Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

[Alex]

Do you have anywhere I can read it at and give as a source (one of them loves internet sources)? The Qur'an dot come seems a bit biased to me. Sometimes most of the verses are completely different than the ones in my Qur'an (physical).

[enceladus]

(snip)
The whole Qur'an is mistake after mistake, contradiction after contradiction, irrational twist after irrational twist and then just plain changing words (Allah said). Why do Muslims believe in the Qur'an when its so clear it cannot be trusted?
(snip)

Gooood question......

It sure has me puzzled. I saw a video a few days ago which said that there's a verse in the Quran which says that non-Muslims have seven intestines!

It is **as plain as the light of day** (to us Westerners) that Mo was a fake.
That he said that the verses "came from Allah" simply to give some semblance of "authority"
to his nonsense.
That "Allah" was nothing more than Mo's "puppet", who Mo used to spew out nonsense when he needed it (just like Mr Garrison used Mr Hat in South Park..... ).
- enceladus

[The Cat]

So on the thread about who was Hanan, you accused me of not answering you, even though YOU said "back to my devoted silence toward you". So why would you be expecting me to answer this? You chose it, not me. But, since you later accuse me of not answering, I am answering. Maybe it is merely Kathir's opinion, but what does that do to dismiss my point?

You're contracting yourself from confusing posts.
viewtopic.php?p=162886#p162886
You're a damn liar. Everyone can check from my last link how you never answered, but left.

He said Muhammad was the last and mightiest of messengers and that Allah commanded that Muhammad be obeyed.
How could the other prophets be asked to obey Muhammad when they lived before him?? Silly moron.

Let's find who's the moron here!
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980

all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him...!!!

There goes Khatir's reliability down the drain.... and illustrate your 'Sunnite' credulity.

It's claiming the prophets before Muhammad predicted him and said that people should obey and follow him when he comes. It's talking about Deuteronomy 18:18 among others, you idiot. Look at how stupid and/or insane you actually are. And you asked me to answer this post on that Hanan thread?? What were you thinking?? This has to be your most blundered post ever. Do you drink heavily or did you forget to take your meds?

Prove that it's about Dt.18.18 (from a 'corrupted' Bible). And you're now backpedaling from what you've said right above:
How could the other prophets be asked to obey Muhammad when they lived before him?? Silly moron.
So what is it now?

Shakir says Apostle, you dummy. that's who i was quoting.

You're a fool who has quoted a biased translation of Shakir. For he never wrote 'Apostle' but 'Messenger', along with 2 main others:

3.32:
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/3/32/default.htm
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/qur ... 03-qmt.php
YUSUFALI: Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.
PICKTHAL: Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).
SHAKIR: Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers.

4.13 (same)
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/4/13/default.htm
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/qur ... 04-qmt.php

4.80 (same, etc)
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/4/80/default.htm
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/qur ... 04-qmt.php
YUSUFALI: He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds).
PICKTHAL: Whoso obeyeth the messenger hath obeyed Allah, and whoso turneth away: We have not sent thee as a warder over them.
SHAKIR: Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them.

The dummy here is you who didn't relate to mainstream translations, but a biased one, for apostle doesn't carry the Arabic 'Rasul'
and if Shakir would have used it, instead of 'Messenger', he would have been prove a bad translator.

Look at what an absolute fool you are NOW.... See how stupid you are? Certainly IS Shakir.

You didn't quote Shakir, you fool, but a biased rendition of Shakir... which you didn't check out

Reminder: The important difference between 'Messenger' and 'Apostle'.
viewtopic.php?p=158703#p158703

there was a deeper meaning behind it (10.34-36). Jesus was never even close to being literal about anything.

Tell us how the Donatist massacre or of the Cathars, for example, were figurative...

[The Cat]

1. It (6.92) says that quran came as a confirmation of previous scripture and people should look into them so that they can warn others about quran which means quran didn't consider the previous scriptures to be corrupted.... The article I linked says that Quran actually accuses these people of distorting the message by hiding or not obeying it and not by ACtually corrupting the physical text.

2. Now my take on this issue was that Muhammad wanted to replace himself as the final prophet and override the previous scriptures by claiming that his quran was just a continuation of previous scriptures and an updated version. Muhammad seems to be making mistakes about previous scriptures but I think they were due to ignorance of Muhammad about previous scriptures or due to corruption of quran.

3. Now to answer your question as to why muslims would want to claim that previous scriptures are corrupt is because they then find a good excuse to cover up the errors in the quran like misunderstanding of trinity, Jesus being not Son of God, misunderstanding that Uzair was the son of God (jewis belief) or Maryam was sister of Aaron etc. If they don't claim that previous scriptures are corrupt then this would mean quran is in error.

1 & 2. Abbasids had to corrupt the Koran, through the tafsirs/hadiths, in order to estrange the sacred book from the previous scriptures.
And then to give Muhammad an Imam status nowhere given to him the the Koran but to Abraham (2.124), Isaac (21.73), Moses (46.12).
This accusation (1st leveled in 1064 by Ibn Khazem) was denied by many top Islamic scholars like Avicenna, al-Ghazali and Ibn Khaldoun!
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8273

3. Isa, isn't recognized as the -walid- (biological son) yet as the -ibn- in spirit of Allah and Maryam. More so, Isa
(not a proper name but a divine surname) being the very word of Allah (4.179), is the living statement of truth.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Allah,_His_Word,_and_%27Isa
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769

1. he (The Cat) was asking me where Ibn Kathir spoke about Maria and Muhammad affair in the quran but when it comes to looking for tafsir about following Muhammad this person rejects it! Why? because it exposes Muhammad and quran ! Now he will give excuse like He considers these sources as historical. Now time and again he keeps on claiming that Abbasids corrupted all the non quranic material and yet he thinks that the corrupted books can provide us with a correct history!

2. Secondly, he rejected the tafsir relating to 2:22 in the quran which clearly talks about FLAT Earth in the other thread. Those tafsirs say that Allah made the earth FLAT.

3. Another example of his stupidity is that he claimed that the name ISA didn't exist when Quran was compiled which would mean that the name ISA Was added after the quran was compiled . This would mean quran was corrupted however inspite of showing him how his post indicates corruption of quran , he denies corruption of quran and says that people after Muhammad didnt corrupt quran but only ahadith and tafsir.

1. First, I was asking so to point out an editing consortium. Second, the tafsirs about following the sunna of Muhammad are contrary to
the Koran, thus underlining my point that they were made to corrupt Muslim's sacred book. Third, my claim is that what's purely about
history (not religiously binding) must be dealt with according to their own intrinsic value. Will snb ever gets something right... ?
viewtopic.php?p=162111#p162111
viewtopic.php?p=162722#p162722

2. You've been answered on this...
viewtopic.php?p=161924#p161924
More so, Firashan in 2.22 means 'resting place' translating the idea of comfortable, suitable.
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/2/22/default.htm
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp? ... 2&verse=22

Not a flat place, but a place 'of the correct nature' intended to be the cradle of mankind.
viewtopic.php?p=161933#p161933
viewtopic.php?p=162057#p162057
Synonymous of to spread out; Ibn Kathir/Ibn Abbas on 91.6, it means 'of the correct nature'.
viewtopic.php?p=162553#p162553

3. Isa didn't exist as a proper name but existed as a divine aphorism, of Hindu origin. Again, when will snb gets anything right?
viewtopic.php?p=162722#p162722
''Your Senility might get it in a decade or two, as for the difference between 'authentic' and 'authenticity'...''

The Koranic Isa
A study over the origin of the name & over the Koranic 'son of' (ie. Allah & Mary).
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769

If you don't understand, resorting to ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well fallacies, doesn't even elude anything.

[skynightblaze]

@MBL

The idiotic argument of "Obey the messenger" doesn't mean obeying Muhammad has already been refuted but yet this troll will keep arguing no matter what.. Anyway check the argument 6 in the link below.... I have quoted plenty of verses which clearly indicate that Muhammad is supposed to be followed. 33:40 clearly says that Muhammad is a prophet (Nabi) as well as a messenger.

viewtopic.php?p=154709#p154709

I beginning to think that this person really has some mental problem. May be it's serious . Either he is a troll of BMZ's caliber or else he has some serious mental issues.

[skynightblaze]

I see! Thanks for the answer! To better understand, I will reread afterward as well!

The whole Qur'an is mistake after mistake, contradiction after contradiction, irrational twist after irrational twist and then just plane changing words (Allah said). Why do Muslims believe in the Qur'an when its so clear it cannot be trusted? This man never committed any miracles and Allah said he didn't, he never did anything good, he never stopped bad things, he married children and had sex with them, was sexist and racist, hateful and angry and had a brain disorder. I mean he goes to a cave and leaves...and then says "I'm a prophet!" and people believe him? It must have been so easy to become a militant leader in those times.

How can they even trust the Qur'an even 1%?

Yes, I hope someone comes in here to clear it up.

To understand why people believe in absurdities one has to understand "cults". Muslims believe that probably world will be upside down if they even think for a moment that Islam is a lie. Really Allah has sealed their hearts.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

So on the thread about who was Hanan, you accused me of not answering you, even though YOU said "back to my devoted silence toward you". So why would you be expecting me to answer this? You chose it, not me. But, since you later accuse me of not answering, I am answering. Maybe it is merely Kathir's opinion, but what does that do to dismiss my point?

You're contracting yourself from confusing posts.
viewtopic.php?p=162886#p162886
You're a damn liar. Everyone can check from my last link how you never answered, but left.

Don't just quote the link, quote the specific quote from the link and I'll talk about it.

It's claiming the prophets before Muhammad predicted him and said that people should obey and follow him when he comes. It's talking about Deuteronomy 18:18 among others, you idiot. Look at how stupid and/or insane you actually are. And you asked me to answer this post on that Hanan thread?? What were you thinking?? This has to be your most blundered post ever. Do you drink heavily or did you forget to take your meds?[/quote]
Prove that it's about Dt.18.18 (from a 'corrupted' Bible). And you're now backpedaling from what you've said right above:[/quote]

No I'm not. You made the mistake of thinking it was thinking that it was talking about future prophets being commanded to follow Muhammad, but it is actually talking about people being commanded to follow Muhammad when he comes. It's obvious. Kathir was a scholar and he wouldn't make such a stupid error like you would. You are one very bizarre character.

How could the other prophets be asked to obey Muhammad when they lived before him?? Silly moron.
So what is it now?

It was talking about people following him when he comes. It certainly was not talking about prophets after Muhammad following him.

Shakir says Apostle, you dummy. that's who i was quoting.

You're a fool who has quoted a biased translation of Shakir. For he never wrote 'Apostle' but 'Messenger', along with 2 main others:

If Shakir translated it into English, how can there be a biased translation? He uses apostle all over the place
http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/tran ... ir/004.htm

3.32:
http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/3/32/default.htm
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/qur ... 03-qmt.php
YUSUFALI: Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.
PICKTHAL: Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).
SHAKIR: Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers.

I don't know who should be trusted. But either way, I proved you wrong about your charge of me making it up. So stuff it and chew on it.

The dummy here is you who didn't relate to mainstream translations, but a biased one, for apostle doesn't carry the Arabic 'Rasul'
and if Shakir would have used it, instead of 'Messenger', he would have been prove a bad translator.

Why do Muslims alter what is already written in English?

Look at what an absolute fool you are NOW.... See how stupid you are? Certainly IS Shakir.

You didn't quote Shakir, you fool, but a biased rendition of Shakir... which you didn't check out [/quote]

Then I guess this is biased as well
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/k ... yte=114839

But, even if both sources are biased, it still proves I didn't make it up and your accusation is completely ridiculous, so you're still a raging fool.

Reminder: The important difference between 'Messenger' and 'Apostle'.
viewtopic.php?p=158703#p158703

there was a deeper meaning behind it (10.34-36). Jesus was never even close to being literal about anything.

Tell us how the Donatist massacre or of the Cathars, for example, were figurative...

Where did Jesus tell them to do that?

[The Cat]

The idiotic argument of "Obey the messenger" doesn't mean obeying Muhammad has already been refuted but yet this troll will keep arguing no matter what.. Anyway check the argument 6 in the link below.... I have quoted plenty of verses which clearly indicate that Muhammad is supposed to be followed. 33:40 clearly says that Muhammad is a prophet (Nabi) as well as a messenger.

And where does the Koran state that Muhammad is an Imam (a timeless guide and religious example), Your Senility?

And where can be found such a clear statement of obedience for Muhammad, such as about Isa?
3.50: I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.
43.63: I have come unto you with LAW (Bil-Ĥikmati).... So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.

Was Muhammad created in the likeness of Adam (3.59)?
Did he performed miracles and ascended to heaven (3.49; 3.55)?
Was he a Sign, a statement of truth (19.21; 19.34; 21.91)?
Where do we read 'Obey Muhammad' but 'Obey the Messenger'?

How Isa is the verb of Allah, the verb 'to be'... in our wikiislam:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Allah,_His_Word,_and_%27Isa

So, like I've said, it's through your 'legitimate' tafsirs/hadiths that Muhammad became elevated to the status of an Islamic Messiah.

I beginning to think that this person really has some mental problem. May be it's serious . Either he is a troll of BMZ's caliber or else he has some serious mental issues.

The person who has mental problem here is Your Senility, someone who STILL defends the very hadiths authenticity!

16.116: And speak not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify (as clean or unclean), the falsehood: "This is lawful,
and this is forbidden," so that ye invent a lie against Allah. Lo! those who invent a lie against Allah will not succeed.

This verse nullify 90% of all nowadays Shariah and Fiqh, of man-made regulations from your 'authoritative' tafsirs/hadiths!

[The Cat]

Go look up Shakir's translations. He uses Apostle.

Wrong. The site you relied on gave a false rendition.
On 3.32 (for example) it's Shakir messenger not apostle. They wrongly taught it meant the same (?), as you did...
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/

003.032
YUSUFALI: Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger":
PICKTHAL: Say: Obey Allah and the messenger
SHAKIR: Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger

Ect, etc.
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/32/default.htm
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/13/default.htm
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/80/default.htm

if both sources are biased, it still proves I didn't make it up and your accusation is completely ridiculous

What's ridiculous is to rely on spurious Muslim's versions of Shakir! The Michigan text is just a reproduction...
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/

The text was provided by the Online Book Initiative and subsequently marked up at the HTI in SGML.
Like all the versions of this text derived from the Online Book Initiative, it is not free from errors....

That's your bad.

Tell us how the Donatist massacre or of the Cathars, for example, were figurative...

Where did Jesus tell them to do that?

Matthew 10.33-34:
10.33: But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
10.34: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke
12.47: And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
12.48: But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.....
12.49: I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

14.23: And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
14.26: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Some of these verses were used by Augustine to justify his notion of a 'just (holy) war'.

[Alex]

Gooood question......

It sure has me puzzled. I saw a video a few days ago which said that there's a verse in the Quran which says that non-Muslims have seven intestines!

It is **as plain as the light of day** (to us Westerners) that Mo was a fake.
That he said that the verses "came from Allah" simply to give some semblance of "authority"
to his nonsense.
That "Allah" was nothing more than Mo's "puppet", who Mo used to spew out nonsense when he needed it (just like Mr Garrison used Mr Hat in South Park..... ).
- enceladus

What? Do you have a link to the video? I would love to see it. xD

The worse part in how clear it is that he is a fake, is that he does no miracle to prove who he is, and that Allah said he couldn't and shouldn't have to (etc). Its just weird people would believe a man who ranted about being a god's prophet when he couldn't even prove it, or do something "divine" to show it.

@ the Mr. Garrison thing.

[Alex]

I see! Thanks for the answer! To better understand, I will reread afterward as well!

The whole Qur'an is mistake after mistake, contradiction after contradiction, irrational twist after irrational twist and then just plane changing words (Allah said). Why do Muslims believe in the Qur'an when its so clear it cannot be trusted? This man never committed any miracles and Allah said he didn't, he never did anything good, he never stopped bad things, he married children and had sex with them, was sexist and racist, hateful and angry and had a brain disorder. I mean he goes to a cave and leaves...and then says "I'm a prophet!" and people believe him? It must have been so easy to become a militant leader in those times.

How can they even trust the Qur'an even 1%?

Yes, I hope someone comes in here to clear it up.

To understand why people believe in absurdities one has to understand "cults". Muslims believe that probably world will be upside down if they even think for a moment that Islam is a lie. Really Allah has sealed their hearts.

That brings out another example of why Muhammad is fake. The Qur'an teaches Muslims not to question it, the world, science or about beign wrong. It teaches them...to basically not really learn. I wonder why that is.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Go look up Shakir's translations. He uses Apostle.

Wrong. The site you relied on gave a false rendition.
On 3.32 (for example) it's Shakir messenger not apostle. They wrongly taught it meant the same (?), as you did...
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/

003.032
YUSUFALI: Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger":
PICKTHAL: Say: Obey Allah and the messenger
SHAKIR: Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger

Ect, etc.
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/32/default.htm
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/13/default.htm
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/80/default.htm

Even if your source is right and mine is wrong, this started by you accusing me of fabricating it, right?? Was that a mistake?

if both sources are biased, it still proves I didn't make it up and your accusation is completely ridiculous

What's ridiculous is to rely on spurious Muslim's versions of Shakir! The Michigan text is just a reproduction...
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/

The text was provided by the Online Book Initiative and subsequently marked up at the HTI in SGML.
Like all the versions of this text derived from the Online Book Initiative, it is not free from errors....

That's your bad.

No, it's your bad because you accused me of being a liar and making it up. So YOU should have checked twice before making accusations. So much for your desperate attempt to paint me as a liar. I do not lie, nor practice any trickery or evasiveness nor diversion, as you often do. I'm not desperate to always be right like you are. Now, I won't even ask for an apology because that is outside of your capabilities.

Tell us how the Donatist massacre or of the Cathars, for example, were figurative...

Where did Jesus tell them to do that?

Matthew 10.33-34:
10.33: But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
10.34: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

And you take that literally. But what happened when Peter literally drew a sword??

Luke
12.47: And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
12.48: But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.....

When will he be beaten and who's going to do the beating? And besides, this is a parable.

12.49: I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

That's fire of the heart, moron. Remember John saying he baptizes with water but Jesus will baptize with fire?? Nobody takes this literally. Jesus never said anything literally. Nice try.

14.23: And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

And that's what the Apostles did. No violence involved at all. Do you understand what Jesus was talking about better than they did?? If Jesus wanted violent conversion, then his apostles did not fulfill his will. Dummy.

14.26: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Some of these verses were used by Augustine to justify his notion of a 'just (holy) war'.

Can you quote Augustine?

[The Cat]

This started by you accusing me of fabricating it, right?? Was that a mistake?
it's your bad because you accused me of being a liar and making it up.

Wrong. You didn't give your references and quit away when challenged... Still your bad.

And you take that literally.

It doesn't matter mine or your opinion here. These verses were used to build imperialism in Christianity following Augustine.

Just google Augustine+just+war... or Augustine+Donatists, or Augustine+Pelagius, etc.

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/A ... tists.html
http://g0spel0fj0hn.com/2011/02/25/st-a ... nquisitor/