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 »

skynightblaze wrote:The prophet drank honey? Is this a matter confidence?.... Do you think that a matter will go to the level of a divorce just because Muhammad drank honey which the wives didn;t like? Thats laughable to be honest
Looks like I'm into another looooooong stretch of repeating:

Because they LIED about it, forcing Muhammad into an unwarranted oath, prohibiting honey to himself so to please... A LIE.
Prohibition of honey on himself was against Allah's rule. Again, Muhammad wasn't that much of an example to follow! See?

Yet, he didn't divorce any of them. It would probably have been different in the context of a sex scandal.
skynightblaze wrote:Ibn Abbas attests to it. So you have no ground now . The sources aren;t weak.
What!!!
Show me where Ibn Abbas is -attesting- of such a sex scandal in your quote...

As you've said, many hadiths portray Muhammad as a criminal. Why then this sudden obliteration?

Or are you acknowledging that the Islamic traditions could be based on many such forged grounds?
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

The Cat wrote:prohibiting honey to himself so to please... A LIE.
Prohibition of honey on himself was against Allah's rule.
Why would Muhammad prohibit honey on himself?? :lol: Was he on an anti carb diet?? :lol: This is sheer lunacy. Let's face it, Muhammad prohibited himself having sex with this woman only to have Allah rebuke him for that so that Muhammad can look like the good guy and say "it's not me, Allah demands that I have sex with you". It's so transparently obvious that it wouldn't even fool a 5th grader. Muhammad invented many moronic ploys like that. This guy had the reasoning abilities of a 12 year old.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

I did not want to have sex with that beautiful slave girl, but Allah forced me to do so. :lotpot:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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 »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:I did not want to have sex with that beautiful slave girl, but Allah forced me to do so.
And why would Allah forced him into something lawful anyway, especially on a slave-girl? :nono:
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:I did not want to have sex with that beautiful slave girl, but Allah forced me to do so.
And why would Allah forced him into something lawful anyway, especially on a slave-girl? :nono:
I explained it. So it looks like it's not him merely sleeping around too much, Allah demands that he do this. It's a stupid ploy. Here's an even more stupid question. Why would Allah force him to eat honey if it were already lawful? Why would Muhammad act as though he was prohibiting himself from eating honey?? Honestly, what is the matter with your head?? Don't you have any elementary common sense and reasoning skills?
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by yeezevee »

The Cat uses strange statements and strange words ., it is good to know the meaning of these words
The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:I did not want to have sex with that beautiful slave girl, but Allah forced me to do so.
And why would Allah forced him into something lawful anyway, especially on a slave-girl? :nono:
Would you consider the words in Quran are words of Allah, where this Arabic word "Allah" translates in to "God" dear The Cat??
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:The prophet drank honey? Is this a matter confidence?.... Do you think that a matter will go to the level of a divorce just because Muhammad drank honey which the wives didn;t like? Thats laughable to be honest
Looks like I'm into another looooooong stretch of repeating:

Because they LIED about it, forcing Muhammad into an unwarranted oath, prohibiting honey to himself so to please... A LIE.

Prohibition of honey on himself was against Allah's rule. Again, Muhammad wasn't that much of an example to follow! See?

Yet, he didn't divorce any of them. It would probably have been different in the context of a sex scandal.
What actually do you mean by the word "Oath" here?? I am under the impression from your posts, all these oaths/cursings/silly statements/meaningless words of Quran are the words of Allah through Jibril which comes out of Muhammad's mouth...

So where do you stand now?? are you exploring the history of Islam through Quran, assuming Quran is word of Allah/God??

and all those threads that you worked with in the last year .. Such as
leads you to spiritual journey of making Quran as word of allahgod?? or ..or do you have any ulterior motives that readers like me unable to extract from your posts..
Last edited by yeezevee on Mon Aug 29, 2011 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

He's probably tell you that houris means white raisins. :lol:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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: So where do you stand now?? are you exploring the history of Islam through Quran, assuming Quran is word of Allah/God?? and all those threads that you worked with in the last years.. Such as (...) leads you to spiritual journey of making Quran as word of allahgod?? or ..or do you have nay alter motives that readers like me unable to extract from your posts..
I understand your concern over my overall position.

I think that I've explained a lot to you in the previous page, where I talked about Mughal and I...
viewtopic.php?p=161772#p161772" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
''In my view (and his and that of the Koraners) the Koran is our best ally, a Trojan Horse, against Muhammadanism !''

viewtopic.php?p=105100#p105100" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Koran clearly goes AGAINST the Muhammadans' religion. That's the revolving key!
All there is to do then is to insert the Koranic key into the Islamic lock and let it work!


The Koran clearly points out those sects (shiyaan) pretending to be religious as disbelievers... practicing hypocrisy!
The Arabic word for religion (Muzdhab) isn't even written in the Koran, what's written is the DIN, that of Abraham.
Muhammadans will dismiss at first everything we say at FFI, but they can't dismiss their own Koran!

_____________
Right here, on the 'honey' controversy, either the main tradition is right or has been tampered.
If it's reliable, as the Islamic scholars assured, then snb is proven wrong but if he's right then
it casts a serious blow to all the so-called 'sahih' tradition, showing such editing concertation.

In that case, snb can hardly stick anymore to the tafsirs/hadiths as genuine, like he did.
For a proven editing concertation, like in B.1.3.98, shatters furthermore anything 'sahih'.

Which I've underlined in Resource center:
The Hadiths' Perfidy
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8185" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


One last comment about the spirituality thread (old forum), it's nearing 100,000 hits!
Spirituality too being adverse to Muhammadanism, like how they do consider Sufism...
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:The prophet drank honey? Is this a matter confidence?.... Do you think that a matter will go to the level of a divorce just because Muhammad drank honey which the wives didn;t like? Thats laughable to be honest
Looks like I'm into another looooooong stretch of repeating:

Because they LIED about it, forcing Muhammad into an unwarranted oath, prohibiting honey to himself so to please... A LIE. Prohibition of honey on himself was against Allah's rule. Again, Muhammad wasn't that much of an example to follow! See
Yet, he didn't divorce any of them. It would probably have been different in the context of a sex scandal.
Why would they ask Muhammad to prohibit something that Allah had already allowed? How it would it matter to Aisha or Hafsa if Muhammad drank honey or not ??
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Ibn Abbas attests to it. So you have no ground now . The sources aren;t weak.
What!!!
Show me where Ibn Abbas is -attesting- of such a sex scandal in your quote...
Abbas makes a mention of forbiding Maria onto himself(muhammad) . Now Maria incident is all about sex scandal unless you show that Abbas was talking about prohibiting Maria for some other purposes.
The Cat wrote: As you've said, many hadiths portray Muhammad as a criminal. Why then this sudden obliteration?
Logic overrules everything. Surely Bukhari gets the preference over others but we also need to look whether his event makes sense or not. Bukhari's story simply doesn't make any sense and that's why the obliteration. Again I simply dont discard Bukhari merely because it doesnt suit my purpose. I have provided good reason as to why I discard him on this specific count. I have never ever said that ALL the bukhari hadith are reliable. I have always maintained that we can sift between the ahadith to determine which ones are true and which ones aren't. Ofcourse the criteria to do so is pure logic.
The Cat wrote: Or are you acknowledging that the Islamic traditions could be based on many such forged grounds?
I don't think Bukhari forged here the account. 2 versions of the story were in float and Bukhari merely picked up the honey incident because it seems that this incident of sex scandal was rather embarassing for him. By all means believers will always try to protect the image of their prophet and therefore we also see the ahadith making a mention of miracles performed by Muhammad.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

The Cat wrote: Muhammadans will dismiss at first everything we say at FFI, but they can't dismiss their own Koran!
Would would they need to when you keep inventing crazy excuses for it that even you yourself probably do not believe?
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote: Muhammadans will dismiss at first everything we say at FFI, but they can't dismiss their own Koran!
Would would they need to when you keep inventing crazy excuses for it that even you yourself probably do not believe?
His excuse is bullcrap. He claims he wants to defang islam. The first thing is quran itself is toxic so this idea is pretty useless.

Secondly , a person who wants to defang islam from ahadith(all the criminal activities) would only say to a muslim "look quran doesn't prescribe these activities " but while debating with kafirs he would acknowledge the problems in the quran(Flat Earth, Its compilation, Abrogation etc) and not defend them. I haven't seen him criticizing quran for a single time after July 2010.

Once he also claimed that Shaitan made people after Muhammad compile the ahadith while debating with me.A kafir doesn't believe in the Shaitan in the first place. The evidence is simply too much against him.One might think I am exaggerating but I am not and time will prove that what I have been saying about this guy is 100 % correct.The reality is this person is a quran alone muslim and he is afraid to disclose this in FFI and that's why he is resorting to excuses like the one mentioned above .

In this thread itself ,Yeezevee asked him twice or thrice whether he believes in quran being a word of GOd . I asked him 4 times the same question and even Multiple asked him this question 3 times. HE didn't answer this question even once. A clean person would immediately answer this question and not avoid it because it leads to a terrible misunderstanding. Only a person who is scared about answering this question would avoid such questions most of the times . Notice how he avoids answering Yeezevee's question again. What he says is We should use quran to debunk nowadays islam rather than answering Yeezevee's direct question whether he believes quran is a word of GOd or not.
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 »

The Cat wrote:Right here, on the 'honey' controversy, either the main tradition is right or has been tampered.
If it's reliable, as the Islamic scholars assured, then snb is proven wrong but if he's right then
it casts a serious blow to all the so-called 'sahih' tradition, showing such editing concertation.
Getting one or two things wrong doesn't make a person completely unreliable. Everyone of us makes mistakes but that doesn't mean we are completely unreliable. I explained above that it seems that Bukhari preferred the honey incident rather than the sex scandal .
The Cat wrote: In that case, snb can hardly stick anymore to the tafsirs/hadiths as genuine, like he did.
For a proven editing concertation, like in B.1.3.98, shatters furthermore anything 'sahih'.
Already answered in my resource thread and I am sure you don't possess common sense to understand what I have written. What I have written will appeal to anyone with a common sense but since you don't possess even that it's not going to be helpful for you.
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
Ansar al-Zindiqi
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:35 am
Contact:

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Ansar al-Zindiqi »

skynightblaze wrote:In this thread itself ,Yeezevee asked him twice or thrice whether he believes in quran being a word of GOd . I asked him 4 times the same question and even Multiple asked him this question 3 times. HE didn't answer this question even once. A clean person would immediately answer this question and not avoid it because it leads to a terrible misunderstanding. Only a person who is scared about answering this question would avoid such questions most of the times . Notice how he avoids answering Yeezevee's question again. What he says is We should use quran to debunk nowadays islam rather than answering Yeezevee's direct question whether he believes quran is a word of GOd or not.
Image
Washing a cat requires teamwork
Don't be a believer but a heretic unto yourself.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Ansar al-Zindiqi wrote:
Image
Washing a cat requires teamwork
:lol:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

:lol: Good one Ansar. I think the pic pretty sums up everything :lol:
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote: Why would they ask Muhammad to prohibit something that Allah had already allowed? How it would it matter to Aisha or Hafsa if Muhammad drank honey or not ??.... Abbas makes a mention of forbiding Maria onto himself(muhammad) . Now Maria incident is all about sex scandal....
I've asked you to corroborate this from main Islamic sources, yet you've failed. Not one of the six major hadithers reported this.
skynightblaze wrote:Again I simply dont discard Bukhari merely because it doesnt suit my purpose. I have provided good reason as to why I discard him on this specific count. I have never ever said that ALL the bukhari hadith are reliable. I have always maintained that we can sift between the ahadith to determine which ones are true and which ones aren't. Ofcourse the criteria to do so is pure logic.....
Bukhari merely picked up the honey incident because it seems that this incident of sex scandal was rather embarassing for him. By all means believers will always try to protect the image of their prophet and therefore we also see the ahadith making a mention of miracles performed by Muhammad.
If so why then, according to you, do the hadiths portray him as a merciless rascal?
skynightblaze wrote:The reality is this person is a quran alone muslim and he is afraid to disclose this in FFI and that's why he is resorting to excuses like the one mentioned above ..... In this thread itself ,Yeezevee asked him twice or thrice whether he believes in quran being a word of GOd . I asked him 4 times the same question and even Multiple asked him this question 3 times. HE didn't answer this question even once.
viewtopic.php?p=160700#p160700" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=160900#p160900" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How Isa isn't a proper name but an appellation, being not only the Word and Spirit of Allah
but also his will (written Yasha'u in Arabic, same YS-h root as Yeshua, Hebrew for Jesus).
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:Right here, on the 'honey' controversy, either the main tradition is right or has been tampered.
If it's reliable, as the Islamic scholars assured, then snb is proven wrong but if he's right then
it casts a serious blow to all the so-called 'sahih' tradition, showing such editing concertation.

In that case, snb can hardly stick anymore to the tafsirs/hadiths as genuine, like he did.
For a proven editing concertation, like in B.1.3.98, shatters furthermore anything 'sahih'.
Already answered in my resource thread and I am sure you don't possess common sense to understand what I have written. What I have written will appeal to anyone with a common sense but since you don't possess even that it's not going to be helpful for you.
I understand that what you've written over there is a Sunnite apology, to the shame of FFI.

Now anyone with common sense could differentiate between 'authentic' and 'authenticity'.
Especially when called on this, so many times. You never did. What does that make you?

Anyone with common sense would have never written...
The above link claims that mecca was built before the advent of islam and before 7th century. They have the archaeological evidence
of existence of mecca. Abbot’s tribunal Glastonbury has those objects found during excavation ...... We have archaeological proofs
and hence we don’t need any historian to confirm it.
You want more of this 'common sense' of yours? Just ask...

viewtopic.php?p=151552#p151552" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Never ever fall for the historical crap. I made a mistake of getting into historical things. Its a TRAP to set you up.
If you fall for it you lose the case. Here the key is to beat the hunter by his own game. Just use the very same historical
proofs to debunk quran... Now in all the debates I made a few mistakes and I have learned from them so I can now gather
all the things and put them in one thread in the resource center.
So that's how you've started your thread, while stating that 'history is a trap to set you up'... more cranky assertions.

You've said that you made a few mistakes just to get into the biggest blunder I've ever read of FFI so far!
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 would they ask Muhammad to prohibit something that Allah had already allowed? How it would it matter to Aisha or Hafsa if Muhammad drank honey or not ??.... Abbas makes a mention of forbiding Maria onto himself(muhammad) . Now Maria incident is all about sex scandal....
I've asked you to corroborate this from main Islamic sources, yet you've failed. Not one of the six major hadithers reported this.
First of all you asked which sources quote this because you thought that this story was never mentioned anywhere. When shown adequate sources then you further asked for Ibn Abbas, Ibn Kathir. Both the accounts have been provided to you. Now it seems you are raising the bar every single time.Now you ask me to provide 6 ahadith collections. Enough of trolling from you. You are not worth wasting time.
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Again I simply dont discard Bukhari merely because it doesnt suit my purpose. I have provided good reason as to why I discard him on this specific count. I have never ever said that ALL the bukhari hadith are reliable. I have always maintained that we can sift between the ahadith to determine which ones are true and which ones aren't. Ofcourse the criteria to do so is pure logic.....
Bukhari merely picked up the honey incident because it seems that this incident of sex scandal was rather embarassing for him. By all means believers will always try to protect the image of their prophet and therefore we also see the ahadith making a mention of miracles performed by Muhammad.
If so why then, according to you, do the hadiths portray him as a merciless rascal?
Bukhari and islamic historians didn't find anything wrong with what Muhammad did with non muslims. Remember almost all the crimes of Muhammad are against non muslims and everything other than islam is inferior to them and its ok if muslim rape, loot and kill.This is because of the double standards that muslims apply. Kafir is inferior to a muslim. Even we find such double standards today.

As far as this incident is concerned Bukhari's incident hardly makes sense and hence it can be discarded.
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:The reality is this person is a quran alone muslim and he is afraid to disclose this in FFI and that's why he is resorting to excuses like the one mentioned above ..... In this thread itself ,Yeezevee asked him twice or thrice whether he believes in quran being a word of GOd . I asked him 4 times the same question and even Multiple asked him this question 3 times. HE didn't answer this question even once.
viewtopic.php?p=160700#p160700" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=160900#p160900" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How Isa isn't a proper name but an appellation, being not only the Word and Spirit of Allah
but also his will (written Yasha'u in Arabic, same YS-h root as Yeshua, Hebrew for Jesus).
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am not going to read your thread because of its length. Just answer a simple question.

IS quran a word of GOd? YEs or no! Was Muhammad a criminal ? Yes or no.

Please answer these questions in a straightforward way with a simple YES OR NO . If you don't answer this time there is no reason why we are supposed to trust you on your claim that you arent a quran alone muslim.

Btw if you really dont believe in the quran then why the hell do you defend it?? What sense does it make?
The Cat wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote: Reource thread and I am sure you don't possess common sense to understand what I have written. What I have written will appeal to anyone with a common sense but since you don't possess even that it's not going to be helpful for you.
I understand that what you've written over there is a Sunnite apology, to the shame of FFI.
What's shameful is your stance of supporting the quran. I use the same ahadith to attack islam which means that I don't support their content but you on the other hand claim that quran is a clean book which means you support flogging , cutting hands, hatred against unbelievers etc.

Anyway that thread is miles apart from your intellectual level. You direct some stupid criticism against ahadith to prove how quran alone stance is justified. My posts refute every stupid argument that you have made.

THe Cat wrote: Now anyone with common sense could differentiate between 'authentic' and 'authenticity'.
Especially when called on this, so many times. You never did. What does that make you?
Enough of your bullcrap. If you cant understand what I write then its not my problem. Assuming there is a difference between the 2 , it doesn't prove or disprove anything about having common sense because its a matter related to the understanding of english language. English is not my first language .All it would prove is that I was unaware of the difference. I still doubt if there is a difference between the 2 terms . I obviously cannot take a word of a troll like you on this.

The Cat wrote: Anyone with common sense would have never written...
The above link claims that mecca was built before the advent of islam and before 7th century. They have the archaeological evidence
of existence of mecca. Abbot’s tribunal Glastonbury has those objects found during excavation ...... We have archaeological proofs
and hence we don’t need any historian to confirm it.
You want more of this 'common sense' of yours? Just ask...

viewtopic.php?p=151552#p151552" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
IF I am talk to about your common sense then a whole new thread will be required for me to set up. I have never seen a debator as poor as yourself. YOu are nothing but a gigantic TROLL and let alone an ordinary troll. I guess the term scholar used for yourself is a blasphemy and a gross insult to human intelligence.You need to understand that copying intelligent posts from somewhere doesn't make you intelligent.

As far this quote from me is concerned I had already admitted by mistake in that thread. It was because I misread and not because I didn't have common sense. You don't even understand what is a case of common sense and when a case is a matter of genuine mistake and you claim yourself to be a scholar here? My foot!
The Cat wrote:
Never ever fall for the historical crap. I made a mistake of getting into historical things. Its a TRAP to set you up.
If you fall for it you lose the case. Here the key is to beat the hunter by his own game. Just use the very same historical
proofs to debunk quran... Now in all the debates I made a few mistakes and I have learned from them so I can now gather
all the things and put them in one thread in the resource center.
So that's how you've started your thread, while stating that 'history is a trap to set you up'... more cranky assertions.
Its not my problem that you don't understand what is written properly. I hereby never meant to say that historical proofs are unauthentic. What I meant is those historic proofs have been quoted to show quran alone faith is justified and that's why I said that don't fall for it by arguing against them . I may be wrong to say that they are crap but my point is valid that instead of arguing against historic proofs use them as your weapon.

The wise thing is to just use the same proofs to show how quran also becomes unreliable .Let me tell you that you are idiot who doesn't even understand that those proofs backfire against you horribly .Your historic proofs which you copy pasted infact help in debunking quran itself.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:First of all you asked which sources quote this because you thought that this story was never mentioned anywhere. When shown adequate sources then you further asked for Ibn Abbas, Ibn Kathir. Both the accounts have been provided to you. Now it seems you are raising the bar every single time.Now you ask me to provide 6 ahadith collections.
Wrong, Your Senility.... I Have been asking this from the beginning:
viewtopic.php?p=161774#p161774" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
On what sources exactly can you state that sura 66 is talking about a sex scandal?
Kathir? Abbas? Bukhari? Muslim? Any other of the 6 main hadithers? Inform us all.


From the tafsirs... it's not in the Kathir text we have and the Abbas line doesn't prove anything.
skynightblaze wrote:I am not going to read your thread because of its length. Just answer a simple question. IS quran a word of GOd? YEs or no! Was Muhammad a criminal ? Yes or no.
How Isa isn't a proper name but an appellation, being not only the Word and Spirit of Allah
but also his Will (written Yasha'u in Arabic, same YS-h root as Yeshua, Hebrew for Jesus).

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the Koran, Muhammad is depicted as a depraved and lusty fellow, not an example to be followed.
Since he's not even an Imam, who's example to be followed, his 'criminality' falls under Presentism.
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:I understand that what you've written over there is a Sunnite apology, to the shame of FFI.
I use the same ahadith to attack islam which means that I don't support their content but you on the other hand claim that quran is a clean book which means you support flogging , cutting hands, hatred against unbelievers etc.

Anyway that thread is miles apart from your intellectual level. You direct some stupid criticism against ahadith to prove how quran alone stance is justified. My posts refute every stupid argument that you have made.
Your Senility, I've told you how every ayat after 5.3 isn't law-binding but contextual.

And your position is ludicrous: on one hand you don't support their content, just to accept their legitimacy on the other.
viewtopic.php?p=129836#p129836" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:Now anyone with common sense could differentiate between 'authentic' and 'authenticity'.
Especially when called on this, so many times. You never did. What does that make you?
I still doubt if there is a difference between the 2 terms . I obviously cannot take a word of a troll like you on this.
Your Senility has been called on this MANY times
Mein Kampf is an authentic book at the core of Nazism but it's authenticity is loathsome for most of us.

viewtopic.php?p=129863#p129863" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=129931#p129931" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
None is denying here that hadiths are criminal. All we are saying is they are the truth.
viewtopic.php?p=130181#p130181" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Bible, for example, is an authentic collection of many books but its AUTHENTICITY is questionable.
skynightblaze wrote:You need to understand that copying intelligent posts from somewhere doesn't make you intelligent. As far this quote from me is concerned I had already admitted by mistake in that thread. It was because I misread and not because I didn't have common sense.
Thing is that you constantly misread as with al-Kalbi. And then jump to hasty generalization like:
''We have archaeological proofs and hence we don’t need any historian to confirm it''. More silliness!
Later to end up with: ''There must be proof. Its only that I aint finding it.''
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Never ever fall for the historical crap. I made a mistake of getting into historical things. Its a TRAP to set you up.
If you fall for it you lose the case. Here the key is to beat the hunter by his own game. Just use the very same historical
proofs to debunk quran... Now in all the debates I made a few mistakes and I have learned from them so I can now gather
all the things and put them in one thread in the resource center.
So that's how you've started your thread, while stating that 'history is a trap to set you up'... more cranky assertions.

I may be wrong to say that they are crap but my point is valid that instead of arguing against historic proofs use them as your weapon..... Your historic proofs which you copy pasted infact help in debunking quran itself.
His Senility's logic: --History is crap-trap, but let's use it anyway to debunk the Koran too! :wacko:

Then you started to state that, since the hadiths were from the Abbasid forgery-mill, thus must be the Koran too!
Thing is they did corrupt the Koran: While they couldn't alter the words themselves, they deviated the meanings
and contexts through the tafsirs/hadiths... you're otherwise defending!

For example, it's only in the tafsirs that we find how the Bible has been 'corrupted'. Never so in the Koran!
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 »

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

And when you say bible.. what book are you talking?? you know well that so called Bible is the collections of religious texts of Judaism and Christianity. Don't you?? So which book are you talking or do you mean to say Quran is nothing but ALL Bible books put together?

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

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

And when you say bible.. what book are you talking?? you know well that so called Bible is the collections of religious texts of Judaism and Christianity. Don't you?? So which book are you talking or do you mean to say Quran is nothing but ALL Bible books put together?
Quran claims that Jesus wasn't the son of God however bible says otherwise. Quran doesn't directly accuse previous scriptures of corruption however making statements contradictory to Bible means quran acknowledges its corruption OR Muhammad and his scribes were simply ignorant of the previous scriptures and hence inserted the erroneous beliefs in the quran.This concept is too much for CAT to understand. Anyway quran does claim that islam is the only religion acceptable to Allah in 3:85 and this should suffice to override previous scriptures.

Again notice how deceptively avoids answering my question . Does he believe quran to be a word of GOd ? My opinion is YES and he is merely putting in some stuff sometimes to cast away suspicion from him. I cannot simply believe that a person would mistakenly say Satan made the hadith compilers compile the ahadith or islam is older than quran. One can be logically wrong but such mistakes are simply too much. Only a muslim would make such claims.

Anyway its waste of time to argue with him . You need to simply stop replying to him after sometime because he brings nothing new to the table and keeps repeating the same things again and again.
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.

Post Reply