Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

His life, his examples and his psychology
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

yeezevee wrote: 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"??
People here seem to have a problem in understanding that my point is totally from a historical perspective.
The revelations were attested by dozens of witnesses. That's the human part, which history can account for.
The 'divine' part is not a question of 'hearsay' but of faith in the 'Unseen','That-Beyond' and in... prophethood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
William Montgomery Watt argues that only Muhammad's sincerity can explain his "readiness to endure hardship and persecution during the
Meccan period when from a secular point of view there was no prospect of success. To carry on in the face of persecution and hostility
would have been impossible for him unless he was fully persuaded that God had sent him....:

The further question, however, whether the messages came from Muhammad's unconscious, or the collective unconscious functioning in him,
or from some divine source, is beyond the competence of the historian.
History, as I've shown, is much more problematic to Muhammad himself than with Koran as revelations. And I shall add that, in the Koran,
Muhammad is portrayed as a deviant (93.7) only exemplary in his faith (33.21). He's not even depicted as an IMAM like Abraham (2.124),
Isaac and Jacob (21.73) or Moses (46.12). All said to be IMAMAAN, never Muhammad. He's not a warder but a simple warner (88.21-22).

More so, the very compilation of the Koran is an act going contrary to the examples he set forth, as reported in B.6.61.509...

Clearly to picture Muhammad as an example is the perfidy we own to the tafsirs and hadiths, both of them also condemned in the Koran
(3.7; 31.6). On the later, tafsirs of ibn Abbas & ibn Mas'ud say that the “Lahwa Hadith” mentioned is... indeed singing. And Abd Allah
ibn Mas'ud used to "swear by Allah and say that idle talk is singing." We can see how perfidious were hadiths' forgers to suit their aims!
http://muslimways.com/library/miscellan ... haram.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously IBN MASUD & IBN ABBAS, -so cherished by snb-, reported a biased interpretation of Lahwa Hadith, which rather means:
--Mere pastime of discourse (Picktall)
--Idle tales (Yusuf Ali)
--Frivolous discourse (Shakir)
--Idle diversions (Wahiduddin Khan)
--There are those who invest their time in HADITH (Shabbir Ahmed).

So the verse ain't referring to singing but condemning all hadiths as idle tales (lahwa al-hadeethi).
The forgers of hadiths couldn't possibly bare this. So they forged more to suit their ignominy!

And these forgeries, especially from and about Ibn Masud, happen to be quoted as cash-truth by our pitiful snb! :stretcher:
Last edited by The Cat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote: 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?....It speaks volumes about how people of those times viewed the quran of Thabit..
Dummy logic. There was no other copy then and enough people had memorized it. Even back then Thabit was choosen. B.6.61.509:
(Abu Bakr to Ibn Thabit), ''We do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle''.
More so, in the time of Umar the dissensions over the multiplication of codex weren't yet spreading...
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote: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.
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??.... 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.
It says that none of them was a scribe, although they knew it by heart, contrary to Thabit who was ordered to collect WRITTEN copies.
The 2 witnesses were brought to CONFIRM what was written securing its authenticity independently of the Caliphs (2.282; 5.106; 65.2).

So your dummy logic rather prove my point: It was a through CORROBORATION, in and out of the Caliphs, meeting the Koranic standards.
skynightblaze wrote:no quran during Muhammads time was complete. So again its proven that Thabit didn't know the complete quran at all. 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.... That's a way of speaking. Anyway Masud had learned the entire quran.... 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
More dummy logic. That the Koran wasn't completed during Muhammad's time is a fact, yet it was memorized by hundreds,
written down by four Ansars, including Ibn Thabit (B.6.61.525-526) and excluding... Masud.

To state that he knew 'more than 70 suras' indicates that he wasn't reliable since the Koran is made of 114 suras. A 'way of speaking' is unfit
for a reliable witness: he didn't even remembered how many suras he knew precisely! Was it 72, 76? Certainly less than 80. A sinister joke!

Only Thabit was recognized by all four righteous caliphs, each one early shahadas + 2 more memorizers (twice) + 3 Quraysh specialists.
skynightblaze wrote:What is the guarantee that Thabit's quran had first hand Sahabas as witnesses??... More ever Sahabas of Muhammad had already attested to Masud's knowledge of quran...
Masud was the best narrator in reciting the Koran, which mean the best inflections of voice while reciting. Your confusing Hafiz and Qari.
He wasn't even a scribe as Thabit (B.6.61.525-527). On this we have to rely on Bukhari, the most reliable hadither according to yourself.
skynightblaze wrote:
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...
I can only laugh at your pathetic answers. To be honest you are not worth wasting time
Thanks for showing everyone how your dismissive attitude backfire at you, proving how you never refuted anything
without being answered and then, when cornered, resorting to logical fallacies all over again, just like the above...

Thanks for admitting your own debating incompetence in such clear ways...
skynightblaze wrote:Now lets see what kind of charlatan you are... You are changing your words now.. The Cat on page 9 wrote:..... I have already showed in my post above that neither of the caliph knew the quran completely.
Your only proving that the charlatan deceiver is none but you... On page 9 (again no link from you) it wasn't ''my words'' but a quote from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the caliphs were among the hafiz, recognized first by the Islamic traditions. But it looks that, apart from Ali, they couldn't write.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hafiz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Abu Bakr; Umar bin al-Khattab; Uthman ibn Affan; Ali ibn Aby Talib...
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote: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...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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!
You're the one claiming instead of reasoning, as if uncorroborated personal versions had more credibility than the one reunited through
the four caliphs + Thabit + 2 memorizers (TWICE) + 3 Quraysh experts (who were there to assure the correct dialect of Muhammad).

From the Kufa link (again)
Kufa was associated with "variant" readings and interpretations of the Qur'an, typically in the name of Ibn Mas'ud and often
.... as if they were part of the Qur'an itself..... But a faction in Kufa preserved the readings "of `Abd Allah / Ibn Mas`ud",
whence Mujahid and his fellow mujtahids compiled them along with other readings and interpretations. From there these
readings entered the vast repository of Near Eastern hadith, ultimately to be written down into collections of hadith and tafsir.
We can't trust those Kufa hadiths praising Ibn Masud. They were known for being forged.
http://www.darolhadith.net/modules.php? ... ge&pid=158" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote: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.
Yet Masud only remembered 'some 70 suras' and wrongly taught that suras 113-114 were just part of Muhammad's prayer,
which is contradicted by... Ka'b! So an official codex was justified as plainly stated in B.6.61.510. When will you get it?

Again you wrongly single out Thabit. How many more times will I have to repeat that the Uthman's codex isn't his sole product?
But the result of a consensus including Bakr/Umar, Uthman/Ali, + 2 memorizers (for both codex) + 3 Quraysh experts?

To maintain your position you must dismiss such an authoritative panel. That's simply ludicrous... :roflmao:
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote: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.
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
Is that hadith from Suyuti corroborated by let's say Bukhari or Muslim? If not it must be hold as spurious.

What we can safely conclude is that everything traceable, was it written or oral, was put together after thoroughly researches
and then judged by enough consensus to assure the most complete rendition possible, exactly to avoid the dissensions recorded
in the hadiths, which was the basic fear of Hudhaifa in B.6.61.510!

And this is safely proven by the fact that no uprisings were recorded in Syria and Iraq upon any 'change' of the Koran. Nor is it
recorded as a motive to the murdering of Uthman and/or Ali. Most obviously there would have been recorded major dissensions,
while the very battle of Siffin (upon Uthman's murder) proves otherwise: they all stopped the fight and chanted the same verses...


On this snb answered that the battle for the water was impossible since it was easy to move along the Euphrates, but that's another
blind assertion from someone unaware of the Siffin topography and the logistic implied in the case of two armies facing one another.

http://ismaili.net/histoire/history03/history341.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ali soon discovered that the Syrian positions controlled the water supply of the whole valley,
and that there was no access to the river for his men.... Ali was therefore left with no
alternative but to attack at full gallop and inflicted a crushing defeat on Muawiya's forces,
and took charge of water supply....
Clearly the topography of Siffin was controlling the water supply of the whole valley and to move away to some other point would have
been suicidal. Since no historian at all ever contested this, snb's claim just remains another blind assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Siffin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ali's entire army quickly began chanting along with Muawiyah's men. Ali urged his army to fight on, saying that Muawiyah was simply
using a trick and was on the point of defeat, but the soldiers did not listen. Ali and al-Ashtar spent a long time arguing against their
men, but they could not change their minds. In fact the soldiers became impatient and attacked al-Ashtar with whips, calling him a
warmonger; they even threatened to send Ali to Muawiyah as a prisoner if he did not accept the arbitration. With his army in mutiny
against him, Ali had no choice but to accept the arbitration.
Ali had 70 companions from Badr and 400 prominent Ansars and Muhajirs. Then, the final arbitration was led by Abu Musa,
who had a codex of his own, just like Ali. Yet, we don't ever hear that 'changing the Koran' was part of the recriminations.

Especially so since Ali himself gave up his own version to join the consensus over the Uthman's codex. Since Uthman's death
was at the core of the rivalry between him and Muawiya, there's no way that such dissensions over the Koran would have been
avoided, if existing. It wasn't, nor was it a motive upon Uthman murder, itself triggering the very battle of Siffin.

No dissension over Uthman's codex is thus ever recorded in history. Thus the hadiths stating so must be hold as hot air.

In short, snb position stands on some questionable hadiths that can't be compared to -the reality- of an impressive panel,
made of the four righteous caliphs, men of authority and early shahadas themselves. They chose Ibn Thabit to gather
the written bits, each verses confirmed by 2 memorizers (for both codex), then secured in the Quraysh dialect by experts.

The fact that Ali gave up his own version, joining the standardization, proves the unreliability of snb's hadiths.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Multiple
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 8:58 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Multiple »

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) [/quote]

How true yeezevee the Moggy is jumping through hoops and catching himself out too just like every devious lying Mohammedan does when caught. WHO MADE THE REVELATIONS to Old Mo CAT and can you PROVE who did. Indeed that is another good question for the CAT once it has finished RUNNING AWAY from the previous one regarding who INVENTED the Koran .
Banned.

Skenderbeg
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:45 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Skenderbeg »

Cat a few questions, don't you believe that Mohammed is really Jesus ? and the Quran was written much later then Muslims would have us believe ?


Thats what I got from reading your past posts.

cat says
That set apart, the problem of idolizing Muhammad as a person is shirk: In Islam, the most infamous crime of them all. So why do Moslems defame themselves to such a point, promising themselves to hell 5 times a day? Tradition! The proves that Jesus was the 'Praised One' (Muhammad as a title) are overwhelmings, like I stated in a nearby thread:[/quote

]Mohammed Teaches that Jesus isn't a God (by Monasjazz, p.10)
Muslims should check their own sacred book since plenty of verses underline that Jesus was indeed the son of Allah: 39.4 (-Chr.59th); 46.9 (-Chr.66th); 21.91 (-Chr.73th); 2.116-117 (-Chr.87th); 66.12 (-Chr.107th). Verses 81.19-20 (-Chr.7th) say that Jesus always existed (laqawluss, quwwatin AAinda) and that he is one with God (MutaAAin 81.21). In 3.59 (-Chr.89th) again Jesus wasn't begotten (inna mathala AAinda) as he always existed, emphasized in 6.101 (-Chr.55th) (BadeeAAu). In 57.27 (-Chr.94th), Jesus is even proclaimed the Creator of the Universe!
CAT SAY S THIS
So I come to the same conclusion as Apple Pie: The Quranic Muhammad is Jesus!
He is NOT the same as the later leader transmitted by the Islamic tradition...

The Qur'an and Jesus' Divinity...
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Jesus_Cre ... e_Universe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39999" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; your posts and thread.

So If the Quranic Mohammed is a title for Jesus christ as you believe then who is the Arab messenger of the Quran ? also doesn't that mean the Quran is totaly corrupt and confuses people and has helped to mislead millions of Muslims to follow an invented arab prophet ? if Jesus is the son of Allah as you believe and Mohammed is Jesus then there is no Islam or need for the Quran. proof the Quran is not divine.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

Hi Skenderberg...

Indeed you're touching something very important, which needs A LOT of nuances,
but it'll take much more time for this than that I have on hand right now....
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: 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?....It speaks volumes about how people of those times viewed the quran of Thabit..
Dummy logic. There was no other copy then and enough people had memorized it. Even back then Thabit was choosen. B.6.61.509:
(Abu Bakr to Ibn Thabit), ''We do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle''.
More so, in the time of Umar the dissensions over the multiplication of codex weren't yet spreading...
So sahih hadith becomes reliable only when you need it or else its from Kufa the corruptors :lol:

Sahih Bukhari 6:61:525
Narrated Qatada: 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, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid.

A few pages back you quoted the above hadith. During the life time of Muhamamad partial collection of quran was done by 4 people so the claim that there existed no copy of quran during Umar;s time is false. More ever if 4 copies existed then it means dissension over the codex existed even during Umar's time because we know Ubai's quran varied significantly as compared to Thabit.

More ever saying that caliph chose Thabit doesn't necessarily mean his quran was reliable. Caliphs were after all human beings . They arent infallible. Prove to us that selection of Thabit was the right decision. We arent blindly going to believe just because Caliphs chose Thabit. Remember you cant use Suyuti to claim that Thabit knew the quran because it creates hell lot of problems for Thabit;s quran in that case . so to start with prove to me that Thabit knew the entire quran and was a reliable scribe. The above hadith merely says that Thabit also collected the quran but it doesn't talk about reliability of Thabit at all.Its like telling who all ran the race but not how they ran the race.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: 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??.... 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.
It says that none of them was a scribe, although they knew it by heart, contrary to Thabit who was ordered to collect WRITTEN copies.
The 2 witnesses were brought to CONFIRM what was written securing its authenticity independently of the Caliphs (2.282; 5.106; 65.2).
If what you say is true then why would Thabit be required to collect the quran from memories of men or from parchments or stones or leaves? Wouldn't he collect the quran straightaway from the memory of caliphs themselves? More ever why would Thabit describe the task of collecting quran difficult than moving a mountain especially when you claim that quran was faithfully preserved in the memory of caliphs and himself? It should have been easy in that case.

Btw you haven't yet provided the proof that the caliphs knew the entire quran. I on the other hand have provided evidence to prove that caliphs themselves weren't aware of the complete quran. Please provide proofs for that. Also 9:128-129, 33:23 we dont see 2 witnesses used to collect these verse which further falsifies your bullsh!t claims.

Also provide proofs to show us that 2 witnesses other than caliphs were required. All your wikipedia quote said was 2 witnesses were required to validate a verse.
The Cat wrote: So your dummy logic rather prove my point: It was a through CORROBORATION, in and out of the Caliphs, meeting the Koranic standards.
As usual you practice deception . There was no Ali, no Abu Bakhr and no Uthman involved in the collection process of quran so its not that they all agreed upon something and then decided to put verses in the quran.
AS a matter of fact this is most stupid argument that anyone can make. 2 human beings decide what goes and what comes out of the quran and yet quran is indisputable?? :lol:
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:no quran during Muhammads time was complete. So again its proven that Thabit didn't know the complete quran at all. 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.... That's a way of speaking. Anyway Masud had learned the entire quran.... 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
More dummy logic. That the Koran wasn't completed during Muhammad's time is a fact, yet it was memorized by hundreds,
written down by four Ansars, including Ibn Thabit (B.6.61.525-526) and excluding... Masud.
Masud could have prepared his copy after Muhammad's death but that doesn't make him unreliable.
The Cat wrote: To state that he knew 'more than 70 suras' indicates that he wasn't reliable since the Koran is made of 114 suras. A 'way of speaking' is unfit
for a reliable witness: he didn't even remembered how many suras he knew precisely! Was it 72, 76? Certainly less than 80. A sinister joke!
First of all I have already showed you that the quote from Masud talks about how much quran he recited before Muhammad and not how much quran he knew. In Sahih muslim hadith he claims to know every single verse of the quran .He claimed that he was the best of knowledgeable people of the quran and importantly none of the Sahabas disputed his claim which is a sufficient proof that he was considered the most authentic even by Sahabas. Now to say that someone is unreliable merely because he said HE recited more than 70 surahs in front of muhammad is damn stupid because plenty of times we ourselves say such things but that doesn't mean we are unreliable or we don't know how many times we have done something.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:What is the guarantee that Thabit's quran had first hand Sahabas as witnesses??... More ever Sahabas of Muhammad had already attested to Masud's knowledge of quran...
Masud was the best narrator in reciting the Koran, which mean the best inflections of voice while reciting. Your confusing Hafiz and Qari.
He wasn't even a scribe as Thabit (B.6.61.525-527). On this we have to rely on Bukhari, the most reliable hadither according to yourself.
Just because Thabit was a scribe he doesn't become reliable.Bukhari also says that Muhammad asked to learn quran from Masud but we all know what kind of con man you are . You simply dismiss that hadith as unreliable or forged. I have said plenty of times that if that hadith was forged by people of Kufa then they wouldnt have included Ubai, Salim or Abu musa;s name but since you are a troll you would keep repeating the same things again and again. More ever in Sahih muslim too Masud was acknowledged by Sahabas as the best of knowledgeable people of the quran.

The CAt wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Now lets see what kind of charlatan you are... You are changing your words now.. The Cat on page 9 wrote:..... I have already showed in my post above that neither of the caliph knew the quran completely.
Your only proving that the charlatan deceiver is none but you... On page 9 (again no link from you) it wasn't ''my words'' but a quote from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the caliphs were among the hafiz, recognized first by the Islamic traditions. But it looks that, apart from Ali, they couldn't write.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hafiz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Abu Bakr; Umar bin al-Khattab; Uthman ibn Affan; Ali ibn Aby Talib...
When you quote something in your defense its assumed that you believe in what you quote. Your wikipedia quote said that Umar and Thabit knew the portions of quran and not the complete quran. Now everyone can see what a pathetic troll you are.

Please PROVIDE PROOFS THAT THABIT OR UMAR OR ALI OR ABU BAKHR OR UTHMAN KNEW THE COMPLETE QURAN!!
The Cat wrote: And the Kufa hadiths praising Masud aren't trustworthy, as I've shown...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You haven't shown any proof other than making mere claims.A liar has to have some purpose for lying. What purpose do you think people of Kufa would have in mentioning other names like Ubai or ABu Musa or Salim who werent from Kufa?? WOuldnt that mean they were increasing the competition for Masud. If you have slightest of brains please use it or else please attend some logical classes.
The Cat wrote: You're the one claiming instead of reasoning, as if uncorroborated personal versions had more credibility than the one reunited through
the four caliphs + Thabit + 2 memorizers (TWICE) + 3 Quraysh experts (who were there to assure the correct dialect of Muhammad).
First of all the 4 caliphs never collected every single verse with consensus. Umar and Thabit collected verses of quran and Abu Bakhr didnt validate them. After Umar Uthman took up the issue. Uthman made changes to Umar's copy so again we dont know whether Umar and Abu Bakhr consented with these changes. More ever ALi didnt even participate. So its a big fat lie that all caliphs collectively collected the quran and testified to the quran that we have today.

Btw Where is the proof that 2 extra memorizers other than Caliphs and Thabit were considered?? Your wikipedia quote says that only 2 witnesses were required to validate the verse. It doesnt say 2 witnesses other than caliphs or Thabit were required. Please show us proofs charlatan.
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: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.
Yet Masud only remembered 'some 70 suras' and wrongly taught that suras 113-114 were just part of Muhammad's prayer, which is contradicted by... Ka'b! So an official codex was justified as plainly stated in B.6.61.510. When will you get it?
Masud and Ubai's text matched significantly unlike Thabit's text. I have already shown you that Masud knew these chapters existed but he was of the opinion that they weren't a part of quran. He didnt disagree with the content of those chapters. Btw your Thabit;s quran contained around 1700 discrepancies with Masud;s quran. Even Ubai;s quran disagreed with him significantly .
The Cat wrote: Is that hadith from Suyuti corroborated by let's say Bukhari or Muslim? If not it must be hold as spurious.
SO a hadith is doubtful when it doesn't suit you but not otherwise. How could you comfortably quote Suyuti to make a point that Thabit knew the entire quran because he attended the last recitation? This hadith must hold as spurious :lol:

The Cat wrote: And this is safely proven by the fact that no uprisings were recorded in Syria and Iraq upon any 'change' of the Koran. Nor is it
recorded as a motive to the murdering of Uthman and/or Ali. Most obviously there would have been recorded major dissensions,
while the very battle of Siffin (upon Uthman's murder) proves otherwise: they all stopped the fight and chanted the same verses...
Those hadith must be hold spurious :lol: Does Bukhari mention about them?? and Stop lying pathetic troll !
In the battle of Siffin people didn't chant the verses of quran as your falsely claim. They merely stopped at looking at the quran and they chanted " Let the book of God decide between us". Quran was obviously symbolic to them. Some of the quran had pages of quran on the tips of the spears . Now if we are to follow your idiotic and trollish reasoning then it would mean people were agreeing with leaves of the quran and hence present day quran is only a few leaves. :lol:
The Cat wrote: On this snb answered that the battle for the water was impossible since it was easy to move along the Euphrates, but that's another
blind assertion from someone unaware of the Siffin topography and the logistic implied in the case of two armies facing one another.
Please substantiate. Show us how topography was a problem . I know for sure that that this was another crap and an dishonest attempt from you. If you yourself knew about the topography of the place you wouldnt merely bullsh!t and run away. Show us exactly how topography of Siffin prevented Muawiya's army from getting access to the river.
The Cat wrote: http://ismaili.net/histoire/history03/history341.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ali soon discovered that the Syrian positions controlled the water supply of the whole valley,
and that there was no access to the river for his men.... Ali was therefore left with no
alternative but to attack at full gallop and inflicted a crushing defeat on Muawiya's forces,
and took charge of water supply.... Clearly the topography of Siffin was controlling the water supply of the whole valley and to move away to some other point would have
been suicidal. Since no historian at all ever contested this, snb's claim just remains another blind assertion.
The books that you refer to for bringing the issue of battle of Siffin have been contested so there is no need of anyone further contesting this issue. Your quote says that army of Mu'awiya didn't have access to the river. Thats complete crap because Euphrates is almost 3,000 km long. Prove to me that topography was indeed a problem and there was no way out. You claim that moving away to some other point was suicidal? How?? Please explain? If they had no water access then it would have been suicidal and hence moving away would always be a wise decision.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

Skendenberg wrote:lso doesn't that mean the Quran is totaly corrupt and confuses people and has helped to mislead millions of Muslims to follow an invented arab prophet ?
Please dont expose him. :lol: . Everything other than quran is corrupt and we both know that he is not going to accept .He will write pages after pages to prove authentic quran is.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

Snb is only repeating the same inanities... He has nothing to offer but sophistry...

On Thabit...
skynightblaze wrote:saying that caliph chose Thabit doesn't necessarily mean his quran was reliable. Caliphs were after all human beings . They arent infallible. Prove to us that selection of Thabit was the right decision..... The above hadith (6.61.525) merely says that Thabit also collected the quran but it doesn't talk about reliability of Thabit at all.....

Why would Thabit describe the task of collecting quran difficult than moving a mountain especially when you claim that quran was faithfully preserved in the memory of caliphs and himself?....

Also 9:128-129, 33:23 we dont see 2 witnesses used to collect these verse which further falsifies your bullsh!t claims. Also provide proofs to show us that 2 witnesses other than caliphs were required. All your wikipedia quote said was 2 witnesses were required to validate a verse.....

SO a hadith is doubtful when it doesn't suit you but not otherwise. How could you comfortably quote Suyuti to make a point that Thabit knew the entire quran because he attended the last recitation? This hadith must hold as spurious
:roflmao:
Why do you think that Thabit was chosen by Abu Bakr & Umar (for the Hafsa Codex) and --AGAIN-- by Uthman?
And he was logically at the last recitations (B.6.61.520) simply because he was Muhammad's prime scribe then.

Now, how many more times should I repeat to you: 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2 are asking TWO such witnesses.

About 33.23 read (B.6.61.510):
I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari...
Thabit knew it by heart but was searching for a written corroboration. That's demonstrated furthermore in B.5.59.379:
I missed one of the Verses of Surat-al-Ahzab which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting. Then we searched for it...

About 9.128-129 (same, 509)
I started searching for the Qur'an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari....
Again he was searching for a written corroboration about something he knew! From someone else than himself, that is.

Then, we have those 2 confirming oral witnesses for -both- codex, plus the acknowledgment from all the four righteous caliphs!

_________
On Masud
skynightblaze wrote: He claimed that he was the best of knowledgeable people of the quran and importantly none of the Sahabas disputed his claim which is a sufficient proof that he was considered the most authentic even by Sahabas. Now to say that someone is unreliable merely because he said HE recited more than 70 surahs in front of muhammad is damn stupid....

Just because Thabit was a scribe he doesn't become reliable.Bukhari also says that Muhammad asked to learn quran from Masud but we all know what kind of con man you are . You simply dismiss that hadith as unreliable or forged. I have said plenty of times that if that hadith was forged by people of Kufa then they wouldnt have included Ubai, Salim or Abu musa;s name....

You haven't shown any proof other than making mere claims.A liar has to have some purpose for lying. What purpose do you think people of Kufa would have in mentioning other names like Ubai or ABu Musa or Salim who werent from Kufa??....

Masud and Ubai's text matched significantly unlike Thabit's text. I have already shown you that Masud knew these chapters existed but he was of the opinion that they weren't a part of quran. He didnt disagree with the content of those chapters. Btw your Thabit;s quran contained around 1700 discrepancies with Masud;s quran. Even Ubai;s quran disagreed with him significantly .
Wrong, since 6.61.522 states not that he recited, but that he has learned 'more than 70 suras' DIRECT from Allah's apostle'.
So he either ignored the others or learned them from people. Still and again, remembering 'about 70 suras' is far from
proving the accuracy of his memory or that he knew the complete Koran, shall I remind you, made of... 114 suras.

The spreading of -personal- codex was the very reason for the second recension (B.6.61.510). I shall add that, indeed,
Muhammad allowed 7 different dialects which had to be limited to the original Quraysh dialect once a standardization
became imperative. Here, again, the caliphs acted contrary to the examples set forth by their very prophet. :shock:
Thus he wasn't to be followed.

________________
On the four caliphs
skynightblaze wrote:Your wikipedia quote said that Umar and Thabit knew the portions of quran and not the complete quran.

There was no Ali, no Abu Bakhr and no Uthman involved in the collection process of quran so its not that they all agreed upon something and then decided to put verses in the quran... 2 human beings decide what goes and what comes out of the quran and yet quran is indisputable??
:nono:
The collegiality way that the Hafsa's and the Uthman's codex were gathered makes it unimportant. And you asked why 2 more witnesses!! :lol:

What makes the Quran hardly disputable is the collective implying them all.

For the Hafsa codex:
Abu Bakr, + Umar, + Thabit, + anything written that could be found + 2 oral confirmations.
Most obviously, Thabit was searching other written stuff to further corroborate his own...

For the Uthman codex:
The Hafsa codex, + Uthman, + Thabit, + 2 more oral confirmations, + 3 Quraysh experts in Muhammad's own dialect.

B.6.61.581 (Narrated Ibn Masud):
The Prophet said, "Recite (and study) the Qur'an as long as you agree about its interpretation,
but if you have any difference of opinion (as regards to its interpretation and meaning) then
you should stop reciting it (for the time being)."


Instead of obeying Muhammad, here once again, the whole team defied his example and rather followed their conscience!

_________________
On the Siffin battle
skynightblaze wrote:
The books that you refer to for bringing the issue of battle of Siffin have been contested so there is no need of anyone further contesting this issue. Your quote says that army of Mu'awiya didn't have access to the river. Thats complete crap because Euphrates is almost 3,000 km long. Prove to me that topography was indeed a problem and there was no way out. You claim that moving away to some other point was suicidal? How?? Please explain? If they had no water access then it would have been suicidal and hence moving away would always be a wise decision.
Prove us that the battle of Siffin, and the importance of the water supply, have been contested.
For I found -nothing- of your claim... Demonstrate how knowledgeable you are!

In short, once again, snb is riding a death horse with a myriad of sophistries running against the huge,
rightful and overwhelming -corroborations- included in all facets resulting in the Uthman's codex!
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:

Four, all of whom were from the Ansar, Ubai bin Ka'b, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid.

...Thabit....
The Cat wrote:Snb is only repeating the same inanities... He has nothing to offer but sophistry...

On Thabit...
Thabit.... Zaid bin Thabit,, So that guy collected some parts of Quran.., WHo was that guy.. let us learn about him as The Cat & SKB often refers his name in their posts..
Zayd ibn Thabit

We are in the second year of the Hijrah. Madinah the city of the Prophet is buzzing with activity as the Muslims prepare for the long march southwards to Badr. The noble Prophet made a final inspection of the first army to be mobilized under his leadership to wage Jihad against those who had tormented the Muslims for many years and who were still bent on putting an end to his mission.
A youth, not yet thirteen, walked up to the ranks. He was confident and alert. He held a sword which was as long or possibly slightly longer than his own height. He went up to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and said: "I dedicate myself to you, Messenger of God. Permit me to be with you and to fight the enemies of God under your banner."

The noble Prophet looked at him with admiration and patted his shoulder with loving tenderness. He commended him for his courage but refused to enlist him because he was still too young.
The youth, Zayd ibn Thabit, turned and walked away, dejected and sad. As he walked, in slow and measured paces, he stuck his sword in the ground as a sign of his disappointment. He was denied the honor of accompanying the Prophet on his first campaign. Behind him was his mother, an-Nawar bint Malik. She felt equally dejected and sad. She had dearly wished to see her young son go with the army of mujahidin and to be with the Prophet at this most critical time.
One year later, as preparations were underway for the second encounter with the Quraysh which took place at Uhud, a group of Muslim teenagers bearing arms of various kinds - swords, spears, bows and arrows and shields - approached the Prophet. They were seeking to be enlisted in any capacity in the Muslim ranks. Some of them, like Rafi ibn Khadij and Samurah ibn Jundub, who were strong and well-built for their age and who demonstrated their ability to wrestle and handle weapons, were granted permission by the Prophet to join the Muslim forces. Others like Abdullah the son of Umar and Zayd ibn Thabit were still considered by the Prophet to be too young and immature to fight. He promised though to consider them for a later campaign. It was only at the Battle of the Ditch when Zayd was about sixteen years old that he was at last allowed to bear arms in defence of the Muslim community.
Although Zayd was keen to participate in battles, it is not as a warrior that he is remembered. After his rejection for the Badr campaign, he accepted the fact then that he was too young to fight in major battles. His alert mind turned to other fields of service, which had no connection with age and which could bring him closer to the Prophet, peace be on him.
He considered the field of knowledge and in particular of memorizing the Quran. He mentioned the idea to his mother. She was delighted and immediately made attempts to have his ambition realized. An-Nuwar spoke to some men of the Ansar about the youth's desire and they in turn broached the matter with the Prophet, saying: "O Messenger of Allah, our son Zayd ibn Thabit has memorized seventeen surahs of the Book of Allah and recites them as correctly as they were revealed to you. In addition to that he is good at reading and writing. It is in this field of service that he desires to be close to you. Listen to him if you will."
The Prophet, peace be on him, listened to Zayd reciting some surahs he had memorized. His recitation was clear and beautiful and his stops and pauses indicated clearly that he understood well what he recited. The Prophet was pleased. Indeed he found that Zayd's ability exceeded the commendation he had been given by his relatives. The Prophet then set him a task which required intelligence, skill and persistence.
"Zayd, learn the writing of the Jews for me," instructed the Prophet. "At your command, Messenger of Allah," replied Zayd who set about learning Hebrew with enthusiasm. He became quite proficient in the language and wrote it for the Prophet when he wanted to communicate with the Jews. Zayd also read and translated from Hebrew when the Jews wrote to the Prophet. The Prophet instructed him to learn Syriac also and this he did. Zayd thus came to perform the important function of an interpreter for the Prophet in his dealings with non-Arabic speaking peoples.

Zayd's enthusiasm and skill were obvious. When the Prophet felt confident of his faithfulness in the discharge of duties and the care, precision and understanding with which he carried out tasks, he entrusted Zayd with the weighty responsibility of recording the Divine revelation.
When any part of the Quran was revealed to the Prophet, he often sent for Zayd and instructed him to bring the writing materials, "the parchment, the ink-pot and the scapula", and write the revelation.
Zayd was not the only one who acted as a scribe for the Prophet. One source has listed forty-eight persons who used to write for him. Zayd was very prominent among them. He did not only write but during the Prophet's time he collected portions of the Quran that were written down by others and arranged these under the supervision of the Prophet. He is reported to have said:

"We used to compile the Quran from small manuscripts in the presence of the Prophet." In this way, Zayd experienced the Quran directly from the Prophet himself. It could be said that he grew up with the verses of the Quran, understanding well the circumstances surrounding each revelation. He thus became well-versed in the secrets of the Shariah and at an early age gained the well-deserved reputation as a leading scholar among the companions of the Prophet.
After the death of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, the task fell on this fortunate young man who specialized in the Quran to authenticate the first and most important reference for the ummah of Muhammad. This became an urgent task after the wars of apostasy and the Battle of Yamamah in particular in which a large number of those who had committed the Quran to memory perished.

Umar convinced the Khalifah Abu Bakr that unless the Quran was collected in one manuscript, a large part of it was in danger of being lost. Abu Bakr summoned Zayd ibn Thabit and said to him: "You are an intelligent young man and we do not suspect you (of telling lies or of forgetfulness) and you used to write the Divine revelation for Allah's Messenger. Therefore look for (all parts of) the Quran and collect it in one manuscript."
Zayd was immediately aware of the weighty responsibility. He later said: "By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains from its place, it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Quran."

Zayd finally accepted the task and, according to him, "started locating the Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart)".

It was a painstaking task and Zayd was careful that not a single error, however slight or unintentional, should creep into the work. When Zayd had completed his task, he left the prepared suhuf or sheets with Abu Bakr. Before he died, Abu Bakr left the suhuf with Umar who in turn left it with his daughter Hafsah. Hafsah, Umm Salamah and Aishah were wives of the Prophet, may Allah be pleased with them, who memorized the Quran.

During the time of Uthman, by which time Islam had spread far and wide, differences in reading the Quran became obvious. A group of companions of the Prophet, headed by Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, who was then stationed in Iraq, came to Uthman and urged him to "save the Muslim ummah before they differ about the Quran".

Uthman obtained the manuscript of the Quran from Hafsah and again summoned the leading authority, Zayd ibn Thabit, and some other competent companions to make accurate copies of it. Zayd was put in charge of the operation. He completed the task with the same meticulousness with which he compiled the original suhuf during the time of Abu Bakr.

Zayd and his assistants wrote many copies. One of these Uthman sent to every Muslim province with the order that all other Quranic materials whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies be burnt. This was important in order to eliminate any variations or differences from the standard text of the Quran. Uthman kept a copy for himself and returned the original manuscript to Hafsah.

Zayd ibn Thabit thus became one of the foremost authorities on the Quran. Umar ibn al-Khattab once addressed the Muslims and said: "O people, whoever wants to ask about the Quran, let him go to Zayd ibn Thabit."

And so it was that seekers of knowledge from among the companions of the Prophet and the generation who succeeded them, known as the "Tabiun", came from far and wide to benefit from his knowledge. When Zayd died, Abu Hurayrah said: "Today, the scholar of this ummah has died."

When a Muslim holds the Quran and reads it or hears it being recited, surah after surah, ayah after ayah, he should know that he owes a tremendous debt of gratitude and recognition to a truly great companion of the Prophet, Zayd ibn Thabit, for helping to preserve for all time to come the Book of Eternal Wisdom. Truly did Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, say: "Surely We have revealed the Book of Remembrance and We shall certainly preserve it." (The Quran, Surah al-Hijr, 15:9)
that is the story of Zaid bin Thabit I read fromIslamic sources

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

Skenderbeg wrote:Cat a few questions, don't you believe that Mohammed is really Jesus ? and the Quran was written much later then Muslims would have us believe ? Thats what I got from reading your past posts ().

So If the Quranic Mohammed is a title for Jesus christ as you believe then who is the Arab messenger of the Quran ? also doesn't that mean the Quran is totaly corrupt and confuses people and has helped to mislead millions of Muslims to follow an invented arab prophet ? if Jesus is the son of Allah as you believe and Mohammed is Jesus then there is no Islam or need for the Quran. proof the Quran is not divine.
First, I'm not sure from your comment that you've read what I suggested in Resource center...
viewtopic.php?p=159494#p159494" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Especially the thread about Isa...
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And Nasara for Christians (root NSR, helpers; the Ansars of Medina)!
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5225" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

61.14: O ye who believe (Āamanū*)! Be Allah´s helpers (Anşāra**), even as ISA son (ibn -not walid or biological son***) of Mary
said unto the disciples (Ĥawārīyūna): Who are my helpers (Ĥawārīyūna) for Allah? They said: We are Allah´s helpers (Anşāru).

*Aamanu is wrongly translated believers (any sectarian confession), while it means 'People of faith'.
**We can see how the Ansars of Medina (NSR) were Christians (most probably Nestorians).
***Abnu translates the idea that Jesus wasn't the biological son of Mary, but a miracle of heavenly origin.
ISA is NOT a proper name but yet another title, of Hindu origin, meaning Lord of the Visible World!

The leading role of Isa (NOT Yasuu or Yashu, his proper Arabic name) is emphasized in 3.42-50; 19.21, 19.31 and 63.57-63.
In many ways, the Koran is bordering a Christian so-called heresy, as understood by John of Damascus, an Umayyad court officer!

As for who was the Arab messenger...
viewtopic.php?p=93848#p93848" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Considerations over MHMD(t): A name or an appelation?
viewtopic.php?p=94060#p94060" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And, yes, the Koran has been corrupted, not through its compilation, but through the deviant interpretations brought by the tafsirs and
the hadiths, all biased into giving the Arab prophet a model-role never meant in the Koran, where he's not even depicted as an Imam,
a title reserved for Abraham (2.124), Isaac and Jacob (21.73) and Moses (46.12)!

Now the titles of prophets and messengers are differentiated...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_and_Messengers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the Koran, all messengers are linked to The One Messenger: Gabriel! And it's not that evident to discern when he or Muhammad are
indeed intentioned in some verses. But all the tafsirs and hadiths were concocted to give Muhammad a primacy he doesn't have therein.

The Koran indeed suggest to the Jews to become Christians, since Jesus was sent to the 'Children of Israel' and admonished them
repeatedly for not respecting the Torah but indulging into other books of their own, just like it admonishes Christians for not
following Jesus but rather some other creed (like those of Nicea). Yet, the very same happened through the tafsirs and hadiths.
So the allegory of changing people into apes and swines (2.65; 5.60) really means turning them into 'monkey see, monkey do',
each one exulting in the tenets of his own sect like swines (30.32)!

Indeed we can see how Muhammadans have been turned into a bunch of repeating monkees and swines for falsities!
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

Wikipedia wrote: The Sana'a manuscripts, found in Yemen in 1972, are considered by some to be the oldest existent version of the Qur'an.[1] Although the text has been dated to the first two decades of the eighth century (i.e. 70 or so years after the death of Prophet Muhammad), carbon-14 tests indicate that some of the parchments in this collection date back to the 7th and 8th centuries.
Some of the manuscripts belong to 8th century. LO! Uthmanic quran has been changed! :D . Sanaa manuscripts are partial fragments and not the complete quran
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

As always, snb jumps to wild conclusions, from misreading and confusing everything...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscripts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:Some of the manuscripts belong to 8th century. LO! Uthmanic quran has been changed!
Sanaa manuscripts are partial fragments and not the complete quran
Read what it says: the text has been dated to the first two decades of the eighth century. Yet some parchments also date from
the 7th century, including: ''rare examples of those written in early Hijazi Arabic script...'' It's also mentioning that: ''Carbon-14
tests date some of the parchments to 645-690 AD. This period may be quite long, especially if the parchment is re-used, a
common practice in ancient times. Calligraphic datings have pointed to 710-715 AD.
''

Then prove how and where it has been changed... Or if indeed this is the Uthmaic text.
It could be a copy from scribes who made a few mistakes (likely from different scripts).

Prove how it's not the complete quran (since 15,000 pages have been restored out of 40,000). :sleeping:
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:As always, snb jumps to wild conclusions, from misreading and confusing everything...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscripts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:Some of the manuscripts belong to 8th century. LO! Uthmanic quran has been changed!
Sanaa manuscripts are partial fragments and not the complete quran
Read what it says: the text has been dated to the first two decades of the eighth century. Yet some parchments also date from
the 7th century, including: ''rare examples of those written in early Hijazi Arabic script...'' It's also mentioning that: ''Carbon-14
tests date some of the parchments to 645-690 AD. This period may be quite long, especially if the parchment is re-used, a
common practice in ancient times. Calligraphic datings have pointed to 710-715 AD.
''

Then prove how and where it has been changed... Or if indeed this is the Uthmaic text.
It could be a copy from scribes who made a few mistakes (likely from different scripts).

Prove how it's not the complete quran (since 15,000 pages have been restored out of 40,000). :sleeping:
If you had even an iota of common sense you wouldnt be asking such stupid questions here.How in the world can these manuscripts date back to first decade of 8th century or even 690 AD if Uthman had standardized the quranic text in the 652 AD?? This is the evidence for change in the Uthmanic quran. It shows that Uthman;s quran underwent changes otherwise we would be finding it dating no longer than 645 -651 Ad. The texts date back to 690 AD and even 710 or 729 AD which is a clear indication that Uthmanic quran underwent changes even after he had standardized it.

Now if you claim that it could be any other text than Uthmanic text then you only shoot yourself in the foot. It again shows that there was no consensus among muslims until the 8th century i.e. people were still unhappy with Uthmanic quran . Unfortunately for you yet again quran has been found to be corrupted.

You seem to be asking for proofs. Its not necessary to provide proofs when things are obvious. You want to pretend as if you are trying to be logical here. :lol: You shouldn't be asking such questions when things are obvious.
Wikipedia wrote:What's more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

Multiple
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 8:58 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Multiple »

The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote: 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"??
People here seem to have a problem in understanding that my point is totally from a historical perspective.
The revelations were attested by dozens of witnesses. That's the human part, which history can account for.
The 'divine' part is not a question of 'hearsay' but of faith in the 'Unseen','That-Beyond' and in... prophethood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
William Montgomery Watt argues that only Muhammad's sincerity can explain his "readiness to endure hardship and persecution during the
Meccan period when from a secular point of view there was no prospect of success. To carry on in the face of persecution and hostility
would have been impossible for him unless he was fully persuaded that God had sent him....:

The further question, however, whether the messages came from Muhammad's unconscious, or the collective unconscious functioning in him,
or from some divine source, is beyond the competence of the historian.
History, as I've shown, is much more problematic to Muhammad himself than with Koran as revelations. And I shall add that, in the Koran,
Muhammad is portrayed as a deviant (93.7) only exemplary in his faith (33.21). He's not even depicted as an IMAM like Abraham (2.124),
Isaac and Jacob (21.73) or Moses (46.12). All said to be IMAMAAN, never Muhammad. He's not a warder but a simple warner (88.21-22).

More so, the very compilation of the Koran is an act going contrary to the examples he set forth, as reported in B.6.61.509...

Clearly to picture Muhammad as an example is the perfidy we own to the tafsirs and hadiths, both of them also condemned in the Koran
(3.7; 31.6). On the later, tafsirs of ibn Abbas & ibn Mas'ud say that the “Lahwa Hadith” mentioned is... indeed singing. And Abd Allah
ibn Mas'ud used to "swear by Allah and say that idle talk is singing." We can see how perfidious were hadiths' forgers to suit their aims!
http://muslimways.com/library/miscellan ... haram.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously IBN MASUD & IBN ABBAS, -so cherished by snb-, reported a biased interpretation of Lahwa Hadith, which rather means:
--Mere pastime of discourse (Picktall)
--Idle tales (Yusuf Ali)
--Frivolous discourse (Shakir)
--Idle diversions (Wahiduddin Khan)
--There are those who invest their time in HADITH (Shabbir Ahmed).

So the verse ain't referring to singing but condemning all hadiths as idle tales (lahwa al-hadeethi).
The forgers of hadiths couldn't possibly bare this. So they forged more to suit their ignominy!

And these forgeries, especially from and about Ibn Masud, happen to be quoted as cash-truth by our pitiful snb! :stretcher:
So the "The REVELATIONS were attested by dozens of witnesses. That's the human part, which history can account for" were they Moggy. Were they in the CAVE with Old Mo as he had his epileptic fits and saw and HEARD everything he did , NO they weren't , did they see and HEAR Jibril too, NO they didn't , were they in heaven alongside allah as he gave his HEARSAY to Jibril, NO of course not thats ridiculous. So what did these WITNESSES witness then pussy . Well NOTHING at all except the WITNESSED Old Mo spewing his already twice repeated HEARSAY for yet another time. But then YOU MUST believe in Old Mo then CAT as you like them accept EVERYTHING he says as the TRUTH dont you. Otherwise you could never present such a PATHETIC argument as the one you gave here. All YOUR so called WITNESSES witnessed was OLD MO passing on what HE claims was his "HEARSAY' from Jibril that and nothing else.
They 'WITNESSED' only what OLD MO told them was a REVELATION and its only Muslims who BELIEVE in and TRUST the lying, paedophilic, misogynistic, antisemitic, thief and warlord Old Mo accept is a REVELATION that is Muslims and YOU CAT . Who, if you are NOT also a Muslim, must be the most gullible naive fool on the planet.
Banned.

Skenderbeg
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:45 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Skenderbeg »

The Cat wrote:
Skenderbeg wrote:Cat a few questions, don't you believe that Mohammed is really Jesus ? and the Quran was written much later then Muslims would have us believe ? Thats what I got from reading your past posts ().

So If the Quranic Mohammed is a title for Jesus christ as you believe then who is the Arab messenger of the Quran ? also doesn't that mean the Quran is totaly corrupt and confuses people and has helped to mislead millions of Muslims to follow an invented arab prophet ? if Jesus is the son of Allah as you believe and Mohammed is Jesus then there is no Islam or need for the Quran. proof the Quran is not divine.
First, I'm not sure from your comment that you've read what I suggested in Resource center...
viewtopic.php?p=159494#p159494" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Especially the thread about Isa...
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And Nasara for Christians (root NSR, helpers; the Ansars of Medina)!
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5225" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

61.14: O ye who believe (Āamanū*)! Be Allah´s helpers (Anşāra**), even as ISA son (ibn -not walid or biological son***) of Mary
said unto the disciples (Ĥawārīyūna): Who are my helpers (Ĥawārīyūna) for Allah? They said: We are Allah´s helpers (Anşāru).

*Aamanu is wrongly translated believers (any sectarian confession), while it means 'People of faith'.
**We can see how the Ansars of Medina (NSR) were Christians (most probably Nestorians).
***Abnu translates the idea that Jesus wasn't the biological son of Mary, but a miracle of heavenly origin.
ISA is NOT a proper name but yet another title, of Hindu origin, meaning Lord of the Visible World!

The leading role of Isa (NOT Yasuu or Yashu, his proper Arabic name) is emphasized in 3.42-50; 19.21, 19.31 and 63.57-63.
In many ways, the Koran is bordering a Christian so-called heresy, as understood by John of Damascus, an Umayyad court officer!

As for who was the Arab messenger...
viewtopic.php?p=93848#p93848" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Considerations over MHMD(t): A name or an appelation?
viewtopic.php?p=94060#p94060" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And, yes, the Koran has been corrupted, not through its compilation, but through the deviant interpretations brought by the tafsirs and
the hadiths, all biased into giving the Arab prophet a model-role never meant in the Koran, where he's not even depicted as an Imam,
a title reserved for Abraham (2.124), Isaac and Jacob (21.73) and Moses (46.12)!

Now the titles of prophets and messengers are differentiated...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_and_Messengers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the Koran, all messengers are linked to The One Messenger: Gabriel! And it's not that evident to discern when he or Muhammad are
indeed intentioned in some verses. But all the tafsirs and hadiths were concocted to give Muhammad a primacy he doesn't have therein.

The Koran indeed suggest to the Jews to become Christians, since Jesus was sent to the 'Children of Israel' and admonished them
repeatedly for not respecting the Torah but indulging into other books of their own, just like it admonishes Christians for not
following Jesus but rather some other creed (like those of Nicea). Yet, the very same happened through the tafsirs and hadiths.
So the allegory of changing people into apes and swines (2.65; 5.60) really means turning them into 'monkey see, monkey do',
each one exulting in the tenets of his own sect like swines (30.32)!

Indeed we can see how Muhammadans have been turned into a bunch of repeating monkees and swines for falsities!
Hey Cat thanks For the links, but I just want to know if Mohammed is a name for Jesus Christ then who wrote the Quran ? who was the person behind the Quran ? I can't make any sense from the links you posted, if as you believe the name Mohammed is just a title and not the Arab Mohammed then who was the prophet of the Quran ? since its not the invented Arab called Mohammed. when the Quran says follow the messenger who is this messenger ? ill stop here and wait for your reply, because so far nothing is making sense to my mind.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:Now if you claim that it could be any other text than Uthmanic text then you only shoot yourself in the foot. It again shows that there was no consensus among muslims until the 8th century i.e. people were still unhappy with Uthmanic quran . Unfortunately for you yet again quran has been found to be corrupted. You seem to be asking for proofs. Its not necessary to provide proofs when things are obvious....
Pretty much in line with your usual silliness: Its not necessary to provide proofs when things are obvious. :wacko:

What's obvious is that there was a consensus over Uthman's codex. It wasn't part of the motives for his murdering,
nor is there any recorded uprising or riot over 'changing the words of God'. You only rely on some spurious hadiths!

You failed, as always, jumping on wild conclusions from some shaky grounds.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

Multiple wrote:They 'WITNESSED' only what OLD MO told them was a REVELATION and its only Muslims who BELIEVE in and TRUST the lying....
Thanks for acknowledging that there were witnesses after all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Muhammad is reported to have had mysterious seizures at the moments of inspiration. Welch, a scholar of Islamic studies,
in Encyclopaedia of Islam, states that the graphic descriptions of Muhammad's condition at these moments may be regarded
as genuine, since they are unlikely to have been invented by later Muslims. According to Welch, these seizures should have
been the most convincing evidence for the superhuman origin of Muhammad's inspirations for people around him.....

A number of Western historians have addressed the question of whether Muhammad was sincere when he reported receiving
revelations. Around a hundred years ago, Thomas Carlyle in his lectures, "On Heroes", vigorously defended Muhammad arguing
that one can only accuse him of insincerity if one fails to understand Islam and its worldwide success. Carlyle's view has been
increasingly influential ever since and contemporary historians tend to say that as far as can be ascertained Muhammad did
believe that he was hearing the word of God.
I only stand in line with historians such as Montgomery Watt, Richard Bell, John Burton and others to state this.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

Skenderbeg wrote:I just want to know if Mohammed is a name for Jesus Christ then who wrote the Quran ? who was the person behind the Quran ? I can't make any sense from the links you posted, if as you believe the name Mohammed is just a title and not the Arab Mohammed then who was the prophet of the Quran ? since its not the invented Arab called Mohammed. when the Quran says follow the messenger who is this messenger ?
The more we learn, the more intricate things become...

A strong difference is noted in the Medina chapters from the previous stage, wherein the
wording Muhammad (the Praise worthy, from old Hebrew 'Chosen One') isn't found at all.
Yet, even the Ansars could have been Christians (same NSR root with Nasara, helpers)!

There's still a want for some Koran-criticism based on orthography, like done for the Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We do not possess one single Arabic etymological dictionary, let alone the Classical one.
The fact that Allah's will is written YASHA'U, the Hebrew name for Jesus (Yeshua), both
of them, close Semitic cousins, sharing the same basic (YS-h) is truly mind-blowing !


Again, but for the last time, I'll give the links to my thread.
viewtopic.php?p=159494#p159494" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=160703#p160703" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These threads are a must for preliminary knowledge over my position.
If you don't show that you've seen them, there's no point in continuing.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Multiple
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 8:58 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Multiple »

The Cat wrote:
Multiple wrote:They 'WITNESSED' only what OLD MO told them was a REVELATION and its only Muslims who BELIEVE in and TRUST the lying....
Thanks for acknowledging that there were witnesses after all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Muhammad is reported to have had mysterious seizures at the moments of inspiration. Welch, a scholar of Islamic studies,
in Encyclopaedia of Islam, states that the graphic descriptions of Muhammad's condition at these moments may be regarded
as genuine, since they are unlikely to have been invented by later Muslims. According to Welch, these seizures should have
been the most convincing evidence for the superhuman origin of Muhammad's inspirations for people around him.....

A number of Western historians have addressed the question of whether Muhammad was sincere when he reported receiving
revelations. Around a hundred years ago, Thomas Carlyle in his lectures, "On Heroes", vigorously defended Muhammad arguing
that one can only accuse him of insincerity if one fails to understand Islam and its worldwide success. Carlyle's view has been
increasingly influential ever since and contemporary historians tend to say that as far as can be ascertained Muhammad did
believe that he was hearing the word of God.
I only stand in line with historians such as Montgomery Watt, Richard Bell, John Burton and others to state this.
Yes they WITNESSED Old Mo SAYING he had received some HEARSAY from JIBRIL. But they did NOT WITNESS Jibril bringing the HEARSAY and that's where your FANTASY breaks down . EVERYTHING about Islam comes down to BELIEF that Old Mo ACTUALLY received a REVELATION but the ONLY PROOF you, Mohammedan Moggy, or anyone else has is ABSOLUTE UNSHAKEABLE belief in the WORD of the paedophilic, misogynistic, antisemitic, Liar , cheat , thief and WARLORD Old Mo. So the more you try and insist that YOU believe Old Mo got a REVELATION the more it proves that YOU are a Muslim Pussy.
Banned.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

Multiple wrote:Yes they WITNESSED Old Mo SAYING he had received some HEARSAY from JIBRIL. But they did NOT WITNESS Jibril bringing the HEARSAY and that's where your FANTASY breaks down ..... the ONLY PROOF you, Mohammedan Moggy, or anyone else has is ABSOLUTE UNSHAKEABLE belief in the WORD of the paedophilic, misogynistic, antisemitic, Liar , cheat , thief and WARLORD Old Mo.
Wrong, many shahadas were present at his moments of 'epilectic' seizures, let alone say Kadhija or Aisha.
Many dismissed them, like you do, in Mecca as 'fables of old' from a 'mad man'. Obviously... it didn't work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for your comments on Muhammad, the Koran does depict him as a depraved person rescued by the Grace of God.

He is certainly not a person who's example must be followed, a perfidy we own to both the tafsirs & the hadiths.
So his examples weren't followed in the very collecting of the Koran, nor even respecting his 7 dialects readings!
viewtopic.php?p=160416#p160416" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Abu Bakr arrived and said, "Sit down, O 'Umar!" But 'Umar refused to sit down. So the people came to Abu Bakr and left Umar. Abu Bakr
said, "To proceed, if anyone amongst you used to worship Muhammad, then Muhammad has passed away, but if you used to worship
Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall never die
.

Allah said, "And Muhammad is but a messenger; the messengers have come before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back
upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful
"
(3.144). 'Umar said, "By Allah, when I heard Abu Bakr reciting it, my legs could not support me and I fell down at the very moment of hearing
him reciting it, declaring that the Prophet had passed away."
That's where the tafsirs and Hadiths took over, transforming Muhammad into an Islamic Messiah... resolutely un-Koranic,
wherein he's not even said an Imam, a title solely reserved for Abraham (2.124); Isaac & Jacob (21.73) and Moses (46.12).
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Post Reply