Page 18 of 24

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:19 am
by skynightblaze
Multiple wrote:So come on CAT tell us do you unreservedly believe that Mohammad got his HEARSAY Koran from Jibril who got it by HEARSAY from allah and passed it by HEARSAY to many many scribes who wrote it down on scraps of hide and bone and then YEARS and YEARS later gathered all them up, at least those bits they could find ( actually this last part IS TRUE thats the REAL ISNAD of the Koran Hearsay, followed by more hearsay followed by even more hearsay :*) :*)


Mate you have nailed it!!! :lol: :cheers:

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:17 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:@Yeezevee

Don't fall for his trick.
don't you worry SKB., yeezevee himself is a trickster .. once upon a time a gangster., So it is not easy for good people like "The Cat" to trick yeezevee. The only way that can be done is in another forum with another nick "NOT as yeezeve" and NOT in FFI..
Notice how he is practicing deceptionby saying 4 Caliphs took part in the collection of quran. 3 out of 4 caliphs merely delegated the task of collection of quran. They didn't validate the verses at all. The only caliph who participate in the collection of quran in the real sense was Umar but again Umar wasn't aware of the complete quran. He had memorized only a few portions of the quran and Umar used to include verses in the quran merely on the basis of 2 testimonies . He asked people to come up with verses and 2 testimonies.
Forget about The Cat's deception., At best He is trying to deceive Muslims,(The real Muslim that follow Hadith and consider Quran is word of Allah/God) and at worst "He is deceiving himself" . As far as your red color words are concerned., I am not very certain about that from the history I read on those rightly guided Caliphs..
Now pick up any verse from quran and we dont even know who the witness for each verse were and how reliable or accurately they narrated those verses. More ever if you have followed our debate then you would see that 2 witness criteria was also not followed strictly. Some verses made way into quran even without 2 witnesses.
I understand that..
CAT Is a con man who is merely trying to make Thabit;s quran legitimate by trying show as if 4 caliphs actually verified the contents of quran.
Well he may be making Thabit's Quran as a legitimate version for Muslims., but I don't consider The Cat as Conman. If he doing that then there must be a good reason for that and it must be due to his love towards Muslims and fear of Clash of Civilization.

Any way the another question apart from the question you guys are asking for The Cat is this., that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and y Fareed Zakaria discussed Here

The Cat must understand what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is saying in this e40mts video.


Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:48 pm
by skynightblaze
yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:@Yeezevee

Don't fall for his trick.
don't you worry SKB., yeezevee himself is a trickster .. once upon a time a gangster., So it is not easy for good people like "The Cat" to trick yeezevee. The only way that can be done is in another forum with another nick "NOT as yeezeve" and NOT in FFI..


I think you need a good sleep yeeke.Obviously you are drunk :*)

Yeezevee wrote:Forget about The Cat's deception., At best He is trying to deceive Muslims,(The real Muslim that follow Hadith and consider Quran is word of Allah/God) and at worst "He is deceiving himself" .


A non muslim simply has no excuse for this. This person knows that quran is a toxic piece of sh!t and yet this person advocates and defends quran. Not once this person has said that quran is a toxic piece of sh!t. Infact I have seen him saying that quran is against nowadays islam which means he believes that quran is a good book.

Yeezevee wrote: As far as your red color words are concerned., I am not very certain about that from the history I read on those rightly guided Caliphs..


Well thanks for pointing it out. I made a minor mistake here when I said Umar was the only one taking part in collection of the quran . It seems that Uthman also took part in collection of quran but the situation for CAT has now even become more miserable. See how these caliphs collected the quran!!

Spoiler! :
(p. 122, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)
Umar was the first to collect the Qur'an into a single volume [mushaf]... `Umar desired to collect the Qur'an. He address the people, 'Whoever among you received any part of the Qur'an directly from the very mouth of the Prophet let him bring it here to us.'


(pp. 145-146, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 23-4)

[b]Mus`ab b. Sa`d reports, '`Uthman addressed the people, "It is now thirteen years since your Prophet left you and you are not unanimous on the Qur'an. You talk about the reading of Ubayy and the reading of `Abdullah. Some even say, 'By God! my reading is right and yours is wrong.' I now summon you all to bring here whatever part of the Book of God you possess." One would come with a parchment or a scrap of leather with a Qur'an verse in it [fihi al Qur'an] until there was gathered great store of such. `Uthman adjured them to come, "You heard the prophet recite this?" They would answer that that was so. After this `Uthman asked, "Whose acquaintance with the Book is the greatest?" They replied "His who wrote it out for the Prophet." He asked, "Whose Arabic is best?" They said, "Sa`id's." `Uthman said, "Let Sa`id dictate and Zaid write.".....

Mus`ab adds, 'I heard some Companions of the Prophet say, "`Uthman did well to undertake it."'


Now the situation has become even more horrible!. It seems that people were busy blogging their thoughts in the quran :lol: . Well no wonder why these people never felt the need of internet and blogging. :lol:

Yeezevee wrote:Well he may be making Thabit's Quran as a legitimate version for Muslims., but I don't consider The Cat as Conman. If he doing that then there must be a good reason for that and it must be due to his love towards Muslims and fear of Clash of Civilization.


CAT and good reason are antonyms. A non muslim who knows that quran is a toxic piece of sh!t would never advocate quran. He not only advocates quran but he also desperately defends it something which is unusual for a non muslim. Also please explain me how quran alone movement will prevent clash of civilizations ? ARe you trying to tell me that quran is capable of producing people of good character? That book is the cause of trouble all over the world.

Anyway I am yet to take a look at the video link that you gave. I will take a look and get back.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:00 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
.......... Not once this person has said that quran is a toxic piece of sh!t. Infact I have seen him saying ....he believes that quran is a good book. ...

.... He not only advocates quran but he also desperately defends it something which is unusual for a non muslim...
rest of your post we can discuss later dear skb., but about The Cat., Any one who wrote this in the forum means that guy has very ulterior motive against Islam. Look at his YELLOW journal from his posts
....Seems like you all take for granted that the Koran was a Muhammed redaction under Jibril inspiration. Before i even have an eye upon what says your God Bla-Bla, Allah, Yhwh, or ]So-So, prove me that the Koran isn't a man-made book, most likely from caliph Hajjaj (663-715), who destroyed all existing ''previous copies''. Why did he destroyed the ''words of Allah'' ? How come a later compiler like Al-Wakidi happens to know more about Mohammed's life than Ibn Ishaq ? The oldest Koran we know is certified 790 and it is not in a muslim country but in the British Library. ..............

Mahatma Gandhi tried and tried again, compromising down to its knees in order to avoid the Partition. Finally, he hit the Berlin wall of an immuable theocracy. If such a heart as Gandhi failed, nobody will succeed to reason with muslims, until a ''French revolution'' happens from within.

How can one deal with an Allah's zombie ? Their jihad has four levels :
1. Infiltration and ''taqiya'' (dissimulation). Concessions without exchange.
2. The social peace is taken as hostage. Concessions makes them stronger.
3. Create multiplying muslim inlands. More concessions asked.
4. A total jihad is then launch. No concessions are given...............

... We are facing zombies addicted to a few words : The Prophet instead of Hitler, the Koran instead of Mein Kampf, Allah instead of Nazism but it's all coming from the very same pathology : the narcissic lack of empathy.This is also a part of the hallucinary paranoia, catatonic schizophrenia and megalomania................

The whole Koran is a refutation of Mohammed's Bible knowledge. The biblical references in the Koran are but a blur. How the hell could he then followed a custom he wasn't aware of.

Since the Koran is an open all time war declaration to any non-muslim country (dar-ul harb), free societies don't need any other pretext to invade Saudi Arabia and dump in Mecca their muslims problematical congregations.

''Is the koran the Arabic document which Muslims claim it to be ? The answer is unequivocally ''NO'' !There are many foreigh words or phrases which are employed in the koran, some of which have no Arabic equivalent such as Pharaoh (egyptian), Adam and Even (akkadian).

The Koran should be banned from any decent society, as heinous propaganda, encouraging racism from a self-proclaimed ''Islamic Chosen People''. The book should be symbolically prosecuted by an international board for inciting CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and, hopefully banned forever. However keeping it (after one year) to be declare ENNEMY OF MANKIND and sentenced as such.


Any ways he seem to be going at History of Islam rather Quran being word of god/allah or Muhammad as messenger.. see this 2005 post of the Cat..
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 422#152422

So he is doing this for long time. May be his approach is an another way to insult Muslim and Islam.. ., By doing that what he indirectly saying is ., ""you idiots you don't know your Quran.., let me explain you how it all started", and educate them by being bit soft on Quran.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:16 am
by skynightblaze
@yeezevee

I am not going to ignore what he says today and deceive myself saying that this person criticized quran 6 years back. People do change with time. Show me such kind of postings in 2011.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:50 am
by Multiple
skynightblaze wrote:@yeezevee

I am not going to ignore what he says today and deceive myself saying that this person criticized quran 6 years back. People do change with time. Show me such kind of postings in 2011.


You are right lets judge the CAT on what it says now.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:30 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:
I am asking you why didn't Umar release his copy in the public especially when you claim that it was the most authentic of all?

Wrong again! Where did I state that it was the 'most authentic'? I've said it was a secured blueprint.
The more one looks to your answers, the more fallacies he'll discover. You're nothing but fallacies...

skynightblaze wrote: Infact other text had more witnesses than Thabit's quran.... 2 witness test is a great flop show.
I have already proven the problems with this 2 witness test and you did't even try to attempt to refute me.

Name them, were they 'men of authority'? And -again- two (2) witnesses are required to validate
any legal decisions through 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2. None of your fantasy skating will change that.

People of Syria, Damascus or Kufa weren't witnesses as the 1st hand shahabas were! That's another detrimental wild assertion...

Now, stop this fallacious argument that you've proven something without giving the proper reference to check.
For you never did 'refute' anything without being answered and then resorting to industrial logical fallacies...
viewtopic.php?p=159768#p159768
viewtopic.php?p=159872#p159872
viewtopic.php?p=160095#p160095

skynightblaze wrote: Apart from Umar who also didn't know the entire quran none of the caliphs personally took initiative to validate the verses of the quran.
We are left to assume that 2 witnesses who narrated this verse were actually trustworthy

Umar knew the entire Koran, along with the 3 other caliphs. They all were Hafiz companions. Prove otherwise.
As such they ALL validated Uthman's codex by allowing it to supersede the others, up to Ali over its very own!

skynightblaze wrote: AS far as Masud is concerned his reliability can also be seen in Sahih muslim....

You're gullible and not logical at all: in B.6.61.622, Masud can't even say exactly how many suras
he remembered, ''over 70'' he says. He can't even precise! How can we trust him about perfectly
memorizing details and nuances when he can't even remember how many suras he knows exactly!

And the Kufa hadiths praising Masud aren't trustworthy, as I've shown...
viewtopic.php?p=159768#p159768

skynightblaze wrote: Now please show us the primary source wherein it is said that Thabit was present at the last recital. Please show us proofs which indicate that Thabit knew all the 114 chapters of the present day quran using primary sources.... Neither was Thabit a quraish. Thabit belonged to Medina .

Thabit wasn't a Quraysh and that's why he was helped by three Quraysh experts, especially Said bin al-As. Yet he was from Medina.

B.6.61.525: I asked Anas bin Malik: "Who collected the Qur'an at the time of the Prophet ?" He replied,
"Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Ka'b, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid.
"

And in B.6.61.527 we learn that Umar already dismissed some of Ka'd from getting into the 'Hafsa codex'!
Being the best at recitations (inflexions of voice) didn't mean being decisively faithful into collecting them.

Then Ibn Thabit is the sole collector being endorsed by such authority as Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, all of them leading shahabas.
Spoiler! :
Ahmad, ibn abi Da'ud and Tabari are all credited with the view that the `Uthman text was based on the reading reviewed by Gabriel in his final meeting with Muhammad. In an ibn Sirin version of the hadith, it is reported that 'the Muslims are of the view that our present text is the latest of all the texts, having been reviewed on the occasion of the final check.' (p. 194, Cf. Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 50)

Zaid is also said to have attended the final review and to have learned what was withdrawn and what remained. (p. 194, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 50)

Zaid b. Thabit attended the final review and in the course of it what had been removed from the Qur'an and what remained was explained to the Prophet. Zaid wrote out his final review text for the Prophet and read it over to him to check it once again. Zaid therefore taught this text to the Muslims. That is why Abu Bakr and `Umar relied upon Zaid in the assembly of the Qur'an texts and why `Uthman appointed him to produce the copies. (p. 213, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 50)

As I've said, CORROBORATION is the name of the game in history.
The other codex didn't have such from 'men of authority'. Period.

skynightblaze wrote: Dialect is of secondary importance. You missed the boat completely here.

That's exactly where you drown yourself. It was the rightful justification of the Uthman's codex!

As you've said: It seems that people were busy blogging their thoughts in the quran. They were blogging
all over which was the best version, thus Uthman's sound decision to rely on the Quraysh former dialect...
You're ludicrous dismissal is just as silly as those of AB when cornered!

skynightblaze wrote: Murder of Uthman and Ali was on account of different reasons. Mere disagreement about Quran within the muslims alone is a sufficient proof that quran of Thabit wasn't considered reliable at all.We don't need people to murder Uthman or Ali for that.

As you've stated, if the whole of Syria backed Ka'd and the whole of Kufa, Masud... then certainly
we would have heard of major uprisings and one big reason in the killing of Uthman or even of Ali.
We hear of NONE. This is another major point which you can't skate away.

Once again (as always between us) history and corroboration prove you wrong. Period. :bye:

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:32 pm
by The Cat
Multiple wrote:
The Cat wrote:Alright Multiple, or should I say Pragmatist, alias Realist...

Now you just have to prove that the companions like Umar/Uthman/Ali... weren't real people,
while narrator F (out of 6 or 7) in any isnad was real and authentically reproduced narrator C.

How strange you seem by your ridiculous answer to be insinuating that Umar/Uthaman and Ali actually WROTE the Koran.... But then nothing needs to be proved regarding Umar/Uthman/Ali et al unless and until YOU can prove that Old Mo really spoke to Jibril.

I never said that they 'wrote the Koran', silly you, but that they were witnesses of the revelations.
So we can be safely sure that Muhammad received revelations (wahi). There was dozens of such,
first hand witnesses, including those caliphs, who testified so. This is far from being hearsay...
As the Chinese Whispers ahaad hadiths!

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:46 pm
by skynightblaze
@Yeezevee


Here is what Multiple wrote..
MULTIPLE wrote:. But then nothing needs to be proved regarding Umar/Uthman/Ali et al unless and until YOU can prove that Old Mo really spoke to Jibril.


So multiple asked CAT to prove That Gabriel spoke to Muhammad and lets see the CAT;s answer..

I never said that they 'wrote the Koran', silly you, but that they were witnesses of the revelations.
So we can be safely sure that Muhammad received revelations (wahi)
. There was dozens of such,
first hand witnesses, including those caliphs, who testified so. This is far from being hearsay...
As the Chinese Whispers ahaad hadiths!


Pay attention to the words I have enlarged!!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess this would answer your question as to whether CAT believes quran is a word of GOd or not..I asked this person thrice as to whether he believes quran is a word of God or not. He avoided answering my question. You and Multiple asked him the same question and yet he refused to answer the same . Now comes out the truth !!! Its there for everyone to see...

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:34 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote: I guess this would answer your question as to whether CAT believes quran is a word of GOd or not....
Now comes out the truth !!! Its there for everyone to see...

More fallacies from the ever fallacious snb... :roflmao:

I've said that many shahadas, including these caliphs, were witnesses of the REVELATIONS, that which can't be denied!

Snb then jump to his ever fallacious conclusion that this is admitting that the Koran is a 'word of God'!

It's your ever fallacious mind here that's being displayed... How pitiful indeed! :wacko:

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:07 pm
by yeezevee


That is a good video to watch.,and it equally fits to Islam..

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:36 pm
by sum
Hello The Cat

Your quote -
I never said that they 'wrote the Koran', silly you, but that they were witnesses of the revelations. So we can be safely sure that Muhammad received revelations (wahi).

They were NOT witnesses to the revelations unless they actually saw or heard, or both, Gabriel talking to Muhammad. They might have been witnesses to what Muhammad claimed were revelations but that is all. The second part of your quote above is a totally false conclusion. Your logic and reason appear to have gone out of the window.

Do you believe that Muhammad actually received revelations from Gabriel and that the Koran is the literal word of Allah? Will you please give us a clear and unambiguous answer to clear the air on this point?

sum

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:37 am
by Skenderbeg
The cat says

Umar knew the entire Koran, along with the 3 other caliphs. They all were Hafiz companions. Prove otherwise.
As such they ALL validated Uthman's codex by allowing it to supersede the others, up to Ali over its very own!

now let me post your own response to whale on another thread against the Quran.
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=5206


Bukhari: V6.B61.N550-5 “The Prophet said, ‘It is a bad thing that some of you say, “I have
forgotten such-and-such verse of the Qur’an. For indeed, I have been caused to forget it.
So you must keep on reciting the Qur’an because it escapes from the hearts of men faster than a runaway camel.'' :roflmao:

Bukhari V6, nu.509: Muhammad didn't collect the fragments of the Qur'an.
Bukhari V4, nu.62; V6, nu.510: Many verses missed in the Uthmaic recension.
Bukhari V6, nu.510: Uthman burned all other Qur'ans remaining.

And al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf burned Uthman's recensions, after collecting all existing copies
to add the diacritical marks (710), thus altering the 'Book of Il-Ilah' (not Allah) forever!

Bye.



now I say bye as well to the new prophet cathammed :worthy:

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:32 am
by Multiple
The Cat wrote:
Multiple wrote:
The Cat wrote:Alright Multiple, or should I say Pragmatist, alias Realist...

Now you just have to prove that the companions like Umar/Uthman/Ali... weren't real people,
while narrator F (out of 6 or 7) in any isnad was real and authentically reproduced narrator C.

How strange you seem by your ridiculous answer to be insinuating that Umar/Uthaman and Ali actually WROTE the Koran.... But then nothing needs to be proved regarding Umar/Uthman/Ali et al unless and until YOU can prove that Old Mo really spoke to Jibril.

I never said that they 'wrote the Koran', silly you, but that they were witnesses of the revelations.
So we can be safely sure that Muhammad received revelations (wahi). There was dozens of such,
first hand witnesses, including those caliphs, who testified so. This is far from being hearsay...
As the Chinese Whispers ahaad hadiths!



Isnt it strange that the devious Muslin CAT missed out the first part of this exchange the part where I said "The Koran is even less reliable than any Hadith at least the Hadith were written by REAL people not IMAGINARY ones". The IMAGINARY people I was referring to of course were allah and Jibril.

Now anyone with even a RUDIMENTARY knowledge of English can see that if you reply like this to my ORIGINAL statement "Now you just have to prove that the companions like Umar/Uthman/Ali... weren't real people," That the REAL people in question performed the actions we were describing i.e writing the Hadith on one hand and the KORAN on the other. Now CAT of course realising he has made a complete fool of himself tries to twist and turn and divert like a good Mohammedan always does. BTW we are STILL waiting for you to tell us 'DO YOU BELIEVE THAT OLD MO IS REALLY A PROPHET OF GOD" I know as Muslim it is very difficult to answer this especially as you are trying to pretend you are not one.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:51 am
by skynightblaze
sum wrote:Hello The Cat

Your quote -
I never said that they 'wrote the Koran', silly you, but that they were witnesses of the revelations. So we can be safely sure that Muhammad received revelations (wahi).

They were NOT witnesses to the revelations unless they actually saw or heard, or both, Gabriel talking to Muhammad. They might have been witnesses to what Muhammad claimed were revelations but that is all. The second part of your quote above is a totally false conclusion. Your logic and reason appear to have gone out of the window.

Do you believe that Muhammad actually received revelations from Gabriel and that the Koran is the literal word of Allah? Will you please give us a clear and unambiguous answer to clear the air on this point?

sum


Hello Sum,

I believe that CAT is trying to deceive the readers here..Read the quotes in the spoiler..

Spoiler! :
(Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. Abi Bakr al Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `ulum al-Qur'an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, Volume 2, p. 25)
Abdullah b. `Umar reportedly said, 'Let none of you say, "I have got the whole of the Qur'an." How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR'AN HAS GONE. Let him say instead, "I have got what has survived."

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509)
Narrated Zaid BIn Thabit
So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him...............


(p. 122, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 10)
Umar was the first to collect the Qur'an into a single volume [mushaf]... `Umar desired to collect the Qur'an. He address the people, 'Whoever among you received any part of the Qur'an directly from the very mouth of the Prophet let him bring it here to us.'


(pp. 145-146, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 23-4)

Mus`ab b. Sa`d reports, '`Uthman addressed the people, "It is now thirteen years since your Prophet left you and you are not unanimous on the Qur'an. You talk about the reading of Ubayy and the reading of `Abdullah. Some even say, 'By God! my reading is right and yours is wrong.' I now summon you all to bring here whatever part of the Book of God you possess." One would come with a parchment or a scrap of leather with a Qur'an verse in it [fihi al Qur'an] until there was gathered great store of such. `Uthman adjured them to come, "You heard the prophet recite this?" They would answer that that was so. After this `Uthman asked, "Whose acquaintance with the Book is the greatest?" They replied "His who wrote it out for the Prophet." He asked, "Whose Arabic is best?" They said, "Sa`id's." `Uthman said, "Let Sa`id dictate and Zaid write.".....

Mus`ab adds, 'I heard some Companions of the Prophet say, "`Uthman did well to undertake it."'


Now focus on the red part of your quote. Here is how CAT tries to deceive everyone. He claims that quran of today was testified by 4 caliphs unlike other codices.
[b]
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN PLEASE STOP HERE FOR A MOMENT AND EXAMINE THE DECEPTION BEING ATTEMPTED. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO GIVE LEGITIMACY TO THE QURAN BY ATTACHING THE NAMES OF BIG SHOTS LIKE THE 4 CALIPHS!


Please see below how this is a ploy....

Now the catch here is we need to see how these caliphs collected the quran.Merely claiming that caliphs have attested to the Thabit;s quran is an appeal to popularity. No matter how honest and dedicated these caliphs were to muhammad and islam if they didn't follow a scholarly approach while collecting quran, their quran needs to be dismissed. The quotes in the spoiler show how actually the quran was collected by the caliphs. Umar summoned people to bring 2 witnesses for each verse they brought to him and Uthman also did the same. Is that a scholarly approach??

More ever The Cat's statement that caliphs knew the quran completely is a false statement. If that was the case why would Abu Bakhr select a person like Thabit who used to write the quran when according to CAT none was as knowledgeable as the caliphs?? Wouldn't the caliphs themselves write the quran?? More ever if the caliphs knew the complete quran then how difficult was it to produce 2 witnesses for each verse among the 4 caliphs? Any 2 could have testified and we wouldnt even require Thabit and OTHER MEN from whom Thabit collected the quran..This beyond doubt prove that Caliphs felt the need to select a man who was a knowledgeable person of quran .It clearly indicates that Caliphs knew they were not fit for the task of recollecting the quran because they didnt remember the verses of quran to start with completely.

Now the question is did the caliphs make the right decision by choosing Thabit?? See below...

Now let us focus our attention on Thabit. Thabit knew the entire quran then why would Thabit be required to collect the quran from memories of men as said in Sahih bukhari above??

CAT claims that Thabit knew the entire quran and he brought Suyuti to the table to prove this.. So now he has finished himself by falling into my trap. I deliberately asked him for sources previously because I knew only suyuti claimed that Thabit was present at the last recital of quran by Muhammad. IF he accepts Suyuti then he should have no problem in accepting the quote from Suyuti wherein Umar himself acknowledges that none knew the entire quran.!!! This would mean that no quran during Muhammads time was complete.

So again its proven that Thabit didn't know the complete quran at all. So was Electing Thabit for the task a correct decision? Obviously no!

Now I will address a part of CAT's idiotic post(rest will be addressed later) and we shall see how Masud fits the bill . Masud was attested by companions of Muhammad themselves. I have quoted a hadith wherein we clearly see that Masud made a statement like none knew the quran better than him. The rest of the companions were silenced and none of them spoke against him . So the 1st hand sahabas had already attested Masud. More ever we also have a hadith from a guy called AMR who was a Sahaba of Muhammad wherein he quoted Muhammad as saying learn the quran from Masud, Ubai, Musa and Salim. Now Masud started learning quran when Thabit wasn't even born. Now how in the world is it possible that Thabit knew the quran better than Masud???

Masud claimed to have recited more than 70 surahs in front of Muhammad. Now if one examines CAT 's idiotic post then we can see he tries to tell us that Masud didn't even know the exact no of surahs. This is obviously idiotic statement. Many times we ourselves speak that way. We dont quote the exact no and claim like " I have provided countless proofs" . Now does that mean I dont know how many proofs I quoted?? That's a way of speaking.

Anyway Masud had learned the entire quran and he claimed that knew quran better than any companion in a Sahih muslim hadith. Now had he mastered only 70 odd surahs then companions of Muhammad would have made him shut up! More ever we have a quote from Ibn Sad which clearly tells us that Masud learned the entire quran before Muhammad died from his lips.. If CAt can believe in Suyuti then he should have no problem in believing Ibn Sad.

I think this is sufficient to prove that reliable people were ignored by 4 caliphs and quran of Thabit i.e. the present day quran is unreliable.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:20 am
by skynightblaze
Just for knowledge's sake...

Answering islam wrote:In spite of the drastic measures adopted by 'Usman for the suppression of all other copies of the Quran except his own, the reading of Ibn-Mas'ud continued for many years to be preserved amongst his followers, the people of Iraq. Thus in the year 378 of the Hegira a copy of Ibn-Mas'ud's Quran was discovered at Bagdad, which proved, on examination, to differ materially from the editions then current. It was at once burnt midst the acclamations of the deluded people.


Lo! Masud'd copy was still followed even approx 400 years after Uthman suppressed all the variant readings.. :lol:

http://answering-islam.org/Books/Goldsa ... /chap3.htm

One more thing. one may ask how can Masud be reliable completely especially when Umar claimed that none should claim he has the complete quran. Well in that case Masud also cannot be said to know the entire quran but definitely he was better than Thabit . Thabit had to be atleast 15 (assuming he was a bright kid) to understand islam and record it correctly. So Thabit was mature only for 7 long years(22-15) to collect the quran so it was not possible for Thabit to even memorize half of the quran. Infact Thabit wouldnt be familiar with 75% of the quran in that case.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:55 am
by Multiple
The Cat wrote:
Multiple wrote:
The Cat wrote:Alright Multiple, or should I say Pragmatist, alias Realist...

Now you just have to prove that the companions like Umar/Uthman/Ali... weren't real people,
while narrator F (out of 6 or 7) in any isnad was real and authentically reproduced narrator C.

How strange you seem by your ridiculous answer to be insinuating that Umar/Uthaman and Ali actually WROTE the Koran.... But then nothing needs to be proved regarding Umar/Uthman/Ali et al unless and until YOU can prove that Old Mo really spoke to Jibril.

I never said that they 'wrote the Koran', silly you, but that they were witnesses of the revelations.
So we can be safely sure that Muhammad received revelations (wahi). There was dozens of such,
first hand witnesses, including those caliphs, who testified so. This is far from being hearsay...
As the Chinese Whispers ahaad hadiths!


But it WAS HEARSAY from allah to Jibril and HEARSAY from Jibril to Mohammad and HEARSAY in unbelievably huge amounts from Mohammad to the scribes wasn't it my Mohammedan Muslim defending Moggy and thats only if you accept Mohammad's word for anything :roflmao: :roflmao: .

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:57 am
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:
I am asking you why didn't Umar release his copy in the public especially when you claim that it was the most authentic of all?

Wrong again! Where did I state that it was the 'most authentic'? I've said it was a secured blueprint.
The more one looks to your answers, the more fallacies he'll discover. You're nothing but fallacies...


Let us see how stupid you are to admit here that it wasn't authentic at all but a mere secured blue print . A few pages ago you have said that Umar took 2 witnesses for each verse and Yet now you claim that it wasn't authentic. Doesn't that mean that 2 witness test cannot guarantee authenticity??

Now the question I intend to ask you is :: why didn't Umar himself appoint 3 quraish and get his copy released? You seem to have no answer for this. In short why didn't Umar do what Uthman did? Note that Umar;s copy wasnt even famous . It was kept in Hafsa;s custody for 20 long years and it was Hafsa;s private copy. It speaks volumes about how people of those times viewed the quran of Thabit..

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: Infact other text had more witnesses than Thabit's quran.... 2 witness test is a great flop show.
I have already proven the problems with this 2 witness test and you did't even try to attempt to refute me.

Name them, were they 'men of authority'? And -again- two (2) witnesses are required to validate
any legal decisions through 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2. None of your fantasy skating will change that.


Read my response to Sum.Already answered.

The Cat wrote:People of Syria, Damascus or Kufa weren't witnesses as the 1st hand shahabas were! That's another detrimental wild assertion...


What is the guarantee that Thabit's quran had first hand Sahabas as witnesses?? Umar took witnesses of people who reported the verses to him. So tell us the names of witnesses of each and every verse in the quran so that we know that Umar and Thabit collected verses of quran only from the first hand sahabas and not 2nd hand or 3rd hand sahabas.

More ever Sahabas of Muhammad had already attested to Masud's knowledge of quran...

(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1312).
Shaqiq, sitting by, added "I sat in the company of the Companions of Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it" (

I have previously quoted a hadith from Amr who was a Sahaba of Muhammad. That hadith reports Ibn Masud as one of the top narrators of quran . This attestation is sufficient to prove his quran was a reliable.

More ever if Masud was unreliable then how come we don't find a single report against Masud;s unreliable quran??? Show me a single report accusing Masud of lying or he being unreliable.

The Cat wrote:Now, stop this fallacious argument that you've proven something without giving the proper reference to check.
For you never did 'refute' anything without being answered and then resorting to industrial logical fallacies...
viewtopic.php?p=159768#p159768
viewtopic.php?p=159872#p159872
viewtopic.php?p=160095#p160095


sh!t! You have exposed me in those links and now I am caught red handed :lol: I can only laugh at your pathetic answers. To be honest you are not worth wasting time but I only do it to expose a con man like you .

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: Apart from Umar who also didn't know the entire quran none of the caliphs personally took initiative to validate the verses of the quran.
We are left to assume that 2 witnesses who narrated this verse were actually trustworthy

Umar knew the entire Koran, along with the 3 other caliphs. They all were Hafiz companions. Prove otherwise.


One who makes a positive claim has to provide proof so its you who has to provide proofs to me .Prove to me that quran was collected from Hafiz companions. More ever umar didn't know the entire quran. This claim is completely false.

Now lets see what kind of charlatan you are... You are changing your words now..

The Cat on page 9 wrote:On Ibn Thabit...
The task required ibn Thabit to collect written copies of the Qur'an, with each verse having validated with the oral testimony of at least
two companions. Usually the written copies were verified by himself and Umar - both of whom had memorized portions of the Qur'an.


I have already showed in my post above that neither of the caliph knew the quran completely.

The Cat wrote:As such they ALL validated Uthman's codex by allowing it to supersede the others, up to Ali over its very own!


Already answered in the post above. I have answered most of your I must say attempts at deception.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: AS far as Masud is concerned his reliability can also be seen in Sahih muslim....

You're gullible and not logical at all: in B.6.61.622, Masud can't even say exactly how many suras
he remembered, ''over 70'' he says. He can't even precise! How can we trust him about perfectly
memorizing details and nuances when he can't even remember how many suras he knows exactly!

And the Kufa hadiths praising Masud aren't trustworthy, as I've shown...
viewtopic.php?p=159768#p159768


Oh sh!t! Again you have exposed me. :lol: . The reality is you couldn't even attempt to refute it other than saying its forged! Claiming isn't same as reasoning. Oh that reasoning of committee is bullcrap! Again read my post addressed to Sum.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: Now please show us the primary source wherein it is said that Thabit was present at the last recital. Please show us proofs which indicate that Thabit knew all the 114 chapters of the present day quran using primary sources.... Neither was Thabit a quraish. Thabit belonged to Medina .

Thabit wasn't a Quraysh and that's why he was helped by three Quraysh experts, especially Said bin al-As. Yet he was from Medina.


Then show us proofs that the 3 quraish knew the entire quran.

The Cat wrote:B.6.61.525: I asked Anas bin Malik: "Who collected the Qur'an at the time of the Prophet ?" He replied,
"Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Ka'b, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid.
"

And in B.6.61.527 we learn that Umar already dismissed some of Ka'd from getting into the 'Hafsa codex'!
Being the best at recitations (inflexions of voice) didn't mean being decisively faithful into collecting them.


Muhammad himself asked to learn quran from Ubai. Thabit's name doesn't even feature in that list.

The Cat wrote:Then Ibn Thabit is the sole collector being endorsed by such authority as Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, all of them leading shahabas.


Show me a single quote in the islamic history wherein we see the sahabas of Muhammad accusing Masud, Ubai , Musa or Salim of anything. Please show us how the men of authority were correct at arriving at this decision to select Thabit.

Thabit didnt remember the quran and thats why he was required to collect quran from memory of men.He wasnt even born when Masud started learning quran so naturally Thabit cannot be a better teacher than Masud.

The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
Ahmad, ibn abi Da'ud and Tabari are all credited with the view that the `Uthman text was based on the reading reviewed by Gabriel in his final meeting with Muhammad. In an ibn Sirin version of the hadith, it is reported that 'the Muslims are of the view that our present text is the latest of all the texts, having been reviewed on the occasion of the final check.' (p. 194, Cf. Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 50)

Zaid is also said to have attended the final review and to have learned what was withdrawn and what remained. (p. 194, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 50)

Zaid b. Thabit attended the final review and in the course of it what had been removed from the Qur'an and what remained was explained to the Prophet. Zaid wrote out his final review text for the Prophet and read it over to him to check it once again. Zaid therefore taught this text to the Muslims. That is why Abu Bakr and `Umar relied upon Zaid in the assembly of the Qur'an texts and why `Uthman appointed him to produce the copies. (p. 213, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 50)

As I've said, CORROBORATION is the name of the game in history.
The other codex didn't have such from 'men of authority'. Period.


Then the debate is over because the same Suyuti narrated a narration from Umar wherein he said none of the muslims should claim they knew the complete quran as much of it was lost! Lo Quran is unreliable :D

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:21 pm
by skynightblaze
Now since CAT quotes Suyuti he must be considering it reliable so lets see more drama in Suyuti..Enjoy the reading the drama friends! :lol:

http://answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv12.html

Spoiler! :
A’isha (also page 72) adds to the story of ibn Umar and says,

"During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73 verses).

The same statement is made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions. On page 72, part 3, the Suyuti says,


"This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."

Among the (verses) which were sent down, (the verse) of the ten breast feedings was abrogated by (a verse which calls for five breast feedings. The apostle of God died and this verse was still read as part of the Qur’an. This was related by Abu Bakr and ’Umar" (refer to Suyuti’s qan, part 3, pages 62 and 63).

In part 3, page 73, the Suyuti said,

"Hamida, the daughter of Abi Yunis, said, ‘When my father was eighty years old, he read in the copy of A’isha, "God and His angels bless (literally pray for) the prophet Oh ye who believe, bless him and those who pray in the first rows." Then she said, "That was before ’Uthman changed the Qur’anic copies.""’

On page 74, we read,

"Umar said to ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf, ‘Didn’t you find among the verses that we received one saying, "Strive as you strove at the first?" We do not locate it (any more).’ ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf told him, ‘This verse has been removed among those others which were removed from the Qur’an."’

It is well known that ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf was one of the great companions and was among those who were nominated for the caliphate.

Also, on the same page (74, of part 3) of "The Itqan", we read,

"Maslama al-Ansar said to the companions of Muhammad, ‘Tell me about two verses which have not been recorded in the Qur’an which ’Uthman collected.’ They failed to do so. Maslama said, ‘Oh, ye who believed and immigrated and fought for the cause of God by (sacrificing) your properties and yourselves, you received the glad tidings, for you are prosperous. Also, those who sheltered them, aided them and defended them, against whom God (revealed) His wrath, no soul knows what is awaiting them as a reward for what they did."’

If we ponder the first part of "The Itqan", by the Suyuti, we read (page 184),

"Malik says that several verses from chapter 9 (Sura of Repentance) have been dropped from the beginning. Among them is, ‘In the name of God the compassionate, the Merciful’ because it was proven that the length of Sura of Repentance was equal to the length of the Sura of the Cow."


This means that this chapter has lost 157 verses. Also (page 184), the Suyuti tells us that the words, "In the name of God the compassionate, the merciful" were found in the chapter of Repentance in the Qur’anic copy which belonged to Ibn Mas’ud which ’Uthman confiscated and burned when the current Qur’an was edited.

Not only verses have been dropped, but also entire chapters have been abolished from the ’Uthmanic copy which is in the hands of all Muslims today. The Suyuti and other scholars testify that the Qur’anic copies of both Ubay and Ibn Mas’ud include two chapters called "The Hafad" and "the Khal"’. They both are located after the chapter of "the ’Asr" (103) (refer to pp. 182 and 183 of part one of the gn).

He also indicates that the Qur’anic copy of ’Abdulla-Ibn Mas’ud does not contain the chapter of "The Hamd" and "The Mu’withatan" (Surah 113, 114). On page 184, the Suyuti tells us that Ubay ibn Abi Ka’b recorded in his Qur’anic copy two chapters that start with, "Oh God, we ask for your assistance," and "Oh God, you whom we worship." These are the two chapters of "The Hafad" and "The Khal’. " On page 185, the Suyuti assures us on the authority of the most famous companions of the prophet that ’Ali ibn Abi Talib was aware of these two chapters. ’Umar ibn al-Khattab was accustomed to read them after his prostration. The Suyuti records them in their entirety on page 185. They are available to any Arab who wishes to read them. Then, the Suyuti adds that the two chapters are found in the Qur’anic copy of ibn ’Abbas also. What more we should say after we heard the testimonies of ibn ’Abbas, ’Umar, ’Ali, ibn Mas’ud and ibn Abi Ka’b Talib? It is evident that the Qur’an once included these two chapters.

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:08 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:Now since CAT quotes Suyuti he must be considering it reliable so lets see more drama in Suyuti..Enjoy the reading the drama friends! :lol:

http://answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv12.html

Spoiler! :
A’isha (also page 72) adds to the story of ibn Umar and says,

"During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73 verses).

The same statement is made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions. On page 72, part 3, the Suyuti says,


"This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."

Among the (verses) which were sent down, (the verse) of the ten breast feedings was abrogated by (a verse which calls for five breast feedings. The apostle of God died and this verse was still read as part of the Qur’an. This was related by Abu Bakr and ’Umar" (refer to Suyuti’s qan, part 3, pages 62 and 63).

In part 3, page 73, the Suyuti said,

"Hamida, the daughter of Abi Yunis, said, ‘When my father was eighty years old, he read in the copy of A’isha, "God and His angels bless (literally pray for) the prophet Oh ye who believe, bless him and those who pray in the first rows." Then she said, "That was before ’Uthman changed the Qur’anic copies.""’

On page 74, we read,

"Umar said to ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf, ‘Didn’t you find among the verses that we received one saying, "Strive as you strove at the first?" We do not locate it (any more).’ ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf told him, ‘This verse has been removed among those others which were removed from the Qur’an."’

It is well known that ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf was one of the great companions and was among those who were nominated for the caliphate.

Also, on the same page (74, of part 3) of "The Itqan", we read,

"Maslama al-Ansar said to the companions of Muhammad, ‘Tell me about two verses which have not been recorded in the Qur’an which ’Uthman collected.’ They failed to do so. Maslama said, ‘Oh, ye who believed and immigrated and fought for the cause of God by (sacrificing) your properties and yourselves, you received the glad tidings, for you are prosperous. Also, those who sheltered them, aided them and defended them, against whom God (revealed) His wrath, no soul knows what is awaiting them as a reward for what they did."’

If we ponder the first part of "The Itqan", by the Suyuti, we read (page 184),

"Malik says that several verses from chapter 9 (Sura of Repentance) have been dropped from the beginning. Among them is, ‘In the name of God the compassionate, the Merciful’ because it was proven that the length of Sura of Repentance was equal to the length of the Sura of the Cow."


This means that this chapter has lost 157 verses. Also (page 184), the Suyuti tells us that the words, "In the name of God the compassionate, the merciful" were found in the chapter of Repentance in the Qur’anic copy which belonged to Ibn Mas’ud which ’Uthman confiscated and burned when the current Qur’an was edited.

Not only verses have been dropped, but also entire chapters have been abolished from the ’Uthmanic copy which is in the hands of all Muslims today. The Suyuti and other scholars testify that the Qur’anic copies of both Ubay and Ibn Mas’ud include two chapters called "The Hafad" and "the Khal"’. They both are located after the chapter of "the ’Asr" (103) (refer to pp. 182 and 183 of part one of the gn).

He also indicates that the Qur’anic copy of ’Abdulla-Ibn Mas’ud does not contain the chapter of "The Hamd" and "The Mu’withatan" (Surah 113, 114). On page 184, the Suyuti tells us that Ubay ibn Abi Ka’b recorded in his Qur’anic copy two chapters that start with, "Oh God, we ask for your assistance," and "Oh God, you whom we worship." These are the two chapters of "The Hafad" and "The Khal’. " On page 185, the Suyuti assures us on the authority of the most famous companions of the prophet that ’Ali ibn Abi Talib was aware of these two chapters. ’Umar ibn al-Khattab was accustomed to read them after his prostration. The Suyuti records them in their entirety on page 185. They are available to any Arab who wishes to read them. Then, the Suyuti adds that the two chapters are found in the Qur’anic copy of ibn ’Abbas also. What more we should say after we heard the testimonies of ibn ’Abbas, ’Umar, ’Ali, ibn Mas’ud and ibn Abi Ka’b Talib? It is evident that the Qur’an once included these two chapters.

The Cat says wrote:
Alright Multiple, or should I say Pragmatist, alias Realist...
I never said that they 'wrote the Koran', silly you, but that they were witnesses of the revelations.
So we can be safely sure that Muhammad received revelations (wahi). There was dozens of such,
first hand witnesses, including those caliphs, who testified so. This is far from being hearsay...
As the Chinese Whispers ahaad hadiths!

Multiple responds with HEARSAY: But it WAS HEARSAY from allah to Jibril and HEARSAY from Jibril to Mohammad and HEARSAY in unbelievably huge amounts from Mohammad to the scribes wasn't it my Mohammedan Muslim defending Moggy and thats only if you accept Mohammad's word for anything :roflmao: :roflmao:

You two guys are running after The Cat on the wall and Cat is jumping either side of the wall, some times through a whole . But I like those two words " revelations AND HEARSAY. It is good to see somehow you two guys are going somewhere with The Cat..

Anyways, Once some one as intelligent as The Cat says the word " REVELATION", he must also know the answer for the simple question
"Revelations from whom to whom"??
..
Otherwise one should not use the word revelations, a better word may be "UTTERING" & MUTTERING of MUHAMMAD(PBUH)