Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

[skynightblaze]

Another proof that you understand nihil. It's the other way around... Read again:
It's the previous well searched Muwatta that completely ignores Bukhari's hadiths. Thus they were forged later... Get it now?

It doesn't make too much of a difference as far as answering this question is concerned. Obviously the above conclusion is a stupid conclusion.Read the article below from answering islam.It answers your question.. Malik Muwatta ignores Bukhari's work because Bukhari didnt include many of the Malik Muwatta's collection and the reason is explained below in the spoiler. Bukhari however didn't completely ignore him.

Spoiler! :

There is another work, however, which should be mentioned in this context and that is the Muwatta of Imam Malik. It is a group of traditions of chiefly legal import put together by the founder of one of the four major schools of law in Islam. Because it is chiefly a corpus juris rather than a corpus traditionum, a collection of legal traditions rather than a general historical work, a veritable Hadith al-Akham (body of juristic hadith assembled as a foundation for the fiqh, the jurisprudence of Islam), it has not been as highly regarded as the two Sahihs. Its contents are also largely repeated in them and it has therefore been overlooked and is not included with the six major works.

The Muwatta may be treated as a good collection of Ahadith in the sense of the legal traditions. Some Muslim authorities like 'Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and 'Abd al-Haq of Delhi include it instead of the Sunan of Ibn Maja in the six canonical collections. Of course the majority of them do not count it as one of the six books because almost all the important traditions contained in it are included in the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p.13).

Furthermore this great jurist of Islam, the Imam Malik did not adopt the same dogmatic approach that his colleague Shafi'i took towards the Sunnah, declaring that the only true sunnah was found in the Hadith and not in the ijma of Muslim scholars, no matter how unanimous it might be, when it could not produce relevant traditions to support it. A Western writer comment's on Malik's Muwatta:

Its intention is not to sift and collect the 'healthy' elements of traditions circulating in the Islamic world but to illustrate the law, ritual and religious practice by the ijma recognised in Medinian Islam, by the sunna current in Medina, and to create a theoretical corrective, from the point of view of ijma and sunna, for things still in a state of flux. Inasmuch as the book has anything in common with a collection of traditions it lies in the sunna rather than the hadith. (Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Vol.2, p.198).

He adds: "Consideration of the Medinian ijma was so much the predominating point of view for Malik that he does not even hesitate to give it preference when it is in conflict to traditions incorporated as correct in his corpus" (p.199). For Malik the value of the tradition literature lay not in supplying a foundation for the laws of Islam but rather in illustrating the application of the legal maxims obtained through the ijma of the scholars of Islam. To Shafi'i each tradition was a ratio decidendi, the root and foundation on which any question of law was to be based or decided. To Malik the illustrative use of each tradition counted more than anything else. For him each tradition took the form of an obiter dictum, a passing reference which could help to elucidate a legal principle rather than become the authority on which such principles were to be based. Nonetheless, as his Muwatta is one of the earliest collections of traditions and as most of them were approved by Bukhari and Muslim, his work has an important place in the field of Hadith literature studies even to this day.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/6b.html

That's the Muslims usual dismissive attitude when cornered, you sound exactly like AB!

Sometimes its wise not to reply because there is simply no point in arguing if the opponent is bent onto not accepting himself as wrong.

Skipping the following

1) The Chinese Whispers debunk 200 years of 'reliable' oral transmissions.

Quran is also a chinese whisper but as far as ahadith are concerned atleast a careful approach was followed in their compilation.

2) + The criteria of mutawatir and of two witnesses (2.282; 5.106; 65.2)

I have already shown you that some of the ahadith which portray muhammad as a criminal satisfy this criteria and also quran doesnt satisfy this criteria completely.

3) + Their absence from the former, years-searched, Muwatta of Malik.
3) All of the above are proving the unreliability of the 'sahih' hadiths.

It proves you do know what you talk. The reason as to why Muwatta of Malik doesn't contain anything of Bukhari is explained above and hence the conclusion drawn by you here is fallacious.

4) In defying the example of Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar and Ibn Thabit followed their conscience to collect the Koran.
They didn't follow his example. Thus, Muslims are too to follow their conscience first.

If that is the case then how in the world can we trust quran? what if these same men used their conscience while writing quran and added statements on their own? Btw I can quote here plenty of ahadith which show that word of Muhammad was taken as final authority. Many people used to dispute and come to muhamamd for solutions and whatever Muhammad said was taken at face value.

As far this case is concerned Muhammad never said that quran shouldn't be collected and ABu Bakhr , Umar and Thabit didnt want people to go astray and hence they took up this task.Had muhammad forbidden collection of quran then they wouldnt have followed their conscience.

5) Raiding and looting was a custom -for all nomads in general-, thus you've indulged in the fallacy of Presentism.
And relying on yet another fallacy (Moving the goalposts) doesn't help your case at all.

Oh please cut that jargon that you use. I doubt whether you understand the words you use. Raiding was never a custom. Where is the evidence for that? Also you are supposed to show us the evidence that raping women, killing people for disbelief was normal amongst everyone including non muslims. YOur failure to show that would mean Muhammad didnt act morally as per the standards of his time. You haven't shown any evidence to prove that these acts committed by Muhammad were the norm of the day.

More ever if quran and ahadith want entire mankind to judge them as per their standards then who are you to say that we shouldnt be judging them on our standards? Clearly ahadith and quran glorify Muhammad and claim that his example is for entire mankind and hence they want mankind to judge them and its obvious every mankind is going to judge as per his own standards.

6) A pervert Muhammad (93.7) cast no example, except in 'looking forward unto Allah' (33.21) and obeying The Messenger (ie. Gabriel).

But how do we know whether Muhamamad looked forward unto Allah? Again we need the details of his life to know how Muhammad can serve as an example in looking forward to Allah. I have also shown you 2:151 which clearly states that Muhammad is supposed to teach/instruct the scripture, the wisdom and NEW TEACHINGS. NEW TEACHINGS cannot be a part of scripture otherwise it makes no sense to mention them seperately.

7) The Shahada goes directly against many Koranic injunctions (3.84; 18.110). Thus 1st 'pillar of Islam' is definitively not Koranic.

IT doesnt. It supports the quran. After reading the quran one can easily know that he/she cannot become a muslim unless he/she accepts Allah as the only God and Muhammad as his messenger and hence content of Shahada is in line with quranic teachings.

8) From 4.105 and 5.44-49 we learn that Muhammad had to judge Jews and Christians,
according to their own scripture, along with bringing the new one, ie. the Koran (2.151).

There is no logical connection between 4:105 and 5:44-49. These are illogical leaps What is the basis for establishing such a conclusion when 2:151 doesn't even mention anything about previous scriptures?

9) Muslims are to obey all prophets alike. Yet no messenger has much importance by its own self, none (3.84; 18.110).

Really? What happens to all these scriptures if all these prophets were a fraud? Their character is very much important to the message to be genuine. If Muhammad is proven as a criminal then quran loses its credibility and hence messengers have importance in what they do and say and hence knowing life of Muhammad is essential and quran doesnt describe his life.

Note: The 'honest scholars' of tafsirs all went against 3.7 in attempts to biased the Koran.
Ex.: In the tafsir of 31.6 they sweared that 'lahwa al-hadeethi' meant music and not idle tales.
ie. their own tafsirs, + hadiths.

Those tafsir scholars were closer to Muhammads time and hence I think they knew better rather than you or me who are born in 20th century. Ibn Abbas a companion of Muhammad also mentioned the same so I guess you should not act as if you know more than him. Had they been lying then their lies wouldn't match. Many of the tafsir scholars didnt coexist and hence their lies cant match. It would be too much of coincidence.

Thanks to people like snb and MbL this site is developing the same mentality as Sunnite's.
Two sides of the same dismissive clan/clowns attitude.

Both of us dont like stupidity and dishonesty and that's we are averse to your kind of thinking.We are not interested in appeasing islam by lying for it which is precisely what you are doing. We are here to expose islam for what it is . WE dont like people who want to whitewash sins of muhammad. The truth is that many of those ahadith are true and Muhammad was a criminal.

[skynightblaze]

Quran is an obvious lie and the only miracle of quran is that people can dare to believe that its really from God even after reading it!

You see, it works like this. If one believes the Quran comes from God before they read it, they will clearly see that it comes from God when they read it. So one needs to believe it is from God before one can see that it comes from God. So if one reads the Quran and doesn't believe it comes from God, that's because they didn't believe it comes from God and therefore misread it.

I think that explains how islam has survived for 14 centuries. These people have conditioned the mind of children in such a way that they are believers in islam even before knowing what it is and hence whatever quran says appears to come from God. Its amazing to note that human mind can achieve the heights of self delusion. Its difficult to believe this but its insanely true. If an adult is allowed to grow in a free environment and if he is asked to read the quran and draw a conclusion then its impossible for any sane person to say that it can be from God. Its such a a pathetically written book that sometimes I feel like some little kid is trying to convince me that there exists a flying monster who would get me if I dont obey.

[Multiple]

Quran is an obvious lie and the only miracle of quran is that people can dare to believe that its really from God even after reading it!

You see, it works like this. If one believes the Quran comes from God before they read it, they will clearly see that it comes from God when they read it. So one needs to believe it is from God before one can see that it comes from God. So if one reads the Quran and doesn't believe it comes from God, that's because they didn't believe it comes from God and therefore misread it.

I think that explains how islam has survived for 14 centuries. These people have conditioned the mind of children in such a way that they are believers in islam even before knowing what it is and hence whatever quran says appears to come from God. Its amazing to note that human mind can achieve the heights of self delusion. Its difficult to believe this but its insanely true. If an adult is allowed to grow in a free environment and if he is asked to read the quran and draw a conclusion then its impossible for any sane person to say that it can be from God. Its such a a pathetically written book that sometimes I feel like some little kid is trying to convince me that there exists a flying monster who would get me if I dont obey.

Even today most Mohammedan come from Third World cesspit countries and so are ILLITERATE just like their Profit Old Mo was. So everything they know about Islam and the Koran is told to them by the Imam. They only CHANT it Robotically and repetitively in Primitive Ancient ARABIC just like Parrots and understanding what they chant as much as Parrots do too. They cant even read or write their OWN languages far less the Primitive Ambiguous 7th Century TRIBAL Arabic dialect in which the Koran is written and in which language Mohammedans insist is the ONLY way to understand it. Not realising of course that by saying so that makes the Koranic claims that it is 'Clear and Easily understood ' and to be for 'ALL men for ALL time' completely ridiculous and blatantly untrue and if that is so then Islam too is UNTRUE .

[The Cat]

The fact that collection of quran is described as an "arduous task" only weakens the case for soundness of isnads of quran.So do you now agree that Quran is also a part of chinese whispers?

There's NO isnad and no need to... since its a collective compilation, carried out by many.
Chinese whispers do not apply at all.

As for the dissensions, the final criterion was to rely on the texts and dialect from the -original- al-Qura area (that of the Quraysh).
In B.6.605 we do read: ''Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so
he said to 'Uthmfin, 'O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book...''

Ibn Mas'ud wasn't a Quraysh but from Kufa (Iraq), Abu Musa from Basran and Ubayy ibn Ka'b was from Syria. So there must be a strong
suspicion that the hadiths mentionning that Muhammad preferred let say Masud originated from Kufa and his fans, and so on. Umar
must have known this. Damascus, Medina, Basran and Kufa were antagonistic to each other, thus the 4 madhabs we have.

The al-Qura criterion makes perfect sense and again quoting 6.605: ''Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with
Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish (ie. al-Qura) as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'.
They did so...'' This criteria was also crucial because of the original missing dots and diacritical marks.


As for Ali, his 'Mushaf' is mentioned in the wikipedia article: ''According to Shia as well as some Sunni scholars Ali compiled a mushaf, a
complete version of Qur'an, within six months after the death of Muhammad.... Although the order of his earlier script differed from the
Uthmanic codex, Ali accepted this standardized version.'' The Shias uphold the same Koran as the Sunnites.

The order of chapters were presented in order of length probably to avoid the complexity of a fully chronological one. That of course is a
human manipulation but it doesn't infer some authorship corruption, no more than let us say the Epistles of Paul, presented at lenght too.
It's still Paul (well in fact two of them)... It's even the same about the Rig Veda, which I've studied. Its chapters aren't chronological...


Finally about Umar and stoning. It's obvious that he didn't have enough testimonies on his side to include it as he (-might-) have wished:
''if people should not accuse me of adding to the Book of Allah, I would have this transcribed therein.'' More on this below...

This proves that the Koran is the mutawatir collection per excellence. Nothing without enough corroboration got in, except 9.128.
Not even from Umar.

[The Cat]

Malik Muwatta ignores Bukhari's work because Bukhari didnt include many of the Malik Muwatta's collection and the reason is explained below in the spoiler.

You miss the point -again- so I'll express it differently: We are said that the Muwatta (the well-trodden path) took 40 years to be collected,
right in the middle of Medina. So Shafi'i lauded its authenticity.

My argument is chronological. The Muwatta preceeds Bukhari a lot, yet IGNORES most, if not all, of Bukhari's later work. That Malik simply
didn't know them, or left them over for not being sound enough... is telling us loud and clear that Bukhari forged from elsewhere than Medina.

as far as ahadith are concerned atleast a careful approach was followed in their compilation.

You are bond to prove it, blindly parroting Bukhari's won't do. Can you do that while the Muwatta proves otherwise?

Raiding was never a custom (for nomads). Where is the evidence for that?

Now this is very common knowledge!!! So yes Mohammad acted according to the standards of his time. And it's still the case for the
Touaregs, for example. They STILL raid and rape, like the Toubou tribe. The Arabic Bedouins weren't in rest with these Touaregs.
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Mind_of_t ... Chapter_II
he is always ready to seize any chance that offers — a camel strayed from the herd provides him with a feast of meat:
a sudden dash upon a caravan or the douar (camp) of a sedentary tribe furnishes him with dates, spices and women.

http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Hist/Is ... Arabia.htm

Tribal warfare was rather common as clans and tribes continually competed with one another for the very limited resources of the desert
lands. Water, agriculture, women, and slaves were all prized possessions of which acquisition by any means could mean the difference
between survival and death. So harsh were conditions and at times so necessary for survival was raiding for supplies (razzias) that such
extra-tribal raids (ghazwa) were viewed as a legitimate practice....

Reza Aslan: ''Crimes committed against those outside the tribe were not only unpunished, they were not really crimes. Stealing, killing,
or injuring another person was not considered a morally reprehensible act per se, and such acts were punished only if they weakened the
stability of the tribe.'' The Bedouins became known for this rugged lifestyle of migrating, trading, and raiding.

You'll hate it but it's your turn of -proving- that razzias and ghazwas weren't by traditions, or else you're into... Presentism.

And I've shown you that Muhammad is not recognized as a role model but as a deviant (93.7) and that he's solely exemplary in his 'looking
forward unto Allah and remembering Him much (33.21). So it is written in the Koran to obey the messenger, never obey Muhammad...

But how do we know whether Muhamamad looked forward unto Allah? Again we need the details of his life to know how Muhammad can serve as an example in looking forward to Allah. I have also shown you 2:151 which clearly states that Muhammad is supposed to teach/instruct the scripture, the wisdom and NEW TEACHINGS. NEW TEACHINGS cannot be a part of scripture otherwise it makes no sense to mention them seperately.

We know that the Koran doesn't picture him as a role model, quite the contrary (33.37; 42.52; 66.1, 93.7).

And yes 2.151 refers to the ancient scriptures and wisdom by which Muhammad was to judged Jews and Christians accordingly.
And most obviously the 'new thing' is the Koran being still revealed at the time.

5:43 How come they unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment (for them) ?

5:44 Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the prophets who surrendered judged the Jews...

5:47 Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein...

5:49 So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed...

Or even as stated in Bukhari 4.56.829. So, yes, stoning is Koranic but only when... judging Jews, according to the Torah (under 18 different
accusations). Yet their judiciary way of stoning wasn't at all in throwing small rocks at someone, which was performed to expel undesirable
fellows (get out of here). It was much more expedient than that: the victim was made to fall on rocks from a high place (as in Luke 4.29).

What happens to all these scriptures if all these prophets were a fraud? Their character is very much important to the message to be genuine. If Muhammad is proven as a criminal then quran loses its credibility.

He was a product of his time, no more, no less. Moses was a far greater monster, or Elisha. Again, the erring character of Muhammad is
portrayed in the Koran. If a king send a sealed message to a vassal, the messenger isn't of much importance, the sealed message is.

The example of Muhammad should have not much religious importance. By himself he isn't any law-binding ruler as in the hadiths.

After reading the quran one can easily know that he/she cannot become a muslim unless he/she accepts Allah as the only God and Muhammad as his messenger and hence content of Shahada is in line with quranic teachings.

What are the limits of your Sunnite's gullibility? It's amazing!

3.18: Allah is Witness (Shahida Allāhu) that there is no Allah save Him....

3.20: And if they argue with thee, say: I have surrendered my purpose to Allah and those who follow me.....

13:14 Unto Him is the real prayer. Those unto whom they pray beside Allah respond to them not at all...

http://tawhiyd.webs.com/tawhiyd.htm


Which makes every single Islamic prayer a blasphemy!!!

Shirk and Idolatry in Islam (The Cat)
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1062

We are not interested in appeasing islam by lying for it which is precisely what you are doing. We are here to expose islam for what it is . WE dont like people who want to whitewash sins of muhammad. The truth is that many of those ahadith are true and Muhammad was a criminal.

I am exposing Muhammadanism, which ain't Islam as per the Koran. And it even exposes Muhammad's sins. The Koran doesn't ever show him
as a secular role model, ordered to govern through councils (3.159; 42.38). As for Allah, he's but a repainting of the Vedic Varuna (from the Rig).

Could the Vedic Varuna Be Allah ? (The Cat)
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8394

Now, the hadiths are true, you state. Here's an ahaad isnad:
1) Narrator G6 said
2) that narrator F5 held
3) from narrator E4,
4) who got it from narrator D3,
5) that narrator C2 heard it
6) from the companion B1
7) that the prophet A0 stated this: (...) !

How can anyone be convinced by such Whispers? Nothing even according to the -2- testimonies required (2.282; 5.106; 65.2)!
How can it be rightfully proven that -narrator E4- didn't distort the report of narrator D3, further corrupted by F5, given to G6?

2:272: The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muhammad), but Allah guideth whom He will.

39.45: And when Allah alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter are repelled,
and when those (whom they worship) beside Him are mentioned, behold! they are glad.

[sum]

Hello The Cat

Your quote -
39.45: And when Allah alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter are repelled,
and when those (whom they worship) beside Him are mentioned, behold! they are glad.

Would you kindly tell me who you think is being referred to in the first part of the quote -
And when Allah alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter are repelled,

Also, please tell me who you think are being referred to by the second part of your quote -
and when those (whom they worship) beside Him are mentioned, behold! they are glad

I presume that the people that might be referred to are the Jews, Christians and Pagans. Please let me know your understanding of who is being referred to in each part of the quote.

sum

[skynightblaze]

The fact that collection of quran is described as an "arduous task" only weakens the case for soundness of isnads of quran.So do you now agree that Quran is also a part of chinese whispers?

There's NO isnad and no need to... since its a collective compilation, carried out by many.
Chinese whispers do not apply at all.

Fine but those "many" people who compiled quran had different opinions of quran and hence the quran is unreliable.

As for the dissensions, the final criterion was to rely on the texts and dialect from the -original- al-Qura area (that of the Quraysh).
In B.6.605 we do read: ''Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so
he said to 'Uthmfin, 'O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book...''

Who gave Uthman the permission to rely on Quraish texts? We have plenty of ahadith wherein we have 7 different recitations of quran and muhammad said its ok to recite quran in any of the 7 ways. Banning others and keeping only 1 way of recitation is also altering the original quran from Allah (aka Muhammad).Quran is against men altering the word of God and hence this act of Utham is a corrupt act.

Ibn Mas'ud wasn't a Quraysh but from Kufa (Iraq), Abu Musa from Basran and Ubayy ibn Ka'b was from Syria. So there must be a strong
suspicion that the hadiths mentionning that Muhammad preferred let say Masud originated from Kufa and his fans, and so on. Umar
must have known this. Damascus, Medina, Basran and Kufa were antagonistic to each other, thus the 4 madhabs we have.

If this hadith was corrupted because of the narrator being biased(a fan of any of the above mentioned people because of the place to which they belonged i.e Iraq or kufa ) then wouldn't he merely prefer one person over the other and say for e,g Only Ibn Masud was the authority of quran and others were not if he was being biased? Infact this quote shows that there was no biasedness here because the narrator gives equal importance to 4 different people from 4 different places . If he was biased he would have given importance to only one of the above mentioned person whom he was a fan. Also the charge that you brought is an unproved assertion. This is not the way how a debate works.

The al-Qura criterion makes perfect sense and again quoting 6.605: ''Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with
Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish (ie. al-Qura) as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'.
They did so...'' This criteria was also crucial because of the original missing dots and diacritical marks.

This criteria is least perfect because we have plenty of ahadith which make a mention that quran was revealed in 7 different ways of recitation and they make a mention that any of the way was correct so going as per Al- Qura criteria alone is incorrect.

As for Ali, his 'Mushaf' is mentioned in the wikipedia article: ''According to Shia as well as some Sunni scholars Ali compiled a mushaf, a
complete version of Qur'an, within six months after the death of Muhammad.... Although the order of his earlier script differed from the
Uthmanic codex, Ali accepted this standardized version.'' The Shias uphold the same Koran as the Sunnites.

The fact that Ali's version differed from Uthamic version is a proof that quran is not at all transmitted from muhammad word to word. WE have so much of confusion and discrepancy over the quran and hence it can no way be treated as reliable. I guess it pains for you to see quran going down the drain and hence the rubbish acrobatics.

The order of chapters were presented in order of length probably to avoid the complexity of a fully chronological one. That of course is a
human manipulation but it doesn't infer some authorship corruption, no more than let us say the Epistles of Paul, presented at lenght too.
It's still Paul (well in fact two of them)... It's even the same about the Rig Veda, which I've studied. Its chapters aren't chronological...

Its not just the order but even also the content that is missing. We have so many contradictions in the quran and that is because different authors remembered things differently and hence the contradictions. Btw changing the order is also a corruption and hence it only goes to show that quran is not from any God because its claimed to be word to word dictation of God and hence everything said in the quran is a lie and it translates to obeying Muhammad and not obeying Allah.

Finally about Umar and stoning. It's obvious that he didn't have enough testimonies on his side to include it as he (-might-) have wished:
''if people should not accuse me of adding to the Book of Allah, I would have this transcribed therein.'' More on this below...

The verse of stoning or the event of stoning is mentioned plenty of times in the ahadith by different nar rators and hence there are plenty of testimonies confirming that verse so this is corruption of quran.

This proves that the Koran is the mutawatir collection per excellence. Nothing without enough corroboration got in, except 9.128.
Not even from Umar.

Only an idiot would think that quran is a reliable book . The verse related to stoning is mentioned by more than 2 narrators and yet its not in the quran. The verses 9:128-129 also don't have any corroboration and yet they are in the quran. The verses related to suckling also have multiple narrators but yet its not there in the quran and hence I think this is sufficient to prove that the quote from wiki which you pasted here saying that quran had 2 witnesses for every verse is false because we see many verses having more than 2 narrators not being included in the quran and also verse with a single narrator included in the quran which shouldn't have been.

To Summarize I have given atleast 3 proofs where we see the criteria of 2 witnesses is not observed and hence there is no reason to assume that quran was collected diligently.

[Skenderbeg]

The Cat
the erring character of Muhammad is
portrayed in the Koran. If a king send a sealed message to a vassal, the messenger isn't of much importance, the sealed message is

.

I could respect someone who brings me a message as you say, but here Muslims are ordered to love Mohammed the messenger more then their own family. Muslims must make Mohammed more dearer to them then everyone else, its hard to love any plain messenger more then ones own family. unless he was God himself, other wise here we seen Mohammed turned into some God, all but in name.

Say: 'If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your clan, your possessions that you have gained, commerce you fear may slacken, dwellings you love -- if these are dearer to you than God AND His Messenger, and to struggle in His way, then wait till God brings His command; God guides not the people of the ungodly.' S. 9:24 Arberry

The Cat
The example of Muhammad should have not much religious importance. By himself he isn't any law-binding ruler as in the hadiths

.

you're wrong according to the Quran Mohammed is Allah's partner and law maker and again Muslims are ordered to follow whatever Mohammed says. Muslims must live by all decisions Mohammed made for them in full submission to him. . .he might as well be God to humans on earth.

But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission S. 4:6

The cat
313:14 Unto Him is the real prayer. Those unto whom they pray beside Allah respond to them not at all...

Yet he again ordered his angels to bow down and worship a man Adam. the Quran says pray to Allah alone and yet here we see Allah forcing angeles to bow down and worship a man. I feel bad for the angel Eblis who was kicked out of heaven for refusing to worship a man made of clay. so much for only worshiping Allah alone. he was the only true believer, Allah should have rewarded him instead of sending him to hell.

Q. 15:28-32
Remember when thy Lord said to the Angels, "I create man of dried clay, of dark loam moulded: And when I shall have fashioned him and breathed of my spirit into him, then fall ye down and WORSHIP him." And the Angels bowed down in WORSHIP, all of them, all together, Save Eblis: he refused to be with those who bowed in WORSHIP. "O Eblis," said God, "wherefore art thou not with those who bow down in WORSHIP?" He said, "It beseemeth not me TO BOW IN WORSHIP TO MAN whom thou hast created of clay, of moulded loam."

The Quran is full of contradictions as I said earlier in my post, The more you read the more stupid and full of contradictions the book becomes.

[The Cat]

NOTE: I've been uniting some answers pertaining to the same view...

those "many" people who compiled quran had different opinions of quran and hence the quran is unreliable.... Who gave Uthman the permission to rely on Quraish texts?This criteria is least perfect because we have plenty of ahadith which make a mention that quran was revealed in 7 different ways of recitation and they make a mention that any of the way was correct so going as per Al- Qura criteria alone is incorrect.

Absurd. Unless you can prove that the Koran wasn't revealed in Muhammad's dialect. Which by the way is that of Edward Lane' Lexicon.
Uthman's decision makes much sense, that's why I hold it. Not the hadiths you blindly believe.

Infact this quote shows that there was no biasedness here because the narrator gives equal importance to 4 different people from 4 different places.

Same as above. Was the Koran revealed in Basran, Kufa or Damascus?

Learn! There was a huge rivalry between Basran, Kufa, Damascus and Medina, both political and religious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufa
In the first decades of Islam, Kufa was prominent in literacy and politics.... and it was opposed to the central authorities of Medina and
Damascus. From the perspective of 8th-century CE (2nd-century AH) Medina and Damascus, Kufa was associated with "variant" readings
and interpretations of the Qur'an, typically in the name of Ibn Mas'ud.... From there these readings entered the vast repository of Near
Eastern hadith, ultimately to be written down into collections of hadith and tafsir.

One example would be Ali choosing Kufa instead of Medina as a capital, the Umayyads preferring Damascus.

The fact that Ali's version differed from Uthamic version is a proof that quran is not at all transmitted from muhammad word to word.

The fact that the Shias and Sunnites have the very same Koran, word to word, states otherwise. It also emphasizes that the order of
the chapters aren't important, since mainly he had a different one. This manipulation has no effect on reliability. For example, it is
taught that sura 96 was a first revealed. We find it the 96th now. But the sura is exactly the same.

Its not just the order but even also the content that is missing. The verse of stoning or the event of stoning is mentioned plenty of times in the ahadith by different narrators and hence there are plenty of testimonies confirming that verse so this is corruption of quran

How many times will I have to repeat that many different chains of narrators never meet the criteria of 2 witnesses AT EACH LEVEL
OF THE NARRATION to meet 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2? By definition no ahaad hadith (single line of narrators) meets this basic criteria,

The verse related to stoning is mentioned by more than 2 narrators and yet its not in the quran. The verses 9:128-129 also don't have any corroboration and yet they are in the quran. The verses related to suckling also have multiple narrators but yet its not there in the quran and hence I think this is sufficient to prove that the quote from wiki which you pasted here saying that quran had 2 witnesses for every verse is false because we see many verses having more than 2 narrators not being included in the quran and also verse with a single narrator included in the quran which shouldn't have been.

Read right above. Know then that even the mutawatir type is just a first selection dismissing 99% of all the hadiths. The rest
must be judged on its own merit, by the Koran standards, and not the other way around, from the hadiths, as you suggest.

Then again, count if you can't read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an
1) Zaid bin Thabit,
2) 'Abdullah bin AzZubair,
3) Said bin Al-As
4) 'AbdurRahman bin Harith
5) Umar
All those people checked each verse, more so corroborated by 2 oral testimonies (6-7).
Thus, at least 7 persons verified the standard version to be correct and in the al-Qura dialect.

About 9.128/129:
In Abu Dawood 2.30 we read that the 2 ending verses were reported by Ubayy ibn Kaab, while neither Zaid, or Khuzaima, are mentioned.
And ibn Kaab was reciting from his own Mushaf. Thus, how could Zaid find them only with Khuzaima as per Bukhari? More so Dawood 2.30
tells us that Umar acknowledged these last verses and... Uthman in 2.31! So who's right here: Bukhari or Dawood?

Only an idiot would think that quran is a reliable book .

But what then would be the proper adjective for someone solely relying on the 'authoritativeness' of hadiths to say so?

[darth]

[

1) Koran was memorized first hand, almost on the spot. Hadiths were collected in earnest two centuries after.
Ever heard of the Chinese Whispers' demonstration?

When exactly is the earliest quran? Prove to us that the oral transference of koran before it was written down was in any way different from the way the hadiths were transmitted. Show us proof that the quranic verses were not made up by someone other than mohammad (say ayesha or aby bakr)

[darth]

Then you are wrongly assuming that the hadiths portraying Muhammad under a bad light must therefore be true. You must first prove
-beyond doubt- that, for the companions, in their own time and particular customs, such behavior could have been wrong. Then again,
and secondly, you would be indulging into Presentism, judging the past from our present values.

First of all, do you accept the quran portraying mo in a bad light, but not hadith? Why? What is the difference? Show us that the quran is any more or any less believable than the hadith

Secondly, presentism is a logical fallacy only for historians, no one else. Ideas are not subject to time and age. We can judge any idea on its own basis. If the idea is sound, logical and factual then it can accepted else discarded.

Take for example - paedophilia. The question - is the undeveloped female body ready for sex or not. Medically it can be shown that an immature body is not ready for sex making sex with an immature female a bad idea. It does not matter whether people in a particular society think it is a bad idea or not. As long as it is supported by scientific facts and is shown as an unsafe practice, it remains a bad idea.

Thus each behavior of mo and his companions can be judged on its own merits and facts. It is nonsense to think that we should judge a custom as wrong only if the society or period of that custom judges it wrong. What rubbish and balderdash.

[Multiple]

Then you are wrongly assuming that the hadiths portraying Muhammad under a bad light must therefore be true. You must first prove
-beyond doubt- that, for the companions, in their own time and particular customs, such behavior could have been wrong. Then again,
and secondly, you would be indulging into Presentism, judging the past from our present values.

First of all, do you accept the quran portraying mo in a bad light, but not hadith? Why? What is the difference? Show us that the quran is any more or any less believable than the hadith

Secondly, presentism is a logical fallacy only for historians, no one else. Ideas are not subject to time and age. We can judge any idea on its own basis. If the idea is sound, logical and factual then it can accepted else discarded.

Take for example - paedophilia. The question - is the undeveloped female body ready for sex or not. Medically it can be shown that an immature body is not ready for sex making sex with an immature female a bad idea. It does not matter whether people in a particular society think it is a bad idea or not. As long as it is supported by scientific facts and is shown as an unsafe practice, it remains a bad idea.

Thus each behavior of mo and his companions can be judged on its own merits and facts. It is nonsense to think that we should judge a custom as wrong only if the society or period of that custom judges it wrong. What rubbish and balderdash.

Absolutely true Darth and those people who use cultural and moral situations to excuse and justify such obvious immoral acts are themselves as guilty as the original perpetrators by giving them justification.

[The Cat]

Muslims must make Mohammed more dearer to them then everyone else (9.24), its hard to love any plain messenger more then ones own family. unless he was God himself, other wise here we seen Mohammed turned into some God, all but in name.

There's a Sunnite deviance in this understanding. For we don't read ''if these are dearer to you than God & Muhammad'', do we?
So we must ask ourselves: what is a messenger? Likewise we never read 'Obey the prophet' but 'Obey the messenger'. WHY?

Because we must establish a distinction between them... which is made in 3.81:
3.79: It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and
the prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah...

3.80: And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords....

3.81: When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the
Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess.

17.93: Say (O Muhammad): My Lord be Glorified! Am I aught save a mortal messenger ?

Obey the messenger cannot refers solely to ANY mortal. It's in the link with the Messenger of God (Gabriel) that obeying the messenger
must be understood. As shown in 2.97, Gabriel (Jibril) is the Confirmer. Without the archangel carrying the divine part of the message,
the human messenger, by himself, would be a mystification! Now this very mystification is at the base of nowadays Muhammadanism.

2.97: Who is an enemy to Gabriel! For he it is who hath revealed to thy heart by God's leave, confirming that which was before it.

So, in my allegory, it becomes: If the king (God) send a sealed (Gabriel) message to his vassal (the folks) through a messenger (Moses,
whomever), the messenger as a human doesn't have much importance: The Message does. The message being the scripture and the seal,
Gabriel. A human messenger would be like carrying a unsealed message, so 'obey the messenger' means: what's linked to the archangel.

In short: there cannot be an 'obey the messenger' meaning anyone parted from Gabriel,
the divine link between all messengers, whom Muslims are to obey in full equality (3.89).

But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission S. 4:6

That's 4.65 not 4.6... Likely you've misunderstood the verse. Let us see:

4.64: We sent no messenger save that he should be obeyed by Allah's leave. ...(ie. sealed by Gabriel).

4.65: But nay, by thy Lord, they will not believe until they make thee judge of what is in dispute between them
and find within themselves no dislike of that which thou decidest, and submit with full submission.

God is kind of chastising those who are asking Muhammad to judge between them... while they have scriptures (5.45-49),
confining him into a role he shouldn't have. It's the opposite of stating that Muhammad should be a role-model: He's not.

4.80: Whoso obeyed the messenger hath obeyed Allah (through Gabriel),
and whoso turneth away: We have not sent thee as a warder over them.

4.84: ... Thou art not taxed (with the responsibility for anyone) except thyself - and urge on the believers.

Yet he again ordered his angels to bow down and worship a man Adam. the Quran says pray to Allah alone and yet here we see Allah forcing angeles to bow down and worship a man.

Angels are without will of their own, while Adam was created from the 'breathed spirit of Allah', like Jesus. Which means the capacity to
create things on their own. Now the words translated by 'bowing down' (RUKU) and 'worship' (SALAT) are but other ritualistic distortions
found throughout the Koran, and the tafsirs only came to guide and accentuate such distortions.

But RUKU, translated as 'bowing down' really means humbleness, humility;
And Salat: devotion, commitment, responsive, observing; NOT worship
which even mean 'being worthy of respect' in etymology, ie worthwhile.

Otherwise how could the trees, the birds and the stars, bow down and worship God. The fallacy is obvious:

24.41: Hast thou not seen that Allah, He it is Whom all who are in the heavens and the earth praise, and the
birds in their flight ? Of each He knoweth verily the worship and the praise; and Allah is Aware of what they do.

4.102: And when thou (O Muhammad) art among them and arrangest (their) worship for them, let only a party of them stand with thee
(to worship) and let them take their arms. Then when they have performed their prostrations let them fall to the rear and let another
party come that hath not worshiped and let them worship with thee, and let them take their precaution and their arms.
(--Here, Muhammad would be teaching non-believers how to perform prostration!!--).

55.6: The stars and the trees adore (!!!??)

That's the kind of distortions which have, indeed, led to many 'contradictions'...
This reminds me back again that I have a thread to develop in Resource center.

[The Cat]

When exactly is the earliest quran? Prove to us that the oral transference of koran before it was written down was in any way different from the way the hadiths were transmitted. Show us proof that the quranic verses were not made up by someone other than mohammad (say ayesha or aby bakr)

The earliest Koran we've got is the Sana'a manuscript, most probably itself a copy.

And I've shown above how its collection differed from the hadiths. That's exactly why there's no isnad...
Then we have absolutely NO testimony at all that the Koran came through somebody else. Not one at all.

First of all, do you accept the quran portraying mo in a bad light, but not hadith? Why? What is the difference? Show us that the quran is any more or any less believable than the hadith. Secondly, presentism is a logical fallacy only for historians, no one else.

Wrong: Presentism is a logical fallacy related to anachronistic morality and subjectivity, as opposed to absolutism/eternalism.

Was Socratic Greece depraved because pedophilia was the norm? Is Thomas Jefferson to be discredited because he bought slaves?
So was Muhammad, a product of its time, depicted as such in both Koran and hadiths. But the later portrays him as an all-time best
model, not so in the Koran where this leading model is rather Abraham and Jesus (3.59-60), whom Muhammad was ordered to follow.
Thus, the hadiths' very purpose is thoroughly un-Koranic, that is overwhelmingly blasphemous in intentions.

46.9: Say: I am no new thing among the messengers, nor know I what will be done with
me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.

Compared that to the tafsirs and hadiths: Tafsir of Ibn Khatir (on 9.28):
All Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him (!).... 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.

In straight contradiction with:
41.43: Naught is said unto thee (Muhammad) save what was said unto the messengers before thee.

Contrary to the Koranic injunctions, tafsirs and hadiths gave precedence to Muhammad, Bukhari 6.60.3:
...‘Go to Jesus, Allah's Slave, His Apostle and Allah's Word and a Spirit coming from Him. Jesus will say, ‘I am not
fit for this undertaking, go to Muhammad the Slave of Allah whose past and future sins were forgiven by Allah.’ …"

Which relates to 48.1-2:
Lo! We have given thee a signal victory, --That Allah MAY forgive thee of thy sin that which is past
and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path.

That Allah forgave his sins is far from connecting him with a role-model. In 40.55, 47.19 and 48.2 the Arabic Dhanaba (sin, fault)
is any act having an evil result, from stealing to idolatry and murder. Yet Jesus was created sinless (19.19), a revelation by himself
(19.21) and a statement of the truth (19.34), created in the likeness of Adam (3.59).

More so, according to 2.124, Abraham is the ONE IMAM (Imāmāan) recognized for all humanity, the covenant not including wrong-doers.
Thus, it can't include Muhammad! Let alone all those so-called Imam Shafi'i, Imam Bukhari, let alone Imam Muhammad!

Muhammadans must realize the perfid shirk-spiral into which they are led, beginning with the Shahada.
When the Koran states that the only 'religion' is that of Allah, it refers to the original meaning of 'religio':
The inner bond between man and the sacred. Nothing to do with nowadays sectarian confessions (30.31-32).

30.31-32:
So set thy purpose for religion as a man by nature upright - the nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created man.
There is no altering (the laws of) Allah's creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not -

--Turning unto Him (only); and be careful of your duty unto Him and establish worship (be hearty committed),
and be not of those who ascribe partners (unto Him, like Muhammadans do in the Shahada);

--Of those who split up their religion and became schismatics, each sect exulting in its tenets.

[skynightblaze]

@CAT

I will reply to your arguments point by point but let me end this presentism crap that you use to defend islam.Quran itself condemns stealing so even by quranic standards stealing was not ok. If stealing was a norm during then quran wouldnt have condemned stealing.

Now all I have to do is turn the tables and show you how rubbish argument is. Quran judges people of the book in many aspects and says that they committed so and so sin so should I now say that quran engaged in the fallacy of presentism? If quran could judge people in the past then why cant we judge Muhammad after 1400 years ??

[darth]

And I've shown above how its collection differed from the hadiths. That's exactly why there's no isnad...
Then we have absolutely NO testimony at all that the Koran came through somebody else. Not one at all.

Neither is there any testimony that koran came from mohammad. Because there is no chain linking it back to mohammad. The verses could have come from anybody. Can you prove that it was not written by, say, ayesha?

Wrong: Presentism is a logical fallacy related to anachronistic morality and subjectivity, as opposed to absolutism/eternalism.

Rubbish. Presentism is a logical fallacy only when related to recording of history. It is not applicable when testing soundness of ideas.

Was Socratic Greece depraved because pedophilia was the norm?

Paedophilia is depraved because it is scientifically a bad idea, irrespective of the society it was a norm in. As I said, ideas are not dependent upon time. If an idea is proven bad it is bad. If in ancient Greece paedophilia was practiced, then yes, this aspect of the society was depraved. (This does not mean that ancient Greece did not have other practices and ideas that were logically, factually, scientifically correct).

Is Thomas Jefferson to be discredited because he bought slaves?

This aspect of Thomas Jefferson was not creditable. This does not mean that all his ideas are to be discredited.
(Incidently, even in Jefferson's time there were many people who thought slavery was morally wrong).


It is interesting that the only way you can defend presentism as a "logical fallacy" for ideas is by resorting to another logical fallacy. As if a paedophile in ancient greece makes mo's paedophilia okay.

So was Muhammad, a product of its time, depicted as such in both Koran and hadiths. But the later portrays him as an all-time best
model, not so in the Koran where this leading model is rather Abraham and Jesus (3.59-60), whom Muhammad was ordered to follow.
Thus, the hadiths' very purpose is thoroughly un-Koranic, that is overwhelmingly blasphemous in intentions.

The quran tells that mohammad is an excellent pattern to follow. I know you free minders (or whatever else you like to call yourselves) try to portray this as meaning "excellent pattern to follow in prayer". But the verse says nothing of that sort and merely asks people to follow the example of mohammad if they hope in allah and the last day and remember allah often. So trying to pretend that quran does not set up mohammad while the hadiths do will not work.

[darth]

@CAT

I will reply to your arguments point by point but let me end this presentism crap that you use to defend islam.Quran itself condemns stealing so even by quranic standards stealing was not ok. If stealing was a norm during then quran wouldnt have condemned stealing.

Now all I have to do is turn the tables and show you how rubbish argument is. Quran judges people of the book in many aspects and says that they committed so and so sin so should I now say that quran engaged in the fallacy of presentism? If quran could judge people in the past then why cant we judge Muhammad after 1400 years ??

Excellent point.

I will remember that when I am arguing with other muslims....

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

When exactly is the earliest quran? Prove to us that the oral transference of koran before it was written down was in any way different from the way the hadiths were transmitted. Show us proof that the quranic verses were not made up by someone other than mohammad (say ayesha or aby bakr)

The earliest Koran we've got is the Sana'a manuscript, most probably itself a copy.

And I've shown above how its collection differed from the hadiths. That's exactly why there's no isnad...
Then we have absolutely NO testimony at all that the Koran came through somebody else. Not one at all.

First of all, do you accept the quran portraying mo in a bad light, but not hadith? Why? What is the difference? Show us that the quran is any more or any less believable than the hadith. Secondly, presentism is a logical fallacy only for historians, no one else.

Wrong: Presentism is a logical fallacy related to anachronistic morality and subjectivity, as opposed to absolutism/eternalism.

Was Socratic Greece depraved because pedophilia was the norm?

Yes.

Is Thomas Jefferson to be discredited because he bought slaves?

Yes.

So was Muhammad, a product of its time,

So was Jesus but he didn't go around invading everybody and slicing their heads off and sleeping with a little girl who played with dollies.

depicted as such in both Koran and hadiths. But the later portrays him as an all-time best
model, not so in the Koran where this leading model is rather Abraham and Jesus (3.59-60), whom Muhammad was ordered to follow.

What could you possibly be talking about?? It merely compares Jesus and Adam and never says for Muhammad to follow Jesus and Abraham. You're not stupid so you must be lying.
3:59. Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.
3:60. (This is) the truth from your Lord, so be not of the disputers.

Thus, the hadiths' very purpose is thoroughly un-Koranic, that is overwhelmingly blasphemous in intentions.

Why does it say to obey Allah AND his messenger rather than just say to obey Allah??
3:31. Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL
3:32. Say: Obey Allah and the Apostle; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers.
3:132. And obey Allah and the Apostle, that you may be shown mercy.
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.
4:59. O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.
4:69. And whoever obeys Allah and the Apostle, these are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed favors from among the prophets and the truthful and the martyrs and the good, and a goodly company are they!
4:80. Whoever obeys the Apostle, he indeed obeys Allah
5:92. And obey Allah and obey the apostle
8:1. They ask you about the windfalls. Say: The windfalls are for Allah and the Apostle.
8:20. O you who believe! obey Allah and His Apostle
8:46. And obey Allah and His Apostle
9:29. Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited.
9:71. ....and obey Allah and His Apostle; (as for) these, Allah will show mercy to them; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.


16:44. With clear arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect.

Where are we supposed to find Muhammad's additional explanations to make clear what has been revealed to them?? The hadiths.

22:78. ....that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people;.....
24:51. The response of the believers, when they are invited to Allah and His Apostle that he may judge between them, is only to say: We hear and we obey; and these it is that are the successful.
24:52. And he who obeys Allah and His Apostle, and fears Allah, and is careful of (his duty to) Him, these it is that are the achievers.

Muhammad is directly and specifically mentioned while Allah is only indirectly referenced. It's telling us to obey Muhammad and gain Allah's favor.
24:56. And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and obey the Apostle, so that mercy may be shown to you.
26:215. And be kind to him who follows you of the believers.
26:216. But if they disobey you, then say: Surely I am clear of what you do.
59:7....and whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah;....

How much clearer can this one be??
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.
Where do we get Muhammad's example from?? Certainly not the Quran.

46.9: Say: I am no new thing among the messengers, nor know I what will be done with
me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.

The hadiths only say that he was the best of messengers and while the Quran was claiming that Muhammad was merely a man that was to be followed, it said the same thing about Jesus.

5:75. The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.

Compared that to the tafsirs and hadiths: Tafsir of Ibn Khatir (on 9.28):
All Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him (!)

Once again, Kathir was spot on and as demonstrated, the Quran clearly supports this

.... 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.

In straight contradiction with:
41.43: Naught is said unto thee (Muhammad) save what was said unto the messengers before thee.

That's not contradictory at all, it merely says that other prophets have said similar things to what Muhammad is saying so that he can be associated with past prophets and be legitimate. Where do you get these crazy interpretations from??

Contrary to the Koranic injunctions, tafsirs and hadiths gave precedence to Muhammad, Bukhari 6.60.3:
...‘Go to Jesus, Allah's Slave, His Apostle and Allah's Word and a Spirit coming from Him. Jesus will say, ‘I am not
fit for this undertaking, go to Muhammad the Slave of Allah whose past and future sins were forgiven by Allah.’ …"

Which relates to 48.1-2:
Lo! We have given thee a signal victory, --That Allah MAY forgive thee of thy sin that which is past
and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path.

That Allah forgave his sins is far from connecting him with a role-model.

You really need to read the Quran.
68:4. And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.
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.

In 40.55, 47.19 and 48.2 the Arabic Dhanaba (sin, fault)
is any act having an evil result, from stealing to idolatry and murder. Yet Jesus was created sinless (19.19), a revelation by himself
(19.21) and a statement of the truth (19.34), created in the likeness of Adam (3.59).

According to the Quran, everybody is born sinless. There is no original sin because Allah forgave Adam and Eve.

More so, according to 2.124, Abraham is the ONE IMAM (Imāmāan) recognized for all humanity,

Which Abraham?? Abraham of the Bible or the Muslim Abraham of the Quran??

the covenant not including wrong-doers.
Thus, it can't include Muhammad! Let alone all those so-called Imam Shafi'i, Imam Bukhari, let alone Imam Muhammad!

Muhammadans must realize the perfid shirk-spiral into which they are led, beginning with the Shahada.
When the Koran states that the only 'religion' is that of Allah, it refers to the original meaning of 'religion':

It's referring to what Muhammad invented so that he can wedge his way into monotheism that he apparently admired and wanted for his fellow Arabs. It's pretty funny that he seeks to complete the religion of the Jews and Christians and yet writes the whole thing in Arabic, which just so happens to be HIS language and mostly the language of the pagans and not the language of the Christians and Jews.

The inner bond between man and the sacred. Nothing to do with nowadays sectarian confessions (30.31-32).

30.31-32:
So set thy purpose for religion as a man by nature upright - the nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created man.
There is no altering (the laws of) Allah's creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not -

--Turning unto Him (only); and be careful of your duty unto Him and establish worship (be hearty committed),
and be not of those who ascribe partners (unto Him, like Muhammadans do in the Shahada);

This is talking about pagans and Christians because Muhammad misunderstood Christian beliefs to be three Gods, the Father, the Son and the Mother rather than one triune God with three aspects or manifestations where one of them is the Holy Spirit.

5:72. Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.
5:73. Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.
5:75. The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.
5:116. And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.

It just boggles my mind to watch Muslims ignore such a clear and blatant error.

--Of those who split up their religion and became schismatics, each sect exulting in its tenets.

The hadiths nor the Shadaha split Islam up, an argument about who was to succeed Muhammad split it up. And they split up immediately and they were Quran only Muslims according to your story because there were no hadiths (which isn't true). Just because someone finally decided to compile them later, that doesn't mean they didn't exist and that they are inherently false. It's not my fault that Islam is a screwed up religion and that you need to ignore a very important half of it to MAKE it work for you. The whole religion is nonsense. Why can't you simply dump it rather than going through all these mental gymnastics to invent excuses for it??

[The Cat]

apostle

Only Asad turns 'rasul' (messenger) into 'apostle' which is rather a Christian term from the Greek apostolos, not the Semitic 'rasul'.
Translations of 3.32 for example: http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/32/default.htm

Messenger is the only correct translation for rasul according to Edward Lane's Lexicon, Vol. 3, Page 247:
"to send a messenger, bestow, let go. rasul (pl. rusul) - envoy, bearer of a message, messenger. risalat -
message, commission, mission, epistle. arsala (vb. 4) - to send. mursalat (pl. of mursalatun) - those sent forth."

But, tell me, didn't you once write that Mr. Asad was ''the most dishonest of all translators''?
http://www.forum09.faithfreedom.org/vie ... 245#p94245

Anyway, in terms of translators, Asad is the most dishonest of them all. for example, every translator that I'm aware of
agrees that 67:5 references flaming projectiles, but since this causes potential embarrassment, along comes Asad and
changes flaming projectiles into "futile guesses" and it's "Allah Kazam!!"

Another spinning of yours, if you remember the others like I do! There goes, once again, your credibility...

16.40: The Remembrance mentioned is not even the Koran. Muhammad is to explain to the 'followers of the Remembrance' (16.39)
and certainly not from his own example to follow some still uncreated hadiths! But thanks for the laugh

And 33.21 only says that he's a good example for whom who hopes and remember Allah well. Not to hope and remember Muhammad
through the hadiths, that's silly! 68.4 only emphasizes the same thing: He stood tall in facing adversity, relying on his commitment.

According to the Quran, everybody is born sinless. There is no original sin because Allah forgave Adam and Eve.

So what my old confused? It takes a will...

The hadiths nor the Shadaha split Islam up, an argument about who was to succeed Muhammad split it up.

You're confused as usual. Islam didn't split up in this political turmoil, it wasn't religious. They all hold to the same Koran.

Now, that Thomas Jefferson and the Socratic Greece are discredited since our morality changed is yours to uphold and prove!
Good luck with that

[The Cat]

Let me end this presentism crap that you use to defend islam.Quran itself condemns stealing so even by quranic standards stealing was not ok. If stealing was a norm during then quran wouldnt have condemned stealing.

Now all I have to do is turn the tables and show you how rubbish argument is. Quran judges people of the book in many aspects and says that they committed so and so sin so should I now say that quran engaged in the fallacy of presentism? If quran could judge people in the past then why cant we judge Muhammad after 1400 years ??

You seem to ignore that Presentism is based on a discontinuity in moral standards. Stealing as wrong is an accepted standard, according
to the Golden Rule and timelessly recognized as such. Once again, this shows that Muhammad can't be an all-time model, and the Koran is
the first to recognized Muhammad as a deviant... When there's an updated continuity, like stealing, Presentism does not apply.

The Koran condemns the people of the book for not respecting their own covenants, its continuity, which is something that hasn't change
up to now. Thus the presentism criteria doesn't apply, like it does in the case of slavery or pedophilia. It's on these criterias that we can't
judge Muhammad, no more than let's say Socrates or Thomas Jefferson. Presentism must rely on a societal change of mentality in values.
When there's break with the past, it does. Muhammad was a product of its customs, you can't judge it from nowadays values. Get it?