definitely had to get rid of before people got any funny ideas of him doing something like that too.
That's what my mother says (she lived in Iran before and during the 79' revo)!

That makes so much sense Muslims wouldn't know what to say to it, or maybe they would and it wouldn't make much sense at all if not at all. Its also backed by what skynightblaze says below, so its not a stretch to say that's what it was and why he decided on making the Qur'an speak of the other books and Allah saying he created them as well. *I'm sorry if I'm being incoherent, being dyslexic makes me ramble in a super bad way >.>*

There is a Muslim, two actually, I would love for you guys to debate with. But I think they would be too afraid to come here and post to be proven wrong. :whistling:

User avatar
Alex
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:37 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Alex »

skynightblaze wrote:
Alex wrote:Okay then, so it does and doesn't? :???: Some of the verses sorta suggest that the meaning was altered, from what I'm reading. Maybe I am not understanding (dyslexic). I'll read again. :P

If Allah made the ʾInǧīl and stated such and such (that it isn't corrupted etc), why do Muslims disregard the ʾInǧīl as trash/corrupted when their own religious book tells them otherwise?
:lol: This is the quran for you. Like you I am also confused on this issue because on one hand quran say that those who follow previous scripture are assured a place in heaven which would mean that quran doesn't believe the scriptures are physically corrupted. Consider for e.g 6:92 from quran .

6.92
And this is a Book which We have sent down, bringing blessings, and confirming (the revelations) which came before it: that thou mayest warn the mother of cities and all around her. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in this (Book), and they are constant in guarding their prayers.


It says that quran came as a confirmation of previous scripture and people should look into them so that they can warn others about quran which means quran didn't consider the previous scriptures to be corrupted but on the other hand as you said it does appear that quran thinks that the actual scriptures themselves were corrupted. The article I linked says that Quran actually accuses these people of distorting the message by hiding or not obeying it and not by ACtually corrupting the physical text.

Now basically we all are confused because quran talks about contradictory things so don't blame yourself for not understanding :lol: You are rightly not understanding what is going on just like me.

Now my take on this issue was that Muhammad wanted to replace himself as the final prophet and override the previous scriptures by claiming that his quran was just a continuation of previous scriptures and an updated version. Muhammad seems to be making mistakes about previous scriptures but I think they were due to ignorance of Muhammad about previous scriptures or due to corruption of quran.

Now to answer your question as to why muslims would want to claim that previous scriptures are corrupt is because they then find a good excuse to cover up the errors in the quran like misunderstanding of trinity, Jesus being not Son of God, misunderstanding that Uzair was the son of God (jewis belief) or Maryam was sister of Aaron etc. If they don't claim that previous scriptures are corrupt then this would mean quran is in error.

To be honest I am equally confused like you and I would like anyone to sort this problem out. :D
I see! Thanks for the answer! To better understand, I will reread afterward as well! :)

The whole Qur'an is mistake after mistake, contradiction after contradiction, irrational twist after irrational twist and then just plane changing words (Allah said). Why do Muslims believe in the Qur'an when its so clear it cannot be trusted? This man never committed any miracles and Allah said he didn't, he never did anything good, he never stopped bad things, he married children and had sex with them, was sexist and racist, hateful and angry and had a brain disorder. I mean he goes to a cave and leaves...and then says "I'm a prophet!" and people believe him? It must have been so easy to become a militant leader in those times. :turban:

How can they even trust the Qur'an even 1%? :nono:

Yes, I hope someone comes in here to clear it up.

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Alex wrote: There is a Muslim, two actually, I would love for you guys to debate with. But I think they would be too afraid to come here and post to be proven wrong. :whistling:
They won't come. When you see them, ask them to quote 5:73 to 5:75 and then 5:116 and then ask them if they see any errors in it. I'll be they won't if they don't know what the Trinity actually is. :lol:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

Post Reply