Page 15 of 24

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:55 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:Your arguments are not worth replying to start with but I will reply to them nonetheless....
As far Darth is concerned he has clearly refuted you and I agree with every single thing he has said here .

As I've said: when will you start in earnest then? Bullying bubbles as above won't do...

Now, ain't this lovely?... Snb is right because Darth says so; Darth is right because snb says so.
End of the arguments, started with a Poisoning the Well fallacy, ending with a circular reasoning!

skynightblaze wrote:If you are honest about 2:151 then really you are not fit for a debating forum.

Impressive. Snb, the master of logical fallacies, now defines 'honesty' + who's fit to debate or not!!!
viewtopic.php?p=154305#p154305
viewtopic.php?p=154433#p154433
Or else... up to fabricating testimonies in absentia!!!
viewtopic.php?p=154146#p154146

Who is portraying himself as unfit to debate?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:15 am
by darth
The Cat wrote:
darth wrote:You have managed to help Sky prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the quran could be as much of hearsay as the hadith.

Where? How? Bring proofs instead of blind assertions. This shows your thoroughly way of 'reasoning'.

Here is how it goes -
Person A makes assertions X1 but offers no proof for X1

In the absence of proof both X1 and the opposite of X1 are equally likely (simple probability).

In this case you assert that quran is authentic and that the hadiths are hearsay - but offer no evidence to this.
Sky asserts that both quran and hadith are hearsay . As evidence both you and Sky have shown that various quranic versions existed and a bunch of people got together to decide what was authentic and what was not. From Sky's posts we can infer that the process for authenticating the quranic verses was flawed. We can also see that there was nothing to prevent any of these people from making up their own verses or removing some verses. It was a case of "he said she said" stuff. There is no complete version of the quran attested to by mohammad (or gibreel).
On the other hand, there seems to have been more of a consistent process in collecting the hadiths.
From all this any reasonable person can only conclude that the quran is as much of a hearsay as the hadith.

Elementary, my dear " The Cat"
The Cat wrote:
darth wrote:without providing us the proofs we ask for, resorting to personal attacks makes you an idiot.

What does it make you then?

A very wise man that is giving you sound advice on what actions of yours would amount to idiocy. :whistling:

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:57 pm
by The Cat
darth wrote:you assert that quran is authentic and that the hadiths are hearsay - but offer no evidence to this.
Blind assertion again which, no surprise here, you can't substantiate. For it is plainly wrong. See below...

darth wrote:Sky asserts that both quran and hadith are hearsay .
And he contradicts himself since, on the other hand, he upheld the very authenticity of the hadiths.

darth wrote:As evidence both you and Sky have shown that various quranic versions existed and a bunch of people got together to decide what was authentic and what was not.
Wrong. Variations in different dialects existed but the standard was rendered in Muhammad's dialect, which is sound.

darth wrote:From Sky's posts we can infer that the process for authenticating the quranic verses was flawed. We can also see that there was nothing to prevent any of these people from making up their own verses or removing some verses.

Wrong. The authentification of the Koranic verses was sharp and conducted carefully by:
viewtopic.php?p=158918#p158918
viewtopic.php?p=159018#p159018
1) Umar
2) Hafsa codex (for basic, + anything written that was retracable).
3) Uthman
4) Zaid bin Thabit,
5) 'Abdullah bin Az Zubair,
6) Said bin Al-As and
7) 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham
Each and every verse being furthermore corroborated by 2 oral witnesses. That's even why Umar's stoning wasn't kept!
That a few (33.23, 9.128-129) maybe 'disputed', does NOT mar the rest.

darth wrote:We can also see that there was nothing to prevent any of these people from making up their own verses or removing some verses. It was a case of "he said she said" stuff. There is no complete version of the quran attested to by mohammad (or gibreel).

On the contrary, the collection of the Koran is not only the mutawatir document per excellence,
it's also the tawatur document per excellence, something so obvious that it cannot be contested.
The mutawatir & tawatur criterions also apply to the hadiths pertaining to the Koran's collection!

Now, the seven 'versions' refers to the Arabic word: Ahruf, from the root HARF, of which meaning isn't solely 'version'...

22.11: And among mankind is he who worshippeth Allah upon a narrow marge (Ĥarfin)
so that if good befalleth him he is content therewith, but if a trial befalleth him, he falleth
away utterly. He loseth both the world and the Hereafter. That is the sheer loss.


In the hadith context it meant the seven dialects by which the Koran was recited. This was
rightfully limited to Muhammad's own dialect, exactly to obliterate other 'narrow marges'...
More so, there was three different such readings (Qira'at) in the city of... Kufa alone!

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives ... he-quraan/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... /hafs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira'at
Qur'an continued to be read according to the seven ahruf until midway through Caliph 'Uthman's rule when some confusion arose
in the outlying provinces concerning the Qur'an's recitation. Some Arab tribes had begun to boast about the superiority of their
ahruf and a rivalry began to develop. At the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms of recitation out of
ignorance. Caliph 'Uthman decided to make official copies of the Qur'an according to the writing conventions of the Quraysh and
send them along with the Qur'anic reciters to the major centres of Islam. This decision was approved by Sahaabah and all unofficial
copies of the Qur'an were destroyed.
....

Thus, the Qur'an which is available throughout the world today is written and recited only according to the harf of Quraysh.

You'd have to prove here that this decision was met by violent uprisings, for it was most obviously sound and so accepted.

darth wrote:On the other hand, there seems to have been more of a consistent process in collecting the hadiths.
From all this any reasonable person can only conclude that the quran is as much of a hearsay as the hadith.

History proves you wrong. There was no authoritative hadiths for nearly 250 years, while the Koran was common usage from inception.
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8185
viewtopic.php?p=122489#p122489

So even the Chinese Whispers, which shatters the hadiths, can't apply to the Koran.
To challenge this, you'd have to prove me that it wasn't known by all the shahabas...
And that the final version was met by violent riots upon 'changing the words of God'.


The idiocy is plainly on your (and snb) denial of evidences. You're indulging into Conspiracy theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:45 pm
by The Cat
darth wrote:(Quoting 5.12 & 3.78)
Thus the "transgressions" are not related to "breaking of the covenant" as you claim.

Prove it. It states otherwise... In 5.12 we read: ''and believe in My messengers and support them''.
That's the Covenant: Believe in My messengers, support the Covenant/scriptures they brought. See?

darth wrote:Cultures and customs are the result of ideas/propositions/beliefs each of which can be separately examined to determine their validity. It seems very difficult for you to understand that I am not examining the behavior at all, but the thoughts/ideas behind it. The "presentism" excuse does not apply.

Wrong. Ideas and concepts are the result of cultures, customs and behavior. Not your other way around...

Ideas are, by definition, ABSTRACT concepts, images. Concepts reflect its environment, like that of a flat earth.
They aren't shaping cultures but a result from them, which in turn is completely sociological, thus behavioral.
You're into philosophy and metaphysics, not into the societal worlds.

To state that an idea creates things (propositions, thoughts) is entering into God's attribute, like ''Be and it is''!
You're into Plato and prescience, absolutism escaping Presentism by definition. Thus you're indulging into Eternalism!

darth wrote:Customs that exist inspite of the people of the culture knowing that custom as wrong is not a fit case for your "presentism" nonsense.

It's fallacious to state that they knew better. You're still well into... Presentism!

The Talion law in Bedouins' customs.
http://ilsjil.webege.com/ojs/index.php? ... h%5B%5D=11
Spoiler! :
The dominant feature in pre-Islamic Arabia was Bedouin tribalism. Social order was based on family ties, customs, and traditions. Given the importance of group solidarity for survival in such a harsh environment, the social unit was the group and not the individual. The most salient aspect of pre-Islamic law, and not surprising given its oral traditions, was its basis in customary law or the Sunnah. This customary law, handed down through generations, formed the basis of relations within a tribe. Criminal law in particular was dominated by ancient tribal custom.....

Because the tribal authorities exercised little power, responsibility for making good rested on the injured party. Blood feuds within and between tribes were the primary response to personal injury. Given deeply ingrained notions of collective responsibility, blood feuds could persist long after the initial act was perpetrated, and involved persons whose connections to the initial act were remote at best. Thus, blood feuds were almost unrestricted in scope and would often lead to outright warfare....

Islam’s treatment of criminal law was essentially the same as customary Bedouin law. The principle of lex talionis, along with the payment of blood money, played a central role. The clearest elucidation of this is found in Verse 45, Surrah 5 of the Quran.... The wording, almost identical to that found in the Old Testament, appears to be a classic statement of lex talionis. However, it is subsequently followed by a call for compassion: “but if any one remits to retaliation by a way of charity it is an act of atonement for himself and if any fails to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed they are no better then the wrongdoers.” This was also supplemented with demands for equality and possibility of compensation in lieu of vengeance (quoting 2.178... Note:5.45 says this is FOR THEM, ie. Jews)....

The insistence on parity in the Quran was a significant step away from customary Arab law. By uniformly evaluating the lives of all men as well as all women and even slaves, the new Islamic ethic was moving toward a principle of social equality, an important and necessary component and for the creation of the modern and just legal system. Social rank and tribal strength were no longer the determinants for punishment or compensation. Additionally, the wording of the Quranic phrase “to grant any reasonable demand” displays a clear preference for compensation instead of retaliation. Contrary to tribal custom, and echoing the evolution found in the Judaic tradition, retaliation was limited only to the wrongdoer.....
.

The nomads, Hebrews or Bedouins, only acknowledged the Talion Law as their law (Ex.21.24 +). So the Torah only recognized the freeing
of a slave to escape the same Talion Law: ''And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let
him go free for his eye's sake'' (21.26). We're far from the Koranic injunctions to treat slaves just as well as weak persons.

And it's not white washing the Koran to recognize what's plainly there!
5.45: And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear,
and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. --But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him.


darth wrote:People of the 7th century thought earth was flat. This idea is plain wrong and can be proven..... People of the 7th century thought it was okay to have sex with underage girls. This idea is plain wrong and can be proven medically today. Simply because they did not have the medical knowledge does not mean it was okay (it simply means that they were wrong)
and so on... (In other words your presentism rubbish is only applicable in recording of history).

"Social darwinism" was not a thought/idea/proposition?

Answered right above under 'Cultures and Customs'. SD was a rewording of the tribal -survival for the fittest-. So racism itself is tribal.

Was the old medical knowledge wrong? Only by our standards. Twist it as much as you want,
the moment you're into condemning without consideration for the context is... Presentism.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/presentism
The application of contemporary perspectives in explaining past events rather than placing these events in their historical context.

darth wrote:Actually the quran you are defending is a figment of your imagination.

I guess that's your Sunnite's eluding. Your way of saying ''I don't know'' to:
1. What is the Koranic 'Din'?
2. What is the Koranic al-Islam?
3. What is the Koranic 'Shariah'
4. Who is a Koranic 'Muslim'?

How could be Jesus' disciples Muslims (5.111)? Do you think they knew the Shahada?

darth wrote:Your contention that GR was only an intra tribal thing is utter gibberish.

You got me wrong: Either the Golden Rule is universal or it is not the GR. It's not navel-gazing. Get it?

Leviticus 19.18:
--Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of
thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.


Clearly 'neighbor' refers solely to 'thy people', excluding anyone else.

Jesus rightfully corrected this absurd so-called GR...
5.43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy....

Luke 6.31-32: And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if
ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.


darth wrote:1) You have not shown us why ideas cannot be tested with logic, facts and science. You have not shown me how "presentism" can be applied to the evaluation of any idea
2) You have not shown us how attacks on people of the book that lived in the past on matters unconnected with this so called "covenant" shows "continuity". You have not shown us how the breaking of "covenants" in the quran is an example of this "continuity"
3) You claim that mo's actions can be judged as "wrong" only if the contemporaries of mo thought it wrong. But then quran gives us evidence of this in the case of mo's hots for zaid's wife. That verse shows beyond a reasonable doubt the mo would have been considered a womanizer and the quran allows him to be one.
4) You have managed to help Sky prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the quran could be as much of hearsay as the hadith. It seems to all boil down to which set of 7th century pirates would you believe. I am now completely convinced that many of the verses could have been made up by guys other than mo.

1) Testing past concepts with present value or 'science' is Presentism. See definition...

2) Continuity is keeping the Covenant (5.45-48), even Muhammad is asked to judge through it.

3) Indeed the Koran doesn't portray him as a role model, except in ''looking forward unto God''.

4) Your conspiration theory isn't holding any water in face of the hundred of testimonies we have.
You failed to bring -one single testimony- to support your wild and erratic assertion...

In short, you're seeing -everything- through the wrong side of your binoculars.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:39 pm
by darth
The Cat wrote:Each and every verse being furthermore corroborated by 2 oral witnesses. That's even why Umar's stoning wasn't kept!
That a few (33.23, 9.128-129) maybe 'disputed', does NOT mar the rest.

This basically amounts to a bunch of people getting together and deciding what should be kept and what should not. I don't care if one is disputed or 10. You have basically agreed that something was removed. There could have been others too. Additionally, there is nothing to show that any of these people did not insert their own verses. The bottom line is the final version was not authenticated by mo (as the original author or gibreel his sidekick). Two oral witnesses do not add any extra authenticity, especially if the two oral traditions too were based on an unauthentic account. All that someone had to do was claim to have heard the verse from mo (sometime mo was unconsious when it happened, and the people around recorded his blabberings) and it could have been recorded. After that it could have become part of the oral traditions.

The Cat wrote:You'd have to prove here that this decision was met by violent uprisings, for it was most obviously sound and so accepted.

What nonsense. One does not have to riot to disagree. See, you and I are disagreeing without rioting. As Sky has shown some people still continued to use their own versions until all extra versions were destroyed. Also it may have been accepted not because it was sound but because those people did not have any other choice....

The Cat wrote:So even the Chinese Whispers, which shatters the hadiths, can't apply to the Koran.

The quran itself is a bunch of chinese whispers. Some verses mo may have made up, some may the people around mo could have made up and attributed it to mo in his state of unconsiousness. The possibilities are many. Bottom line, quran is as much of hearsay as hadiths

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:19 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:I'll answer this last one first as it is fresh....

skynightblaze wrote:You reject the ahadith when it doesn't support your point but you accept them immediately when they support your case.

Rectification: I reject religious law-binding hadiths, as in the Shariah, but always maintained that those of historic interest are to be judged on their own values. That's why, here, I hold Uthman's decision to make the most of sense.


The only judgment that you have shown here is pick the ahadith that may support your position and reject those which don’t. That’s not called judging based on values or history. You simply dismiss ahadith which dont support your cause as unreliable or forged without providing proofs.

The Cat wrote:Similarly, I reject those 7 versions because the Koran must have been revealed in Muhammad's own dialect, that of al-Qura.Same goes about that Masud/Ka'ab thing, only translating partisan dissensions.


Here both you and I have made a mistake. Uthman is said to have standardized written copies of texts and not ways of recitation. Differences in the recitation wouldn’t be seen in the written texts so asking people to write quran in a dialect of quraish doesn’t really vouch for the content of the quran.

The ahadith which say that Ubai, Masud etc were best of teachers of quran is also of historical importance.Now you merely dismiss them based on stupid unproven assertion that they were corrupted in Kufa. You provide no evidence of that. More ever if we use logic then we can clearly see that if it was a fabrication from Kufa they would have glorified Ibn Masud alone and not others like Ubai and others who didn’t belong to Kufa. This further strengthens the case for the ahadith being reliable. You have failed to provide any evidence as to this ahadith shouldn’t be trusted.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:The moment you change the sequence you lose that flow and power of the message is lost.


It's true that the flow is lost but it doesn't affect the message. And since 5.3 states that Islam as a religion is completed then all
the better. It means that what follows can't be law-binding but understood contextually. It means that verses like the dreaded
9.5 for example can't supersede any verse before 5.3, as per the abrogation theory, which is then furthermore garbaged.


You don’t understand the seriousness of difficulty that you quran alone arseholes have painted into . IF you say quran alone is the reliable book then you cant say that only chapter 9 was revealed after chapter 5 because we know this from books other than quran. Quran doesn’t mention anything of that sort and hence going by 5:3 the entire quran after 5:3 is not to be taken literally. If you are a quran alone muslim then it means only first five chapters are reliable and that’s what the present day quran should be. Lo quran of today is only 5 chapters and muslims have been lead astray by following verses which are not meant for them! 95% of the content or message of the quran needs to be dismissed if you claim order is not important.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Sadly for you its indeed mutawatir i.e we have narrators for this at each level .

If truly so then how come Umar was interdicted to put it from the lack of enough corroborations (hey only 2 !!)?


Because that critieria was never followed as I have showed you 3 evidences where the criteria wasn’t followed. You cant claim that there were no testimonies. We have evidence of testimonies. Even Muwatta malik which you consider reliable includes it and hence the conclusion is Umar didn’t put in the quran inspite of so many people attesting to it and not the other way round I,e there was no evidence of verses of stoning.

Now the only question is why didn’t Umar put in the quran??? AS per Malik Muwatta Its clear that this verse of stoning satisfied the criteria of more than 2 witnesses but yet there seems to be many people who disagreed with it so we have a case here where 20 people attest to something and an equal or more amount of people not attesting to it! It clearly shows that 2 witness test cannot be a full proof test and hence quran is unreliable. Lo Appeal to Popularity is the fallacy that quran engaged in!

More ever you quoted from wikipedia that 2 witnesses were used to collect the quran. Wikipedia is not a primary source. The primary source for that information is not quran but something other than quran which you reject. So please search for that primary source and quote it here so that we can study how authentic it is.

The Cat wrote:As I've said the mutawatir type is just a first degree of selection, which by itself invalidate 95%
of all the hadiths. Then again, the final criterion must accord with the Koran. This one doesn't.


If Mutawatir type is just a first degree of selection then how can quran be of indisputable origin especially when you claim that its a mutawatir ?? You need to apply the same logic to quran as well.You are inconsistent in your logic. You really a need a book on logical thinking. You claim quran is reliable because its mutawatir type but when it comes to mutawatir ahadith you claim that’s only the first degree of selection. Do you see the double standards?


The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:If quran was standardized by these 7 people then why wasn’t it released into the public?

You should be aware of the complexity of editing a book back then. To give you an idea, one single manuscript could worth 50,000 camels.
So even when governor al-Hajjaj brought all the copies to add the dots, in 710, only a pocketful of them were still in existence, maybe 5 or
6 I think. And it took 'an army of scribes' to get it done for even copying was a task requiring years.


Whether Umar or Uthman ,both would take the same amount of time to complete the task so this cant be the reason as to why Umar would deny doing that . Someone or the other had to do it and hence Umar would have done what Uthaman did right in his time if he was damn sure about the reliability of his copy.The fact that he didn’t shows that his version was one of the few versions that existed during his time with other versions also having an equal importance.

Now Umar clearly knew that there were copies of quran that varied with Zaid and if Umar and Zaid’s copy was the only reliable copy then we must question the character of Umar here.Inspite of knowing that others are lead astray by other versions of quran which were unreliable Umar hide his standard/reliable copy.How can we trust such a man for his quranic copy who wasn't even bothered whether muslim Umma is lead astray or not??

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:30 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Malik Muwatta mainly includes legal traditions and not the sunnah of muhammad and Bukhari wanted to collect the history of Muhammad and islam .Two authors had different aims and hence the differences. Its not that Bukhari and Malik were collecting the same thing i,e history of islam.

It says that up to the time of Malik, the importance of Muhammad wasn't clearly established or else that his interdiction of written down hadiths has been respected.


Obviously Malik has written about Muhammad too . If Muhammad had prohibited writing down of ahadith then Malik wouldn’t write a single hadith.Malik didn’t write too much about islam and muhammad but nevertheless a good amount of his work focuses on islam and muhammad which bukhari has included in his work so its not true that writing down of ahadith was prohibited. To add to your misery we have around 60 odd books of ahadith written before Bukhari compiled his collection so clearly writing down of ahadith command was abrogated later.

The Cat wrote:Now, tell me who authorized Bukhari? Tell me how the former 138 hadiths of Hurairah multiplied into more than 5000?


Bukhari had access to ahadith from 1st century hijri and 2nd century hijri as well and hence it wouldn’t be difficult for him to find 5000 narrations from Abu Huraira apart from 138 narrations in the sole book of Abu Huraira.

The Cat wrote:Does Bukhari explained his sources thouroughly as any scholar should do, especially after a break of 2 hundreds years?


Please stop repeating the same idiotic arguments again and again. The link below quotes a total of around 60 books that preceded before Bukhari and hence its not that Bukhari pulled things out of his arse after 200 years. I have quoted previous even Gibril Haddid who quoted the names of ahadith in existence before Bukhari.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refut ... nreliable_

Now the author of this article is an idiot but he has copied some stuff from some else so I don’t mind quoting him.

Btw after a break of 200 years didn’t prevent us from knowing what Napolean did and said. After a break of almost 400 years didn’t prevent us from knowing what Nostradamus said in his writings.! Bukhari’s task wasn’t an impossibility as you like to show everyone here.Its very much replicable especially when you have so much of material with you.

The Cat wrote:He said it would be too lenghty and you grab that! Who said Bukhari was sound? Muhammad maybe? No, just some from the Abbasid forgery mill.


Ofcourse what Bukhari said was true. Let me prove it to you …Read the chart carefully in the link below.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/exisnad.html

The chart shows how the hadith was transmitted. It starts from the companions of Muhammad relating to their pupils and these pupils further relating it to their pupils and so on until we reach the time of Bukhari .
This is how the chain of narrations multiplied. Now the question is how do we know that in between any person in the long chain didn’t lie??? Here is a simple test to determine that….

Now even if one of the transmitters after the companions of Muhammad lied then we would have completely different stories transmitting through the parallel chains. That is the case with many ahadith and we can reject them but there are some ahadith which consistently report the same thing and we can trust them especially the ones mentioning the crimes of Muhammad for e.g stoning, killing apostates etc .

Its very simple to judge a hadith by this logic. Just one discrepancy in the ahadith would tell us that someone somewhere in the chain lied or forgot or didn’t report it properly! This way we can trace back the isnad of ahadith to the companions of Muhammad. More ever the pupils in the chain dont belong to the same place. They belong to different countries and hence people cant collaborate a lie on such a large scale.

The question here is what if companions of Muhammad didn‘t report it correct in the first place? This question is obvious after seeing the confusion of companions of Muhammad with respect to collection of quran. In that case not only ahadith but quran also becomes reliable because we cant trust the companions even with respect to quran and so ahadith are equally reliable as quran. If quran is reliable then so is ahadith or else both are gibberish.


The Cat wrote:Finally, prove me that Muhammad REALLY said this and done that, as in Bukhari and al.
Now may I remind you that reports about his year of birth varied. Oh these Chinese Whispers!


I have proven above that they can be traced back to companions of Muhammmad if not Muhammad. What you say applies to quran as well. Prove to us that the verses reported by companions of Muhammad really came from Muhammad. If you trust the companions of Muhammad you need to trust ahadith because they can be traced back to companions of Muhammad as proven above.

The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
skynightblaze wrote:Obey the messenger is same as saying obey muhammad..... if Muhammad was deviant then why in the world should anyone trust him on his claim that he was the messenger of GOd?


Even if you were to obey Muhammad, then there shouldn't be the hadiths for he interdicted their writing down. Those stating the contrary came much later, of course to legitimize the lese-majesty. The proof of this is that we've got not one single hadiths before around 750, and it took much more time for them to reach any authoritativeness. The simple fact that they only started to be authoritative -200 years- after the prophet clearly underlines that.


Repeating gibberish wont help you. I have shown above that plenty of ahadith existed before Muhammads time which should be enough to dismiss your idiocy . More ever this quote only proves that you lack common sense. IF Muhammad interdicted writing down of ahadith and ahadith were fabricated completely then why would the same fabricators keep the ahadith that say writing down of ahadith is prohibited? Wouldn’t they remove those ahadith from their collections? Its common sense that a fabricator would make sure to remove those things that expose them.

Also don’t tell me like an idiot that these ahadith books before Bukhari don’t have manuscripts. Neither do we have manuscript for every single verse of the quran today .

The Cat wrote:2) That a simple, erring, human was chosen also triggered much resentment at the time.
Still the Koran confirms Muhammad and hundreds of first hand testimonies...


In case of stoning 20 people attested the fact while more than 20 opposed . Is this what you call a game of testimonies? More ever quran is depending on the fallacy of ad populum here .Multiple people can be wrong and its not a hard and fast solution to reliability therefore I maintain that if ahadith are unreliable then so is quran.They both are dependent on each other.

The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
skynightblaze wrote:Show me where in the world does 2:151 talk about people of the book?? ....
Scripture would mean quran and new things i.e the sayings of muhammad.

You're embarassing yourself, but what else is new?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book
People of the Book (Arabic: أهل الكتاب‎ ‎ ′Ahl al-Kitāb) is a term used to designate non-Muslim adherents to faiths
which have a revealed scripture called, in Arabic, Al-Kitab (Arabic: الكتاب ‎ "the Book" or "the Scripture"). Scripture in 2.151 is written 'Al-Kitāb' thus refers to the People of the Book, called Ahl al-Kitāb. So it refers to them whom, according to 5.45-49, the prophet had to settle inner disputes.In 6.90 and 10.94 Muhammad is even asked to follow their guidance, not his own... theirs
10.94: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee,
then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from
thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
Then, most obviously, the 'new thing' in town was the Koran, still being delivered. See? !



I didn’t you were such a blatant fool! So quran asks Muhammad to refer to the people of the book who followed the corrupt teachings instead of asking Muhammad to refer back the matter to Allah? I thought you always claimed that word of Allah was final .

The verse says AL kitab which means the book as far as I know.The transliteration in arabic shows Al Kitab and not AHL AL Kitab which would be "people of the book".

2.151
. A similar (favour have ye already received) in that We have sent among you an Messenger of your own, rehearsing to you Our Signs, and sanctifying you, and instructing you in Scripture and Wisdom, and in new knowledge.

Anyone reading the verse can see that it not saying “People of the book”” but it saying “The Book”. More translations of the same verse can be found in the link below and I think people are smart enough to see that you are playing Taqiyya here.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/c ... &B1=Search


The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:In case of a king sending a sealed message to a vassal we know the king exist but in case of Muhammad we cant 100% be sure that Allah has sent a message with Muhammad.

Like it or not the Koran confirms Muhammad. And that the revelations came through Gabriel. You are much welcome
to disbelieve the Gabriel part, but myths are the natural language of the religious truth. By definition the Unseen, how
one feels it, the experience of it, isn't under the grasp of reason. It's called Faith...


If its all about having faith then why reason whether ahadith are true or not. The messenger becomes important because there is no seal or stamp of he being authority or really from God.If he was a fraud then quran is also a fraud and hence the character of Muhammad is very much important. If your argument is it’s a matter of faith then same can be said about ahadith too.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Can anyone become a muslim without believing muhammad as a prophet?

Why then is the Koran mentions Abraham as a Muslim (3.67) or the disciples of Jesus (5.111)?
Do you think they had to recite the Shahada even before it existed?


When quran said that it was obviously lying. Jesus was never given a gospel to start with. Abraham never travelled to Mecca to start with and hence they weren't muslims to start with so there was no question of they ever requiring to take Shahada. Their religion was definitely not islam and hence there was no need for any shahada but to become a muslim one has to believe in the quran which means believing or considering Muhammad as a legitimate person and trusting him on his claim that he is the messenger of God who honestly brings message from God and hence one cant be a muslim without believing in muhammad.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Even if there exist some verses which say Allah alone should be followed there are counter verses which say Muhammad should be followed and hence following Muhammad is also a part of Allah's sunnah.

Where is it written to follow Muhammad? It would be ludicrous since he himself was commanded
to follow Abraham (2.130; 4.125) and guidance from the People of the Book (6.90;10.94). See?


IT said follow the messenger which means Follow Muhammad. It asked Muhammad to follow Abraham and it
asked Muslims to follow Muhammmad.

Quran also tells us that he is an instructor and he is supposed to explain quran so if quran claims that Muhammad cannot guide people then we have a contradiction here . The reason for contradiction is obvious I,e, muhammad uttering quran as per his needs .

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:36 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:your quote says that raiding and stealing OUTSIDE THE TRIBE was not a crime BUT NOT INSIDE IT!

Can't you read? It says (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.
''

So razzias and ghazwas were customary for desert Bedouins


Why is anyone supposed to trust Reza Aslan?? He is a muslim who doesn’t provide proof to back his claims. HE claimed that having women or slaves was a matter of death or survival. You failed to substantiate that. Where are factual proofs of what he claims???

Muhammad was born into a pagan tribe and he betrayed his own tribe by forming another tribe and hence Muhammad looting his tribe is an act that was against the tribe which was unacceptable even as per your idiotic scholar. More ever even your own quran refutes this bullsh!tter! Quran condemns stealing and stealing is a part of Ghazwa and hence even as per quranic standards you are refuted !

Lastly jews and christians could live peacefully with the pagans for centuries before without any conflict. Your link is as bogus as you . You are playing taqiyya here MR Conman

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Now Muhammad was a pagan and he stole the pagan wealth SO basically Muhammad looted i.e. a discontinuity and WITHING HIS OWN TRIBE and NOT OUTSIDE HIS TRIBE.


You'd have to explain how looting pagans could be performed within his own tribe since his tribe became that of Allah.


Muhammad claimed to receive revelations at the age of 40 and till that time he was a clear cut pagan and he was born into a pagan tribe and hence suddenly at the age of 40 he starts attacking the pagans and looting them. This is betraying your own tribe. Now going by your idiotic logic all one has to do is form a new tribe and attack his former tribe and claim that he was never a part of that tribe.! Really your fans need to give a thought again and read your posts here and revise their views.

The CAT wrote:
Spoiler! :
skynightblaze wrote:If Golden rule was timelessly recognized then it was present even during Muhammads time and hence by the virtue of Golden rule Muhamamd can be condemned for stealing.

Oh that damn reading again... and then more bullying bubbles!
To 'darth': The GR wasn't in effect in the time of Muhammad's Bedouins.
To 'sum': The GR was reserved within the tribe, not applying outside.

By virtue of his own tribal customs he wasn't 'stealing'. Get it now? Read again Reza Aslan...


Reza Aslan is no authority on the subject. He is obviously bullshitting! Even by your stupid scholar Muhammad was a thief because he attacked his own tribe and what’s more Quran also condemns looting!

The CAT wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Nevertheless quran itself claims stealing is bad and hence quran by its own standards refutes the conduct of Muhammad as unacceptable. Btw if Muhammad was deviant then there is no reason as to why anyone should believe that he didnt deviate while dictating revelations of quran. CASE closed! Lo quran is unreliable


Aren't you the one you said: ''Since the hadiths portray Muhammad in bad light, they must be true.'' If the Koran would depict him as a
perfect example, you'd have a point. But it depicts him as a deviant, only exemplary through his redemptive trust in God (33.21).


33:21 clearly says there is an example in Muhammad. It doesn’t say Muhammad is supposed to be seen through his redemptive trust in God. Enough of Taqiyaa MR CONMAN!

The CAT wrote:So the prophet was himself ordered to follow the examples set forth by the former prophets, mainly the Din/Millata of Abraham. 6.161: Say: Lo! As for me, my Lord hath guided me unto a straight path, a right religion, the community of Abraham, the upright, who was no idolater.
Yet Abraham didn't have the Torah, Gospel or... Koran, which means that even those books aren't necessary for the perfected.


Whom Muhammad follows is least important. Its not that if Muhammad was commanded to follow Abraham muslims cannot be asked to follow Muhammad. Establishing such a shitty logic can only be your creation.

The CAT wrote:
Spoiler! :
skynightblaze wrote:Quran mocks the ways of their forefathers and hence quran essentially judged the the ways of forefathers of people to whom the new prophet was sent by the new standard each prophet was supposed to set i.e discontinuity in standards and hence quran can be accused of engaging in a fallacy of presentism.


That spurious reading again:
I've wrote...
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.So the Koran condemns the People of the Book for inventing things outside their sacred books:
5.13: And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change wordsfrom their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery fromall save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly.5.14: And with those who say: "Lo! we are Christians," We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished.
Therefor We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork.

Thing is though that the Muhammadans of Bukhari and al made exactly the same discontinuity.
Thus they are cursed too, ie. God's Grace has been taken away from them, leaving only hatred.
Sectarian enmity and hatred being Allah's curse...



Darth has already answered you. The people of the book are not just accused for breaking the convenant but also for deception, forgeries etc and hence quran is engaged in presentism.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:44 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:1) Repeating:
--Why didn't Ali upheld Masud's which would have been a good political move?
The fact that he didn't uphold either his own or Masud's version talks volume.


The same question can be asked as to why Umar and Ali not taking action for 20 long years when Masud and Ubai’s texts were becoming famous? Why didn't they take action if they knew that these texts were lies and they had the reliable copy with them?? Even this speaks volumes. Ali and others had no choice but to accept the decree of Uthman.

The Cat wrote:2) a. Answering muslims wrote:
a. Ibn Masud had 111 chapters in his Quran, leaving out chapters 1, 113, and 114. He considered these to be prayers revealed by God
for the benefit of Muslims, but not surahs intended for the Quran. (As a side note, Ubay ibn Kab included these 3 surahs in his codex....


b. when the copy of Zaid's text arrived for promulgation at Kufa as the standard text,
the majority of Muslims there still adhered to Ibn Mas'ud's text.

A-- Exactly like I've said his memory couldn't be trusted anymore. Maybe it was reliable still for Muhammad (?), but much memory is lost
with old age. More so he wasn't a Quraysh (but a Huzail) and the Koran collaged in the al-Qura dialect was the rightful and final criterion.



Were you present in 6th century drama when all this was happening? How come we don’t see a single report mentioning anything about his faulty memory. The link from answering islam said that he deliberately didn’t include those verses and not that he forgot them. You haven’t shown a single proof to prove that his memory was faulty.

The Cat wrote:
B-- Of course the people of Kufa, when the standard arrived, were still adhering to what they had. But we hear of no uprising or riots to challenge the switch. And Masud would have hidden his codex,to the price of their life, instead of giving it to Uthman like they all did.
That would be in line with 2.79 and 2.159-160! IF, IF the standard was incorrect. This talks volumes too!


The fact that people of Kufa still followed Masud;s version is a proof that people didn’t completely give up his copy which means there must be some copies of Masud’s text even after Masud was forced to give them up. There must have been a few copies of Masud but they would be destroyed. Its been 1400 long years and muslims have taken care of destroying every single copy that conflicted with quran of Thabit so there is no way his copy would survive the test of time.

The Cat wrote:3) He wasn't a Quraysh and often memory fails with old age. B.6.61.525 doesn't even recognized him as a scribe.


BUt the same Bukhari acknowledges of his text somewhere else for e.g Masud criticizing Thabits quran so this would acknowledge Masud also being a writer of quran. Btw your quote recognizes Ubai who too disagreed with Thabits quran so the problem doesnt vanish. Even Sahih muslim acknowledges Masud's copy a there is ahadith which says that Masud refused to hand over his copy of quran to Uthman.

The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
4) You always refer to the Thabit's codex, still Muhammad's PRIMARY scribe, while it was a full-fledged committee. Again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an
1) Umar
2) Hafsa codex (for basic, + anything written that was retracable).
3) Uthman
4) Zaid bin Thabit,
5) 'Abdullah bin Az Zubair,
6) Said bin Al-As and
7) 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham
Each and every verse being furthermore corroborated by 2 oral witnesses. That's even why Umar's stoning wasn't kept!
That a few (33.23, 9.128-129) maybe disputed, it does NOT mar the rest.




I have already shown that such a criteria wasn’t followed. Now let’s get to your primary source you charlatan. What is the primary source for this argument? Let us see which Islamic scripture backs this?? Wikipedia is a secondary source and not primary. The primary source for this argument is definitely not quran but books other than the quran which you call as corrupt. So please bring the primary source backing this claim so that we can decide whether its authentic or not applying your own standards.

The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
skynightblaze wrote:I am not accusing Uthaman for corrupting the quran with malicious intentions. What I am saying he made a mistake of selecting the wrong source for compiling the quran just like Umar. The fact that Uthamanic quran was dismissed by others is a sufficient proof

That reading problem still... So read again since it disproves your allegation, before you even made them!

Had the text he promulgated been less than 100% reliable his opponents would have made it an issue and accused him of changing
the word of God. But the fact is that these opponents accused him of many things but we do not have any tradition, certainly not
an early reliable one, in which they accuse him of changing the word of God...

No uprising, no riots or bloodshed on this issue, from the otherwise overreacting Muslims for much, much less than this.



I don’t know of any blood shed but his opponents did accuse the Thabits quran. I have shown plenty of proofs for that. The claim that there exists no tradition accusing Uthman of changing Gods word is false. IBn Masud and Ubai both criticized the quran of Thabit.Certainly there was a discontent between people because of uthamic quran.




The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:O father of Quranites! Thou should stop posting gibberish here from muslim sites.

Now think how this backfires at you. Relying on Western studies you'd know by now that your cherished hadiths are garbage.
So far, you've been the Sunnite's parrot in ALL of our debates, dismissing ALL studies debunking hadiths to rely on... Bukhari!

Now, all you have in defense of Masud are so a pocketful of partisan hadiths from Kufa... known for both forgery and extremism!


You haven’t provided a single evidence other than making stupid claims like they were forgers . As I said previously if those ahadith are forged from Kufa then they wouldn’t take Ubai or Abu Musa;s name in that list of reliable teachers of quran list.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:05 am
by The Cat
darth wrote:This basically amounts to a bunch of people getting together and deciding what should be kept and what should not. I don't care if one is disputed or 10. You have basically agreed that something was removed.

The Quraysh dialect was rightfully kept, for that was Muhammad's own, other 6 dialects dismissed so to end the spreading of confusion.

darth wrote:Two oral witnesses do not add any extra authenticity

It's requested by 2.282; 5.106; 65.2. And yes, it adds authenticity for Umar's stoning verse was dismissed upon this alone!

darth wrote:One does not have to riot to disagree. See, you and I are disagreeing without rioting.

There would have been riots and bloodshed, if not civil war, about any changing unto the words of God. There wasn't...
2.79: woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase
a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.


darth wrote:The quran itself is a bunch of chinese whispers.... Some verses mo may have made up

'May have' never made a proof. We've got no testimony to such effect but a whole truck to the contrary.

You ain't disproving anything I brought, just upholding your conspiracy theory. :sleeping:

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:19 am
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:Where are factual proofs of what he claims???

Razzias and ghazwas were customary for desert Bedouins, before and after Muhammad. Learn historical sociology...

skynightblaze wrote:Uthman is said to have standardized written copies of texts and not ways of recitation. Differences in the recitation wouldn’t be seen in the written texts so asking people to write quran in a dialect of quraish doesn’t really vouch for the content of the quran.

That's what is meant by the seven Ahruf (version), seven different dialects.

skynightblaze wrote: The ahadith which say that Ubai, Masud etc were best of teachers of quran is also of historical importance.Now you merely dismiss them based on stupid unproven assertion that they were corrupted in Kufa. You provide no evidence of that.

Yes I did
viewtopic.php?p=158918#p158918
viewtopic.php?p=159018#p159018

skynightblaze wrote:Lo quran of today is only 5 chapters and muslims have been lead astray by following verses which are not meant for them! 95% of the content or message of the quran needs to be dismissed if you claim order is not important.

Wrong. Chapter 5 is the 112th sura.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/chrono.htm

skynightblaze wrote:Now the only question is why didn’t Umar put in the quran??? AS per Malik Muwatta Its clear that this verse of stoning satisfied the criteria of more than 2 witnesses.... More ever you quoted from wikipedia that 2 witnesses were used to collect the quran. Wikipedia is not a primary source.

Already answered. That's why Umar stoning wasn't kept, from the lack of 2 testimonies.
viewtopic.php?p=159018#p159018

That reading problem AGAIN: answered in the same post! My source ain't wikipedia but the Koran (2.282; 5.106; 65.2), .

skynightblaze wrote:You claim quran is reliable because its mutawatir type but when it comes to mutawatir ahadith you claim that’s only the first degree of selection. Do you see the double standards?

I've written:
As I've said the mutawatir type is just a first degree of selection, which by itself invalidate 95%
of all the hadiths. Then again, the final criterion must accord with the Koran. This one doesn't.


To state why Umar's stoning wasn't kept. Then again, the Koran is ALSO tawatur.
See the item, and the links, in my answers to Darth.


skynightblaze wrote:if Umar and Zaid’s copy was the only reliable copy then we must question the character of Umar here.

And this was -again- answered... (point 4).
viewtopic.php?p=159018#p159018

skynightblaze wrote:jews and christians could live peacefully with the pagans for centuries before without any conflict.

You are null as far as history is concern. Learn about Jerusalem or Yemen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... _of_Najran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem
Sassanid Generals Shahrbaraz and Shahin attacked the Byzantine-controlled city of Jerusalem (Persian: Dej Houdkh). They were aided
by the Jews of Palestine, who had risen up against the Byzantines. In the Siege of Jerusalem (614), after 21 days of relentless siege
warfare, Jerusalem was captured. The Byzantine chronicles relate that the Sassanid army and the Jews slaughtered tens of thousands
of Christians in the city...


skynightblaze wrote:he was a clear cut pagan and he was born into a pagan tribe and hence suddenly at the age of 40 he starts attacking the pagans and looting them. This is betraying your own tribe.

He was expelled from this very tribe, remember. His became that of Allah in Medina.

skynightblaze wrote:33:21 clearly says there is an example in Muhammad. It doesn’t say Muhammad is supposed to be seen through his redemptive trust in God. Enough of Taqiyaa MR CONMAN!

33.21: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him
who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.


In a far twisted logic, a good example for him who looketh unto Allah, remembering Him much
BECOMES... Look for the Siras, the Tafsirs, the Hadiths and Muhammad's Sunna!!!

skynightblaze wrote:Whom Muhammad follows is least important. Its not that if Muhammad was commanded to follow Abraham muslims cannot be asked to follow Muhammad. Establishing such a shitty logic can only be your creation.

Not at all. It's plainly in the Koran.
16.123: And afterward We inspired thee (Muhammad, saying): Follow the
religion of Abraham, as one by nature upright. He was not of the idolaters.


So why follow Muhammad, himself ordered to follow Abraham?
That's the shitty logic of the Sunnites you keep parroting.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:27 am
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:Ali and others had no choice but to accept the decree of Uthman.

Wrong. In the case of changing the words of God, they wouldn't have the choice but to fight (2.159-160)!


skynightblaze wrote:The fact that people of Kufa still followed Masud;s version is a proof that people didn’t completely give up his copy which means there must be some copies of Masud’s text even after Masud was forced to give them up..... Even Sahih muslim acknowledges Masud's copy a there is ahadith which says that Masud refused to hand over his copy of quran to Uthman....You haven’t provided a single evidence other than making stupid claims like they were forgers .

I did answer, end of point 4.
viewtopic.php?p=159018#p159018

skynightblaze wrote:Wikipedia is a secondary source and not primary. The primary source for this argument is definitely not quran

Check the wiki article (which you wrongly c/p) and see the references it gives.

skynightblaze wrote:I don’t know of any blood shed but his opponents did accuse the Thabits quran.

Thanks for acknowledging that there was no bloodshed, which would have happened in the case of changing the words of God.
There was none. No civil war, no riots, but Ali putting aside his own version to rally the consensus

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives ... he-quraan/
The question then arises: On what basis did ‘Uthmaan decide which portion of the ahruf to preserve? The answer to this is twofold:
First, Zayd ibn Thaabit was in charge of the collection of the mushaf. Zayd had been present when the Prophet (PBUH) recited the
whole Qur’aan for the last time, only months before his death. It can be assumed, then, that Zayd was aware of the portions of the
ahruf that the Prophet (PBUH) recited
, and he must have chosen those to the exclusion of the others.

Secondly, the Companions unanimously agreed to discard all readings that conflicted with the mushaf of ‘Uthmaan. Obviously, they
would eliminate only that which they knew was not a part of the Qur’aan, and their consensus is binding on the ummah.


Their consensus was/is binding. And Zaid was present at the last recitation. Hear? Case closed.

Note: As I'm working on something in Resource Center, I'll have less time to answer these conspiracy fools.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:14 am
by darth
The Cat wrote:Wrong. In the case of changing the words of God, they wouldn't have the choice but to fight (2.159-160)!

Show me where in 2.159-2.160 are people told that they have no choice but to fight in case of changing the words of god.


The Cat wrote:That reading problem AGAIN: answered in the same post! My source ain't wikipedia but the Koran (2.282; 5.106; 65.2),

God, you really are a spin master. Those verses had nothing to do with authenticating quran. 2.282 related to financial transactions, 65.2 relates to divorce settlement. How you take these verses to mean that the quran needs two verses to authenticate itself beats me. ( Of course we won't even talk about the logic of using verses from the quran to authenticate itself. ). This is what happens when you delegate logic to people like reza azlan.

The Cat wrote:Note: As I'm working on something in Resource Center, I'll have less time to answer these conspiracy fools.

Take also a course in logic when you are at it.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:24 am
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Where are factual proofs of what he claims???

Razzias and ghazwas were customary for desert Bedouins, before and after Muhammad. Learn historical sociology...


Prove that. Quote the links.Mere talks dont validate what you say.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Uthman is said to have standardized written copies of texts and not ways of recitation. Differences in the recitation wouldn’t be seen in the written texts so asking people to write quran in a dialect of quraish doesn’t really vouch for the content of the quran.

That's what is meant by the seven Ahruf (version), seven different dialects.


Supervision by quraish doesnt guarantee accuracy of content. To start with prove that there was no discrepancy amongst the quraish about the quran .

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: The ahadith which say that Ubai, Masud etc were best of teachers of quran is also of historical importance.Now you merely dismiss them based on stupid unproven assertion that they were corrupted in Kufa. You provide no evidence of that.

Yes I did
viewtopic.php?p=158918#p158918
viewtopic.php?p=159018#p159018


Those idiotic answers are a sign that you are a massive troll. They dont stand scrutiny of logic even for a second as shown above. I have already replied to these pathetic answers.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Lo quran of today is only 5 chapters and muslims have been lead astray by following verses which are not meant for them! 95% of the content or message of the quran needs to be dismissed if you claim order is not important.

Wrong. Chapter 5 is the 112th sura.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/chrono.htm


Certainly logic isn't your domain at all. As a quran alone muslim you are not allowed to use sources other than quran. Quran doesnt mention the order and hence if quran alone approach is to be followed then Quran is only first 4 chapters and 3 verses from chapter 5 after which it needs to be discarded. Quran is as we have today and the sequence is also as we have today if at all we are to follow the quran alone approach. The information about ordering of verses is not found in the quran at all.


The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Now the only question is why didn’t Umar put in the quran??? AS per Malik Muwatta Its clear that this verse of stoning satisfied the criteria of more than 2 witnesses.... More ever you quoted from wikipedia that 2 witnesses were used to collect the quran. Wikipedia is not a primary source.

Already answered. That's why Umar stoning wasn't kept, from the lack of 2 testimonies.
viewtopic.php?p=159018#p159018

That reading problem AGAIN: answered in the same post! My source ain't wikipedia but the Koran (2.282; 5.106; 65.2), .


Really you are a gigantic troll. That ahadith is a mutawatir as well as Tawatur typ. Oh your source is quran :lol: Quran says its not corrupt and therefore quran is true :lol: How can Quran act as a testimony for itself??

Btw some of the narrators of this ahadith are Abu Huraira , Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani,Ash-Shaibani,Ibn 'Abbas are the reporters in Sahih Bukhari alone.

the Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:You claim quran is reliable because its mutawatir type but when it comes to mutawatir ahadith you claim that’s only the first degree of selection. Do you see the double standards?

I've written:
As I've said the mutawatir type is just a first degree of selection, which by itself invalidate 95%
of all the hadiths. Then again, the final criterion must accord with the Koran. This one doesn't.


To state why Umar's stoning wasn't kept. Then again, the Koran is ALSO tawatur.
See the item, and the links, in my answers to Darth.


The verse of stoning is also tawatur type.
Spoiler! :
The issue of rajm or stoning for adultery IS ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN from the authentic traditions and practices of the Final Messenger(s.a.w.). The scholars of Islam ARE UNANIMOUS that stoning a married person(male or female) for adultery is the prescribed Hadd(penal punishment) of the Shariah. This is established by the Sunnah(prophetic traditions) and these traditions are in the rank of tawaatur ( it's narrations CANNOT BE DENIED due to it's appearance in all three generations by numerous narrators). It is also PROVEN BY THE CONSENSUS OF THE SCHOLARS which is the third source of Islamic Law. Ibn Masud(r.a.) reports: "The blood of a Muslim person is not permissible except in one of three situations; the adulterer who is married, one who has killed unjustly, and the apostate."(Bukhari and Muslim) This hadeeth is also reported with different wording by Uthmaan, Ayesha, Abu Hurairah, Jaabir and Ammaar bin Yaasir(may Allah be pleased with all of them). Then there is the incident reported by Abu Hurairah(r.a.) and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani(r.a.) regarding a workman who committed adultery with another woman. The Messenger of Allah(s.a.w.) instructed a man from the tribe of Aslam: "Go in the morning to this (particular) lady; so if she confesses, then stone her." (Bukhari, Muslim, Muatta, Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, An-Nasaai)


http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/stoning.htm

This again proves quran is unreliable.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:if Umar and Zaid’s copy was the only reliable copy then we must question the character of Umar here.

And this was -again- answered... (point 4).
viewtopic.php?p=159018#p159018


Thats a miserable answer and it doesnt answer what I asked. The committee which you named came into picture after 20 years. I am asking you why Umar didnt collect the quran himself . You are not even able to keep track of what you say and what is asked.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:jews and christians could live peacefully with the pagans for centuries before without any conflict.

You are null as far as history is concern. Learn about Jerusalem or Yemen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... _of_Najran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem
Sassanid Generals Shahrbaraz and Shahin attacked the Byzantine-controlled city of Jerusalem (Persian: Dej Houdkh). They were aided
by the Jews of Palestine, who had risen up against the Byzantines. In the Siege of Jerusalem (614), after 21 days of relentless siege
warfare, Jerusalem was captured. The Byzantine chronicles relate that the Sassanid army and the Jews slaughtered tens of thousands
of Christians in the city...


Even today people fight battles but that doesnt mean that ghazwas are common today.If slaughtering was common and a norm then quran shouldnt have complained about pagans and people of the book attacking the muslims. Quran specifically accuses some people of the past of trying to kill prophets . It also accuses the pagans for being unjust since they drove the muslims out of their homes and attacked them . Now if that was a norm then why is quran complaining about it? It was a norm and hence jews ,christians and pagans were justified to attack Muhammad. See how your idiotic attempts fail and backfire?

the Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:he was a clear cut pagan and he was born into a pagan tribe and hence suddenly at the age of 40 he starts attacking the pagans and looting them. This is betraying your own tribe.

He was expelled from this very tribe, remember. His became that of Allah in Medina.


40 years he belonged to pagan tribe and hence he was a thief by the standards of even your idiotic scholar.
Muhammad himself disassociated from his tribe by ridiculing the God of pagans.

the CAt wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:33:21 clearly says there is an example in Muhammad. It doesn’t say Muhammad is supposed to be seen through his redemptive trust in God. Enough of Taqiyaa MR CONMAN!

33.21: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him
who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.


In a far twisted logic, a good example for him who looketh unto Allah, remembering Him much
BECOMES... Look for the Siras, the Tafsirs, the Hadiths and Muhammad's Sunna!!!


Even to look unto Allah and last day we need to know how muhammad lived so again your attempt has failed.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Whom Muhammad follows is least important. Its not that if Muhammad was commanded to follow Abraham muslims cannot be asked to follow Muhammad. Establishing such a shitty logic can only be your creation.

Not at all. It's plainly in the Koran.
16.123: And afterward We inspired thee (Muhammad, saying): Follow the
religion of Abraham, as one by nature upright. He was not of the idolaters.


So why follow Muhammad, himself ordered to follow Abraham?
That's the shitty logic of the Sunnites you keep parroting.


Brilliant logic!! :worthy: Thanks for proving that you are nothing but a gigantic troll. Muhammad was asked to follow Abraham and hence muslims cant follow Muhammad :D A team leader is asked to follow the Project Manager and hence a junior level programmer cant follow the team leader :roflmao:

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:26 am
by darth
The Cat wrote:
darth wrote:(Quoting 5.12 & 3.78)
Thus the "transgressions" are not related to "breaking of the covenant" as you claim.

Prove it. It states otherwise... In 5.12 we read: ''and believe in My messengers and support them''.
That's the Covenant: Believe in My messengers, support the Covenant/scriptures they brought. See?

Same blah. Quit making up things. The verse is very clear about what the covenant is - "establishing prayer, giving zakat, supporting the messengers". The verses that follow make accusations that have nothing to do with this covenant.

The Cat wrote:Wrong. Ideas and concepts are the result of cultures, customs and behavior. Not your other way around...

Not so. It works both ways. Cultures, customs can lead to ideas and concepts. Ideas and concepts can also define cultures and customs.

The Cat wrote:Ideas are, by definition, ABSTRACT concepts, images. Concepts reflect its environment, like that of a flat earth.
They aren't shaping cultures but a result from them, which in turn is completely sociological, thus behavioral.
You're into philosophy and metaphysics, not into the societal worlds.

Irrelevant. Even an idea that results out of a culture or custom can be subjected to a test of science, facts and logic. Your whole "presentism" defense is irrelevant in a test of ideas/concepts and you are simply clutching at straws.

The Cat wrote:The insistence on parity in the Quran was a significant step away from customary Arab law. By uniformly evaluating the lives of all men as well as all women and even slaves, the new Islamic ethic was moving toward a principle of social equality,

By posting such nonsense you show yourself to be a non serious debater. You know pretty well the lives of men, women and slaves were not uniformly evaluated in islam. That is why in islam even today the blood money for a woman is only 1/2 that of a man.

The Cat wrote:5.45: And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear,
and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. --But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him.


Prescibed for whom? Who is the "them" here, cat? Again you whitewash. The quran here is relating what was prescribed for the jews. Why are you trying to show this verse to pretend that quran treats everyone with uniformity? Do you obfuscate facts deliberately or do you really not understand?

The Cat wrote:Was the old medical knowledge wrong? Only by our standards.

No not just our standards, but according to science some of the ancient medical practices were plain wrong and have been proven so. Another reason why this "presentism" excuse is rubbish. Bottom line, all ideas/concepts can be subjected to a test of science, facts and logic.

The Cat wrote:There would have been riots and bloodshed, if not civil war, about any changing unto the words of God. There wasn't...
2.79: woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase
a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.


It is your assumption that there would have been riots and bloodshed. There is absolutely no reason why there should be any riots or bloodshed. The verses above do not call for riots or bloodshed for changing the quran. Quite simply you are trying to use an unproven, unverifiable assumption to defend your stance that the quran is authentic. Sounds logical to you?

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:36 am
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:2.79: woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase
a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.


This is precisely what every author of quran did . :lol: . All of them were men who wrote the scripture with their own hands and claimed that it was from Allah.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:39 am
by skynightblaze
darth wrote:
The Cat wrote:Wrong. In the case of changing the words of God, they wouldn't have the choice but to fight (2.159-160)!

Show me where in 2.159-2.160 are people told that they have no choice but to fight in case of changing the words of god.


You are spot on ! 2:159 says nothing about fighting. More ever Ibn Masud also made a reference to concealing of quran by Thabit (The present day quran).

Sahih Muslim: vol. 4, hadith 6022, p. 1312; book 29

`Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported that he (said to his companions to conceal their copies of the Qur'an) and further said: He who conceals anything he shall have to bring that which he had concealed on the Day of Judgement, and then said: After whose mode of recitation do you command me to recite? I in fact recited before Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) more than seventy chapters of the Qur'an and the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) know it that I have better understanding of the Book of Allah (than they do), and if I were to know that someone had better understanding than I, I would have gone to him. Shaqiq said: I sat in the company of the Companions on Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:33 am
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Ali and others had no choice but to accept the decree of Uthman.

Wrong. In the case of changing the words of God, they wouldn't have the choice but to fight (2.159-160)!


2:159 doesnt talk about fighting at all. It merely says those who conceal Gods words they will incur God's curse upon them.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:The fact that people of Kufa still followed Masud;s version is a proof that people didn’t completely give up his copy which means there must be some copies of Masud’s text even after Masud was forced to give them up..... Even Sahih muslim acknowledges Masud's copy a there is ahadith which says that Masud refused to hand over his copy of quran to Uthman....You haven’t provided a single evidence other than making stupid claims like they were forgers .

I did answer, end of point 4.
viewtopic.php?p=159018#p159018


The counter answers have already been provided by me. Mere scribbling is not called answering. You seem to believe that when you type you answer everyone.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Wikipedia is a secondary source and not primary. The primary source for this argument is definitely not quran

Check the wiki article (which you wrongly c/p) and see the references it gives.


I already have checked them and they appear to quote some unknown books which I have never heard of.To say the least these others books are not considered reliable even by muslims.You dismiss the Bukhari hadith and hence you should also dismiss the other sources.Again we have a case of selective picking.

The CAt wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I don’t know of any blood shed but his opponents did accuse the Thabits quran.

Thanks for acknowledging that there was no bloodshed, which would have happened in the case of changing the words of God.
There was none. No civil war, no riots, but Ali putting aside his own version to rally the consensus

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives ... he-quraan/


The fact that they disagreed and hide their copies and kept following Masud ;s text says it all and we dont need additional proof like blood shed. You dont have to shed blood everytime you disagree.

The Cat wrote:
The question then arises: On what basis did ‘Uthmaan decide which portion of the ahruf to preserve? The answer to this is twofold:
First, Zayd ibn Thaabit was in charge of the collection of the mushaf. Zayd had been present when the Prophet (PBUH) recited the
whole Qur’aan for the last time, only months before his death. It can be assumed, then, that Zayd was aware of the portions of the
ahruf that the Prophet (PBUH) recited
, and he must have chosen those to the exclusion of the others.




SO others like Masud, Ubai and other people were not present? Only Thabit was present?? Well let me tell you that mere presence doesnt make someone as reliable. AS far Thabit is concerned he was never considered reliable by Muhammad. The hadith which you quoted only makes a mention of Thabit as one of the compilers of quran. Its as good as saying HE ALSO RAN THE RACE BUT NO WHERE A COMMENT IS MADE ON HOW HE RAN THE RACE. As far as Masud, ubai, Abu Musa are concerned they were considered reliable because Muhammad specifically asked people to learn quran from them. He didnt take Thabits name inspite of he collecting the quran.That speaks volumes!

The Cat wrote:Secondly, the Companions unanimously agreed to discard all readings that conflicted with the mushaf of ‘Uthmaan. Obviously, they
would eliminate only that which they knew was not a part of the Qur’aan, and their consensus is binding on the ummah.


There was never unanimous agreement between companions of Muhammad. I have showed here that Ubai and Masud disagreed with Thabits quran and they even criticized it and we also see Masud refusing to hand over the text and more ever people kept following Masud a long time after Thabits quran was made the standard quran. So this is a big fat lie which you are spewing.

The Cat wrote:Their consensus was/is binding. And Zaid was present at the last recitation. Hear? Case closed.


Again Mere presence doesn't mean Thabit was reliable. Its not that Only Thabit was present even others were present so again why should Thabit;s quran be given preference? More ever if Muhammad had recited the last and standard version of quran why would there be so many discrepancies amongst muslims about quran??

The Cat wrote:Note: As I'm working on something in Resource Center, I'll have less time to answer these conspiracy fools.


Did you mean you are working on crafting fanciful writings??? Oh look who is talking about conspiracy theories! . The one who claims Abbasids forged everything :heh: .Anything that doesnt support your view is forging according to you and hence you are the biggest conspiracy fool on this forum. I dont see a reason as to why people should take your seriously.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:26 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Ali and others had no choice but to accept the decree of Uthman.

Wrong. In the case of changing the words of God, they wouldn't have the choice but to fight (2.159-160)!
I wonder The Cat has a problem of understanding that "Quran is nothing but a silly book that is copy pasted by multiple authors" and that too with out anyone proof reading it. I hope The Cat realizes that Quran is NOT THE WORD OF GOD.., Cat please correct me if I am wrong..

Note: As I'm working on something in Resource Center, I'll have less time to answer these conspiracy fools.
Those words are NOT necessary The Cat..

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:03 pm
by skynightblaze
(Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.23).
Many (of the passages) of the quran QurŸan that were sent down were known by those who died on the Day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, `Umar or `Uthman (by that time) collected the quran QurŸan, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. (


(As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii `Ulum quran al-QurŸan, p.524).

Let none of you say "I have acquired the whole of the quran QurŸan". How does he know what all of it is when much of the quran QurŸan has disappeared? Rather let him say " I have acquired what has survived".


LO CAT! Quran that we have today is just a partial recording of the complete one and many verses of quran were lost with the death of those who memorized the quran. :D

Click the spoiler to see more discrepancies in the quran of today with that of MAsud and ubai..

Spoiler! :
Surah 2.275 begins with the words Allathiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuuna - "those who devour usury will not stand". Ibn masud Masÿud's text had the same introduction but added the words yawmal qiyaamati, namely "on the Day of Resurrection". The variant is mentioned in Abu Ubaid's Kitab Fadhail quran al-QurŸan and was also recorded in the codex of Talha ibn Musarrif, a secondary codex said to have been dependent on Ibn masud Masÿud's text, Talha likewise being based at Kufa.


Surah 5.91, in the standard text, contains the exhortation fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaamin-"fast for three days". Ibn masud Masÿud's text added the adjective mutataabiaatin mutataabiÿaatin meaning three "successive" days. This variant is derived from at-Tabari's famous commentary titled jami Jamiÿ al-Bayan `an tawil Taÿwil ay quran al-QurŸan (7.19.11) and was also mentioned by Abu Ubaid. This variant wasfound in Ubayy ibn kab Kaÿb's text as well as in the codices of Ibn `Abbas and Ibn masud Masÿud's pupil Ar-Rabi ibn Khuthaim.


Surah 6.153 begins Wa anna haathaa siraati-"Verily this is my path". Ibn masud Masÿud's text read Wa haathaa siraatu rabbakum-"This is the path of your Lord". The variant derives again from at-Tabari (8.60.16). Ubayy ibn kab Kaÿb had the same reading, except that for rabbakum his text read rabbika. The secondary codex of amash Al-Aÿmash, mentioned by Ibn Abi Dawud in his Kitab al-Masahif (p.91), also began with the variant wa haathaa as in the texts of Ibn masud Masÿud and Ubayy ibn kab Kaÿb. Ibn Abi Dawud also adds a further variant, suggesting that Ibn masud Masÿud read the word siraat with the Arabic letter sin rather than the standard sad (Kitab al-Masahif, p.61).


Surah 33.6 contains the following statement about the relationship between Muhammad's wives and the community of Muslim believers: wa azwaajuhuu ummahaatuhuu-"and his wives are their mothers". Ibn masud Masÿud's text added the words wa huwa abuu laahum-"and he is their father". This variant is also recorded by at-Tabari (21.70.8) and was also recorded in the codices of Ubayy ibn kab Kaÿb, Ibn `Abbas, Ikrima and Mujahid ibn Jabr except that in the last three texts mentioned the statement that Muhammad is their father precedes the one which makes his wives their mothers. The codex of Ar-Rabi ibn Khuthaim, however, follows Ibn masud Masÿud's in placing it at the end of the clause. The considerable number of references for this variant reading argue strongly for its possible authenticity over and against its omission in the codex of Zaid ibn Thabit.


In many other examples the variant relates to the form of a word which has slightly altered its meaning, as in Surah 3.127 where Ibn masud Masÿud and Ubayy ibn kab Kaÿb both read wa saabiquu ("be ahead") for wa saariuu saariÿuu ("be quick") in the standard text. The variant again derives from at-Tabari (4.109.15). In other instances a single word has been added not affecting the sense of the text as in Surah 6.16 where once again Ibn masud Masÿud and Ubayy ibn kab Kaÿb recorded the same variant, namely yusrifillaahu-"averted by Allah" - for the standard yusraf-"averted". This variant is recorded in Maki's Kitab al-Kasf.

For example, in place of wa yush-hidullaaha in Surah 2.204 he read wa yastash-hidullaaha. He also omitted the words in khiftum from Surah 4.101. Then again, in Surah 5.48 where the standard reading is wa katabnaa `alayhim fiiha-"and we inscribed therein for them (the Jews)"-the reading of Ubayy was wa anzalallaahu alaa banii israiila Israÿiila fiiha-"and Allah sent down therein to the Children of Israel". The variant was also recorded by at-Tabari (6.153.24).

It is also interesting to note that, whereas the standard text of Surah 3.19 today reads innadiina `indallaahil-Islaam-"the religion before Allah is al-Islam (i.e. the Submission)", Ibn masud Masÿud read in place of al-Islam the title al-Haniffiyah, i.e. "the Upright Way"

We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) baraat Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". (Sahih Muslim, Vol.2, p.501).


The one verse he said he could recall is one of the well-known texts said to be missing from the quran QurŸan. Abu Musa went on to say:

(As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii `Ulum quran al-QurŸan, p.526).
We used to recite a surah similar to one of the Musabbihaat, and I no longer remember it, but this much I have indeed preserved: "O you who truly believe. Why do you preach that which you do not practise? (and) that is inscribed on your necks as a witness and you will be examined about it on the Day of Resurrection".


http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html