Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by Pragmatist »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:And, one other thing to consider Debunker.

You keep on going back to what God surely would and wouldn't do, but even in the Quran, it talks about how God wiped out entire peoples. It just didn't give specifics like the Bible did because the Quran never tried to retell the actual story, it would merely reference it, but obviously there was some pretty nasty stuff going on and that was the point the Quran was trying to convey.

But here's something even more fundamental to consider, and it ends up being far worse than anything any human has done.

According to Islam and other religions
1) God is all knowing
2) Therefore, God knows the future outcomes with absolute certainty
3) There will be many people in hell
4) God knows whether a person will end up in hell or not, even before he creates them
5) God can choose not to create them if he knows they will end up in hell
6) God chooses to create them anyway, knowing he will torture them in hell
7) God created them to be tortured in hell. If that was the known outcome, then that was the purpose.

So that's pretty much as bad as it gets, right? So why does God go ahead and create the person anyway rather than sparing them? Does he want to punish them for sins that they have yet to do by creating them so that they will end doing the sins they have yet to do and end up in hell? Remember, God could have easily prevented them from going to hell by not even creating them at all. So when you talk about knowing what God would and wouldn't do, I think you need to solve this very fundamental riddle first before you can even begin to think you know how God would or wouldn't behave.

This is why I'm actually one of the few here that actually does not use Muhammad's behavior to disqualify him as a prophet, I use what he says in the Quran because that's all i really need anyway. The stuff that he did in the hadiths, I find horrifying. But technically speaking, that's my own value judgment. I reject the Quran mainly because of it's claim to be the letter for letter dictation of Allah while showing perceptions and understandings of the cosmos that mirror that of a 7th century man perfectly.. To me, THAT'S my proof. That doesn't require a value judgment, it's an obvious thing or blunder. Recognizing an obvious blunder is not a value judgment.

And of course the Krap kran is even more HEARSAY than ANY hadith

allah to Gibril HEARSAY, Gibril to Old Mo HEARSAY, Old Mo to the writers (who knows how many and he was illiterate remember) HUGE amounts of HEARSAY. But many Mohammedans reject the Hadiths because THEY are Hearsay. Mohammedan HYPOCRISY at its most blatant.

But we don't believe any of that we believe the Krap Kran and allah was INVENTED by the 20% profit Mohammad which is why it has no more knowledge in it than could be found in this 7th Century Arabs head. So all in all the HADITHS are probably the ONLY thing with any element of truth in them in the whole of Islam.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.

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

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

debunker wrote:Hello Bin,
For power. Common human error. But I don't think they thought they were doing the wrong thing. They thought they were closest to Allah or their idea of Allah was correct and the other guy's wasn't. Typical. But if they were even the least bit Muslim, then they would have the hellfire to fear, right? So did Bukhari get the recollections from apostates?
First of all Bukhari didn't report any of these civil wars, it's reported in many history books with different versions of the story... but shocking events like destroying the Ka'aba is common in all of them. So, yes when they destroyed the Ka'aba they didn't have the slightest fear of hell.
And Bukhari's in on this? He documents who reported what. Did he lie and therefore risk the hellfire? This seems more like you inventing "possibilities".
Again, Bukhari didn't report the Banu al-Mustaliq story. A history book by Ibn Ishaq did. And I don't think Ibn Ishaq (or Bukhari) intentionally lied. They reported stories according to what they heard, that's all they did. And yes, I am merely "speculating" as to why these stories were invented (altered).
Why speculate at all? Because you NEED them to be invented and untrue.
debunker wrote:
That doesn't seem to be who Bukhari interviewed. Definitely not in the case of the stories of Ayesha's age.
Again, Bukhari came more than 150-200 years later and started collecting stories. He interviewed storytellers.
But it's not, so instead, it's the Munafiqeen. But this means that pious Muslims believed such stories about Muhammad and passed it along the chain?
A Munafiq reporting the story could be at the beginning of the chain, its end or somewhere in between. Besides, that's just one possibility. And yes, just like Muslims of today have no problem believing stories of cold blooded assassinations of Mohammed's enemies, for example, so were Muslims of old. All they needed was to hear someone they trusted saying: Mohammed did it, so it automatically becomes OK.
But, even aside from Munafiqeen, the question still remains as to how we decide what comes from a Munafiqeen and what doesn't. So how do you decide whether the hadiths about Ayesha's age come from a Munafiqeen or not? You can't decide based on the quran as mentioned above, so do you decide based on what you know about Muhammad?
Based on the Quran's description of him and other prophets.
What do you mean? It barely even mentions Muhammad. Maybe 4 times or something?
The Quran mentioned Mohammed only about 4 times or so?! Obviously you haven't read the Quran.[/quote]

As far as my translation goes, the name of Muhammad is only mentioned 4 times.

3:144 (Y. Ali) Muhammad is no more than an apostle: many Were the apostle that passed away before him.
33:40 (Y. Ali) Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah,
47:2 (Y. Ali) But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and believe in the (Revelation) sent down to Muhammad
48:29 (Y. Ali) Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers,

If you want to include all of the verse where it talks about the messenger, then all it really says about Muhammad is that he was a messenger.
debunker wrote:
Well, see, we've run into the classic logic problem and I thank you for pointing this out or arriving at this spot. The Quran is right because Muhammad said so and Muhammad is right because the Quran said so. It's like saying, "why am I a prophet? Because this here book I'm reciting says so". Maybe I can now see why the books in the Bible always seemed to be written by a narrator, because you can't write a book yourself that makes you a prophet and your book divine. That will always come off as fishy or suspicious. More suspicious than if someone else writes an account of you and calls you a prophet. Interesting. I never thought of that before.
First off, many times before, I said no one can prove the divinity of the Quran. NO ONE! PERIOD. So, why do I choose the Quran over say, Veda? Ans: Due to my personal taste. Now, I don't see what's the difference between writing the book yourself or having someone else narrate that you were a prophet. And since you mention the Bible "yet again", know this: the 5 books of the Torah were written by Moses, including the last book of Deuteronomy where Moses describes his own death and burial, now it can't get any fishier than that, can it?
Good point, however, those books are mainly written in third person narrative format whereas the Quran is written in first person form. Secondly, I don't recall where those books say they are written by Moses.
debunker wrote:
But here's something even more fundamental to consider, and it ends up being far worse than anything any human has done.

According to Islam and other religions
1) God is all knowing
2) Therefore, God knows the future outcomes with absolute certainty
3) There will be many people in hell
4) God knows whether a person will end up in hell or not, even before he creates them
5) God can choose not to create them if he knows they will end up in hell
6) God chooses to create them anyway, knowing he will torture them in hell
7) God created them to be tortured in hell. If that was the known outcome, then that was the purpose.
Ok, so according to Islam and other religions, that's what God said about Himself, next.
Whoa whoa whoa, wait a second. Do you believe that God is all knowing or not? Does it say in the Quran whether he is all knowing or not?
debunker wrote:
So that's pretty much as bad as it gets, right? So why does God go ahead and create the person anyway rather than sparing them? Does he want to punish them for sins that they have yet to do by creating them so that they will end doing the sins they have yet to do and end up in hell? Remember, God could have easily prevented them from going to hell by not even creating them at all. So when you talk about knowing what God would and wouldn't do, I think you need to solve this very fundamental riddle first before you can even begin to think you know how God would or wouldn't behave.
Although I did try to justify this, I still don't know why God even created any of us in the first place. But remember, I never tried to think for God. I simply took what He said about Himself/prophets etc and used it to judge things.
OK, but according to the Quran, God created this life as a test for us. That's the reason the Quran gives for creating this life. Why would God test us? What would he find out that he didn't already know? It doesn't say we test ourselves, it says God tests us. Muhammad was a great general, but not a very good philosopher. He often just didn't think his story through enough.

debunker wrote:
I reject the Quran mainly because of it's claim to be the letter for letter dictation of Allah while showing perceptions and understandings of the cosmos that mirror that of a 7th century man perfectly.. To me, THAT'S my proof. That doesn't require a value judgment, it's an obvious thing or blunder. Recognizing an obvious blunder is not a value judgment.
And I am one of the very few Muslims who believe that the Quran does NOT have any science in it AT ALL. The Quran simply demanded the Arabs to appreciate God's creation as they understand it. "See the moon and the sun, how they move in the sky in perfect order?" This is basically what one the verses said. There's absolutely no science in it at all, it simply reminds them of the magic of creation all around them. And don't believe the stupid lie by Muslims that everything in the Quran is for all time and all ages. The religion as a whole is. But not every verse is.
I understand your point and I agree. All of this scientific miracles of the Quran is nothing but a bunch of baloney carried out by desperate people who will do anything, anything, to prop up their religion. The Quran merely asks one to observe what they can clearly observe, and see that as a sign for the existence of the particular God that the Quran sells. This is the pattern all over the Quran. "Do they not see.......?".
However, why does it describe the sky as being like a canopy and tell us it will become flimsy and tear open?
Why does it seem to tell us that meteors are fired at things and chase them away?
Why are we supposed to think the Quran was talking about the sun orbiting a galaxy rather than the earth when it mentions the sun's orbit?
What is it telling us when it says that the sun travels until it reaches it's resting place but also says it travels in an orbit?
There are many more. Your excuse covers some of the problems, but far from all of them. If you got this idea/excuse from somebody else, you should ask for your money back because they let you down.

But in general, I believe that Muhammad was not trying to give a science lesson nor reveal new, previously unknown scientific knowledge just as you say. He merely used natural observable phenomenon around him and hijacked it and used it as proof that his particular version of God was the true. So because clouds move, there is a God and Allah is the correct God and Muhammad is his legitimate prophet. That's precisely what he attempted to pull. So the ending result is that Muhammad is a true prophet and if you don't believe that, then observe the sun rising and that should show someone he is a true prophet. Q)Muhammad, why are you a true prophet? A) Do you not see how Allah sends down the rain? Kinda twisted. But in the midst of this hijacking, he inadvertently referenced some things incorrectly or displayed a common misunderstanding of these things, and in the same exact incorrect manner that everybody else in the 7th century did as well. When he references the sky as a canopy and then even tells us it will become flimsy and tear open, I don't think he's merely telling things from the angle of how people back then would perceive it. He meant it.

If the Quran did not claim it was the letter for letter dictation of God, then maybe I could reconsider it or take another look at it. With the Bible, I can possibly make excuses for it, because it's a modular collection of books and it is indeed written by a third party author as per it's third person narrative format and therefore can be said to be written from the author's perspective and errors can possibly be excused. And even if an entire book were found to be heavily flawed, it could be removed without effecting the validity of the other books. We cannot do this with the Quran. It's an all or nothing house of cards proposition. That was it's fatal flaw. Muhammad didn't think it through well enough.
Last edited by Muhammad bin Lyin on Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Debunker, I don't think you're going to be a Muslim forever. Why not? Because you don't seem to be willing to lie to yourself enough. You're not like most Muslims. Most Muslims will invent the most implausible, ridiculous things possible without ever giving it a second thought. You appear to at least be attempting to have a straightforward, honest conversation, so I have to give credit where credit is due. You also appear to be reasonably intelligent and logical. At some point, your ability to reason and your belief in Islam are going to clash.
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: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Pragmatist wrote: INVENTED by the 20% profit Mohammad
:lol: :lol: I like that !!! But you should have said 20% Profit Muhammad (PUBH). You need to capitalize his leading title of Profit. and add the obligatory PUBH
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: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Pragmatist wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:And, one other thing to consider Debunker.

You keep on going back to what God surely would and wouldn't do, but even in the Quran, it talks about how God wiped out entire peoples. It just didn't give specifics like the Bible did because the Quran never tried to retell the actual story, it would merely reference it, but obviously there was some pretty nasty stuff going on and that was the point the Quran was trying to convey.

But here's something even more fundamental to consider, and it ends up being far worse than anything any human has done.

According to Islam and other religions
1) God is all knowing
2) Therefore, God knows the future outcomes with absolute certainty
3) There will be many people in hell
4) God knows whether a person will end up in hell or not, even before he creates them
5) God can choose not to create them if he knows they will end up in hell
6) God chooses to create them anyway, knowing he will torture them in hell
7) God created them to be tortured in hell. If that was the known outcome, then that was the purpose.

So that's pretty much as bad as it gets, right? So why does God go ahead and create the person anyway rather than sparing them? Does he want to punish them for sins that they have yet to do by creating them so that they will end doing the sins they have yet to do and end up in hell? Remember, God could have easily prevented them from going to hell by not even creating them at all. So when you talk about knowing what God would and wouldn't do, I think you need to solve this very fundamental riddle first before you can even begin to think you know how God would or wouldn't behave.

This is why I'm actually one of the few here that actually does not use Muhammad's behavior to disqualify him as a prophet, I use what he says in the Quran because that's all i really need anyway. The stuff that he did in the hadiths, I find horrifying. But technically speaking, that's my own value judgment. I reject the Quran mainly because of it's claim to be the letter for letter dictation of Allah while showing perceptions and understandings of the cosmos that mirror that of a 7th century man perfectly.. To me, THAT'S my proof. That doesn't require a value judgment, it's an obvious thing or blunder. Recognizing an obvious blunder is not a value judgment.

And of course the Krap kran is even more HEARSAY than ANY hadith

allah to Gibril HEARSAY, Gibril to Old Mo HEARSAY, Old Mo to the writers (who knows how many and he was illiterate remember) HUGE amounts of HEARSAY. But many Mohammedans reject the Hadiths because THEY are Hearsay. Mohammedan HYPOCRISY at its most blatant.

But we don't believe any of that we believe the Krap Kran and allah was INVENTED by the 20% profit Mohammad which is why it has no more knowledge in it than could be found in this 7th Century Arabs head. So all in all the HADITHS are probably the ONLY thing with any element of truth in them in the whole of Islam.
At least the Hadiths attempted to be a sort of historical book rather than the arbitrary claims and rantings of someone who could be a madman.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by debunker »

Hello MBL,


You said:
Why speculate at all? Because you NEED them to be invented and untrue.
That's certainly one plausible explanation that I'm not willing to contest.
As far as my translation goes, the name of Muhammad is only mentioned 4 times.
If you want to include all of the verse where it talks about the messenger, then all it really says about Muhammad is that he was a messenger.
Are you saying that the Quran couldn't have been talking about the prophet unless it mentioned either "Mohammed" or "God's messenger"? How about these verses? Who do you think these were talking about?
80:1-10
He frowned and turned away. Because the blind man came unto him. And what would make you know that he would purify himself (believe)? Or take heed and so the reminder might avail him?

As for him who considers himself free from need (of you), Unto him you turn your attention. Yet it is not your concern if he purifies himself (believe).

But as to him who came to you striving earnestly, And he fears, Of him you were unmindful.


These (reproachful) verses didn't mention the prophet either by name nor as a messenger of God. Many verses talking about the prophet are like this.
Why would God test us? What would he find out that he didn't already know? It doesn't say we test ourselves, it says God tests us. Muhammad was a great general, but not a very good philosopher. He often just didn't think his story through enough.
Ok, so now you insist on strictly holding on to every word in the Quran as literal. In one of my conversations with Charles about God in general, he objected to the claim that an Almighty God would need us to worship Him. Yet, as far as I know, the God of any religion demands just that, worship. I explained to Charles that my viewpoint is that an Almighty God does NOT need our worship, but rather He's defining what it is our job using a language we could understand. Similarly, an all knowing God does NOT need to test us, but He's running the test anyway for us to know what we've done, and He's communicating this in a language we could understand (just like how adults would communicate with little kids).
However,
1-why does it describe the sky as being like a canopy and tell us it will become flimsy and tear open?
2-Why does it seem to tell us that meteors are fired at things and chase them away?
3-Why are we supposed to think the Quran was talking about the sun orbiting a galaxy rather than the earth when it mentions the sun's orbit? 4-What is it telling us when it says that the sun travels until it reaches it's resting place but also says it travels in an orbit?
There are many more.
I'm not sure about (1) but if I'm not mistaken it's describing the end of days?
In (2) the verse does NOT say that meteors ONLY exist to fire at things and drive them away.
Regarding (3) the word galaxy was never mentioned in the Quran. The word "FALAK", possibly meaning orbit, is there. And what do you think the Arabs saw in those days? Two heavenly bodies (the sun and moon) moving in the sky, the Quran never cared to contest their flawed understanding of this but rather used things as they were understood to emphasize that all of these were the creation of One God.

EDIT:
Of course, I'm not saying that all the verses were discussing things in terms of Arabs' limited understanding of nature. For example, some verses claim that even dead things like rocks and stars worship God. This implies that these are alive and aware which doesn't make any sense at all. But then again, I'm not going to lose my religion over such verses.
Your excuse covers some of the problems, but far from all of them. If you got this idea/excuse from somebody else, you should ask for your money back because they let you down.
Well, actually I didn't get it from anyone. In fact, many Muslims would ask for my head for my ideas.
He merely used natural observable phenomenon around him and hijacked it and used it as proof that his particular version of God was the true. So because clouds move, there is a God and Allah is the correct God and Muhammad is his legitimate prophet. That's precisely what he attempted to pull. So the ending result is that Muhammad is a true prophet and if you don't believe that, then observe the sun rising and that should show someone he is a true prophet. Q)Muhammad, why are you a true prophet? A) Do you not see how Allah sends down the rain? Kinda twisted.
That's certainly one plausible way to look at it. But the way I see it is that the Quran demanded the Arabs to connect the dots. The deity who created the earth, is the same one who created the rain and clouds, the sun and the moon, man and beast. In fact in one of the verses, the Quran even specifically attacked the idea of multiple deities using this argument: If there were more than one deity, then quarrels between them are bound to happen and the apparent order of the universe will be shattered to pieces when each one of them parts with what they created.
If the Quran did not claim it was the letter for letter dictation of God, then maybe I could reconsider it or take another look at it. With the Bible, I can possibly make excuses for it, because it's a modular collection of books and it is indeed written by a third party author as per it's third person narrative format and therefore can be said to be written from the author's perspective and errors can possibly be excused. And even if an entire book were found to be heavily flawed, it could be removed without effecting the validity of the other books. We cannot do this with the Quran. It's an all or nothing house of cards proposition. That was it's fatal flaw. Muhammad didn't think it through well enough.
Here you are again mentioning the Bible. Your position is that the Bible is exempt from all the scrutiny you apply to the Quran simply because the Bible was written by authors with their own personal perspective on things. Great! So that explains all the scientific errors in the Bible for example (I don't think of them as errors by the way). But your stand is rejected by Orthodox Christians because it casts a big shadow of doubt on EVERYTHING in the Bible. If these authors were describing things from their own perspectives, and as such mistakes are expected and permissible, then how can we be certain that anything they said at all is the truth? Maybe they were also wrong about many religious ideas as well. Ironically, the very tool you use to help you cope with the inconsistencies in the Bible is the very reason why one could argue that we shouldn't trust anything in the Bible at all and that's why religious Christians reject your view.
Debunker, I don't think you're going to be a Muslim forever. Why not? Because you don't seem to be willing to lie to yourself enough. You're not like most Muslims. Most Muslims will invent the most implausible, ridiculous things possible without ever giving it a second thought. You appear to at least be attempting to have a straightforward, honest conversation, so I have to give credit where credit is due. You also appear to be reasonably intelligent and logical. At some point, your ability to reason and your belief in Islam are going to clash.
Maybe... I don't know. Maybe I'd become a Hindu or a Buddhist or whatever if I found their scriptures more appealing. The same applies to you... in the end, putting cultural influences aside, to believe in a certain scripture as the truth is strictly a matter of personal taste. And I see no problem at all for each one of us to have their own interpretations of these scriptures. No one owns the exclusive rights of interpreting them.

Regards.
Last edited by debunker on Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
account suspended for inappropriate language

piscohot
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:16 am

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by piscohot »

debunker wrote:
Debunker, I don't think you're going to be a Muslim forever. Why not? Because you don't seem to be willing to lie to yourself enough. You're not like most Muslims. Most Muslims will invent the most implausible, ridiculous things possible without ever giving it a second thought. You appear to at least be attempting to have a straightforward, honest conversation, so I have to give credit where credit is due. You also appear to be reasonably intelligent and logical. At some point, your ability to reason and your belief in Islam are going to clash.
Maybe... I don't know. Maybe I'd become a Hindu or a Buddhist or whatever if I found their scriptures more appealing. The same applies to you... in the end, putting cultural influences aside, to believe in a certain scripture as the truth is strictly a matter of personal taste. And I see no problem at all for each one of us to have their own interpretations of these scriptures. No one owns the exclusive rights of interpreting them.

Regards.
hello debunker,

I think that you have been 'introduced' to many many new things about Islam which you were never willing to face until you came to FFI.

I know of muslims who too doubt the many references to 'science' and 'signs' in the quran but remained muslims purely because they believed that the quran is the word of god from the way it was written. I think it is more of mind conditioning than anything else, especially if one had been told and taught since young that it is a beautifully written book. The quran sure didn't impress too many people with its eloquence during the initial 10 or so years when Muhammad was preaching in Mecca.

Anyway, all the best.
Quran miracle (16:69) : Bees eat ALL fruits
Quran miracle (27:18) : an ant SAID, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."

User avatar
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by debunker »

Hello Piscohot,

Indeed you're mistaken... I became aware of many many negative claims about Islam (especially those in Hadith) all by myself before I came to FFI. And when I discussed these issues with Muslims they always seemed to have no problem with them because their scholars said it's OK. I, on the other hand, didn't care for what the scholars said simply because I don't recognize their authority.

And by the way, many (but not all) of the claims in this site are things Muslims already believe in. This site is NOT exposing Islam to Muslims because in fact, Muslims' understanding of Islam (via their scholars) is somewhat close to this site's understaning.

So, your goal of exposing the ugly image of Islam to Muslims is very naive indeed simply because Muslims already believe in a version somewhat close to this ugly view you have about Islam and they think that it is the beautiful truth.

To me, the only solution is that Muslims get rid of the power of scholars on them but I don't see this happening any time soon.

Anyway, all the best to you too.
account suspended for inappropriate language

Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by Pragmatist »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:And, one other thing to consider Debunker.

You keep on going back to what God surely would and wouldn't do, but even in the Quran, it talks about how God wiped out entire peoples. It just didn't give specifics like the Bible did because the Quran never tried to retell the actual story, it would merely reference it, but obviously there was some pretty nasty stuff going on and that was the point the Quran was trying to convey.

But here's something even more fundamental to consider, and it ends up being far worse than anything any human has done.

According to Islam and other religions
1) God is all knowing
2) Therefore, God knows the future outcomes with absolute certainty
3) There will be many people in hell
4) God knows whether a person will end up in hell or not, even before he creates them
5) God can choose not to create them if he knows they will end up in hell
6) God chooses to create them anyway, knowing he will torture them in hell
7) God created them to be tortured in hell. If that was the known outcome, then that was the purpose.

So that's pretty much as bad as it gets, right? So why does God go ahead and create the person anyway rather than sparing them? Does he want to punish them for sins that they have yet to do by creating them so that they will end doing the sins they have yet to do and end up in hell? Remember, God could have easily prevented them from going to hell by not even creating them at all. So when you talk about knowing what God would and wouldn't do, I think you need to solve this very fundamental riddle first before you can even begin to think you know how God would or wouldn't behave.

This is why I'm actually one of the few here that actually does not use Muhammad's behavior to disqualify him as a prophet, I use what he says in the Quran because that's all i really need anyway. The stuff that he did in the hadiths, I find horrifying. But technically speaking, that's my own value judgment. I reject the Quran mainly because of it's claim to be the letter for letter dictation of Allah while showing perceptions and understandings of the cosmos that mirror that of a 7th century man perfectly.. To me, THAT'S my proof. That doesn't require a value judgment, it's an obvious thing or blunder. Recognizing an obvious blunder is not a value judgment.

And of course the Krap kran is even more HEARSAY than ANY hadith

allah to Gibril HEARSAY, Gibril to Old Mo HEARSAY, Old Mo to the writers (who knows how many and he was illiterate remember) HUGE amounts of HEARSAY. But many Mohammedans reject the Hadiths because THEY are Hearsay. Mohammedan HYPOCRISY at its most blatant.

But we don't believe any of that we believe the Krap Kran and allah was INVENTED by the 20% profit Mohammad which is why it has no more knowledge in it than could be found in this 7th Century Arabs head. So all in all the HADITHS are probably the ONLY thing with any element of truth in them in the whole of Islam.
At least the Hadiths attempted to be a sort of historical book rather than the arbitrary claims and rantings of someone who could be a madman.
True actually if there is any truth at all in Islam it is in the Hadiths which describe the actions of Mohammad. The HEARSAY Krap Kran can be discounted as the ramblings of a megalomaniac, paedophilic, misogynistic, anti semitic, thief , murderer and warlord out to create a CULT in order to make a fast buck (20% rule :*) ).
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.

User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Salam All

It’s been long time since last sunnah lesson by mister Bukhari, I really missed his silly and laughable lessons, I can assure you that we have still too many lessons to go though.

In one of the previous Bukhari lessons about Wudo http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?n ... =4250#4250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We witnessed how useless such hadith in there, in that lesson I posted the following two Quran verses:

O you who have believed! Do not come near the prayer when you are confused until you know what you say, nor when you are unclean -unless being travelers on the road- until you wash yourselves; and if you are sick or on a journey or the call of nature comes to anyone of you or you have touched the women, but you cannot find water then use clean soil, and wipe your faces and your hands; indeed Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.

[Al Quran ; 4:43]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَقْرَبُواْ الصَّلاَةَ وَأَنتُمْ سُكَارَى حَتَّىَ تَعْلَمُواْ مَا تَقُولُونَ وَلاَ جُنُبًا إِلاَّ عَابِرِي سَبِيلٍ حَتَّىَ تَغْتَسِلُواْ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَى أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاء أَحَدٌ مِّنكُم مِّن الْغَآئِطِ أَوْ لاَمَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء فَلَمْ تَجِدُواْ مَاء فَتَيَمَّمُواْ صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُواْ بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَفُوًّا غَفُورًا (43)

-> Clearly, Allah told us when we should perform Tayamum, see: فَلَمْ تَجِدُواْ مَاء فَتَيَمَّمُواْ , i.e. but you cannot find water then use clean soil, it cannot get clearer than this:

THE ONLY REASON TO DO TAYAMUM IS WHEN WE CANNOT FIND WATER

This clear command from Allah was repeated in another verse, let’s have a look:

O you who believed! When you stand up for the prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles; and if you are unclean then purify yourselves, and if you are sick or on a journey or the call of nature comes to anyone of you or you have touched the women, but you cannot find water then use clean soil, and wipe your faces and your hands from it (the clean soil); Allah does not want to put on you any difficulty, but He wants to purify you and complete His favor upon you, so that you may give thanks.

[Al Quran ; 5:6]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلاةِ فاغْسِلُواْ وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُواْ بِرُؤُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَينِ وَإِن كُنتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُواْ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَى أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاء أَحَدٌ مَّنكُم مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لاَمَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء فَلَمْ تَجِدُواْ مَاء فَتَيَمَّمُواْ صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُواْ بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُم مِّنْهُ مَا يُرِيدُ اللّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهَّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ (6)

-> How clear again: فَلَمْ تَجِدُواْ مَاء فَتَيَمَّمُواْ , i.e. but you cannot find water then use clean soil, i.e.:

THE ONLY REASON TO DO TAYAMUM IS WHEN WE CANNOT FIND WATER

Mister Bukhari in his man made book is telling us something else as a reason to do Tayamum, let’s have a look from a chapter in his book that he named التيمم , Al-Tayamum, i.e. Using clean soil to purify the self if we cannot find water

The following hadith has no number, it seems that it is part of the introduction for that chapter; however we still need to look at it:

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... =0&Rec=579" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image

The above is not a saying by anyone, rather an explanation to the purpose of the hadith to follow for which a sub-title was given as: إذا خاف الجنب على نفسه المرض أو الموت أو خاف العطش , i.e. If one who is not clean fears to be sick, or fears death, or fears thirst, upon himself. Bukhari means that, if any Muslim is Junub (no purified), he/she can do Tayamum if he/she fears to be sick or to be thirst or to die, if he/she uses water.

So, for Bukhari to justify his new man made law, he said that it was mentioned that Amr Ibn Al-Aas used to do Tayamum when he was Junub because the night was cold. Then Bukhari brought in the following verse:

O you who believed! Do not eat your money among yourselves in falsehood, except that it is a trade by your mutual consent; and do not kill yourselves; indeed Allah is Merciful to you.

[Al Quran ; 4:29]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَأْكُلُواْ أَمْوَالَكُمْ بَيْنَكُمْ بِالْبَاطِلِ إِلاَّ أَن تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَن تَرَاضٍ مِّنكُمْ وَلاَ تَقْتُلُواْ أَنفُسَكُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا (29)


Bukhari did not even put down the whole verse, rather the last sentence of it, a typical move by the hadith worshippers, this is what Bukhari listed only from 4:29

…. وَلاَ تَقْتُلُواْ أَنفُسَكُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا ,

i.e.

…. and do not kill yourselves; indeed Allah is Merciful to you.

Now you can see what Bukhari wanted to do, he is telling us that if the weather is cold, which means the water would be cold, and because if we do Wudo with it, we may get sick, we should do Tayamum instead which should be justified by the Quran verse 4:29 when it said at the end: and do not kill yourselves; indeed Allah is Merciful to you.

Bukhari even tried harder to convince the people with the man made law that was invented regarding when we should do Tayamum, by telling g us at the end of the above chapter introduction, that the people told the prophet about what Amr Ibn Al-Aas used to do, but the prophet said nothing, i.e. he was ok with it that we do Tayamum when the water is cold.

Now, I have serious problem with the above:

Firstly, if I take it as such, then I must be a Mushrik because I will be taking the following two commands:

1) To do Tayamum when there is no water (from Allah)
2) To do Tayamum when there is water but it is cold (from Bukhari)

Clearly, I have to be a Mushrik. Remember verse 42:21

Or have they associates who have prescribed for them in the religion that Allah does not sanction? And were it not for the word of judgment, decision would have certainly been given between them; and surely the unjust shall have a painful punishment.

[The Quran ; 42:21]

أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاء شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةُ الْفَصْلِ لَقُضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (21)

-> See, ” أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاء شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ”, i.e. Or have they associates who have prescribed for them in the religion that Allah does not sanction?, and we know well that Allah never sanctioned doing Tayamum when the water is cold, therefore Bukhari must be one of those who prescribed to us in the religion that which Allah never sanctioned, and consequently anyone who takes what Bukhari prescribed in addition to what Allah prescribed, MUST BE A MUSHRIK.

How clear.

Some may say: Hold on, Bukhari has a valid point according to 4:29 so we do not kill ourselves.

I say, then lets’ see what Al-Tabari said in explaining 4:29, not what I said, as some people accuse me that I interpret the Quran according to my desires, so my desires are out of the picture in here, let’s see what Al-Tabari desire was in explaining that part in 4:29 which Bukhari used to justify his invented law:

Image

See what Al-Tabarai said regarding …. وَلاَ تَقْتُلُواْ أَنفُسَكُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا

He said that it means, do not kill one another, i.e. do not fight with yourselves and kill each other

Bukhari however understood it as killing the self, and I should say, that Bukhari may have a point of understanding it that way, i.e. killing the self, but that cannot be used to change Allah laws other than what He said to us already.

For example, Allah ordained on us the fasting of Ramadan, but He exempted those who are sick, therefore the exemption came from Allah, not from another human

Another clear example is doing Wudo with clean soil (Tayamum) when we cannot find water. As Allah clearly told us twice in verse 4:43 & 5:6, try to remember the two verses by remembering that 4+4+3=11 and 5+6=11

Bukhari on the other hand is giving us exemption on top of an exemption, which is to do Tayamum if we find water but the water is cold because we may be sick, so if we do Wudo using cold water we will be of those who are killing themselves, and because we should not do that, then we should do Tayamum instead of Wudo even if we can find water.

Bukhari excuse has to be non sensible because if do that then anything can be done too, for example:

I will not pray when it is freezing cold because if I get out of bed, I will be sick

I will not go to the mosque because if I walk in the street and I may get killed by a robber

I will not go to Hajj because the ship may sink, or the plane may fall from the sky

I can keep going, and bring so many silly excuses which will still be logical under 4:29 which says: and do not kill yourselves.

The bottom line is this, Allah clearly told us when we should do Tayamum, when we cannot find water. Period

If you take what Bukhari is teaching you, which is to ALSO do Tayamum when there is water but the weather is cold, then YOU MUST BE A MUSHRIK

Ironically how cold is cold can not be the same for everyone.

Here you have it, another clear example to how the books of Bukhari teach you to be a Mushrik. Not forgetting that having these man made books from the first place next to the Book of Allah is clear cut shirk, it is like SHIRK UPON SHIRK, no wonder we read in the Quran that most of those who believe in Allah, they do believe in Him but only while they are Mushrikoon (12:106)

Salam

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

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

O you who believed! When you stand up for the prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles; and if you are unclean then purify yourselves, and if you are sick or on a journey or the call of nature comes to anyone of you or you have touched the women, but you cannot find water then use clean soil, and wipe your faces and your hands from it (the clean soil);
:lol: Alright, time to pray. We're all set!!!

Image
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

piscohot
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:16 am

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by piscohot »

Image

HEY!!!! >(
There are some women in there!!!!
I need more 'clean' dirt!!!!
O you who believed! When you stand up for the prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles; and if you are unclean then purify yourselves, and if you are sick or on a journey or the call of nature comes to anyone of you or you have touched the women, but you cannot find water then use clean soil, and wipe your faces and your hands from it (the clean soil); Allah does not want to put on you any difficulty, but He wants to purify you and complete His favor upon you, so that you may give thanks.
[Al Quran ; 5:6]
Don't you know women are dirtier than dirt??!!!
Quran miracle (16:69) : Bees eat ALL fruits
Quran miracle (27:18) : an ant SAID, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."

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

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by skynightblaze »

@AHMED


I have a few questions for you on your recent bukhari lesson.


1) What is meant by clean soil?

2)

I have brought here Shakirs translation and I think you used the same but I aint sure.
[005:006]

O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you are under an obligation to perform a total ablution, then wash (yourselves) and if you are sick or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy, or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth and wipe your faces and your hands therewith, Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful.

Now focus on the part in red .It says Allah doesnt want to put you in ANY DIFFICULTY. Now the point is ANY DIFFICULTY includes even the difficulty with using cold water but again there is some problem with translation I guess. I read other translations and they say for e.g " God doth not wish to place you in a difficulty" (Y. Ali)
So what is the correct translation?

3)

Irrespective of the translation it is clear that GOD doesnt want to put us in a difficulty.Using cold water is a difficulty too. What sense does it make when Allah relieves humans of one difficulty(difficulty of being without water) but doesnt want to relieve them of the other difficulty(difficulty of using cold water)?? Well the point was not to complicate matters before prayers. right?? SO how is Bukhari wrong?
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
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by AhmedBahgat »

skynightblaze wrote:@AHMED
I have a few questions for you on your recent bukhari lesson.
sure
skynightblaze wrote:1) What is meant by clean soil?
any dust that do not smell bad nor have any sh!t or other dirt on it
skynightblaze wrote: 2)
I have brought here Shakirs translation and I think you used the same but I aint sure.
I do not use anyone's translation if the verse has been rectified by my own translation, while I agree with Shakir than most of the others, I found him committing very silly mistakes
skynightblaze wrote:[005:006]

O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you are under an obligation to perform a total ablution, then wash (yourselves) and if you are sick or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy, or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth and wipe your faces and your hands therewith, Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful.
Can you see the words, If (blah blah) do (blah blah)?

therefore it is said already when we should do Tayamum, only when we can not find water, the verse never said that the water is cold
skynightblaze wrote:Now focus on the part in red.
The part of red applies ONLY to when we cannot find water, so Allah made it easy on us by using clean soil to purify the self
skynightblaze wrote:It says Allah doesnt want to put you in ANY DIFFICULTY.
That is exactly right, i.e. it is not going to be difficult on those who cannot find water because they can use clean soil when such circumstances arise
skynightblaze wrote: Now the point is ANY DIFFICULTY includes even the difficulty with using cold water but again there is some problem with translation I guess. I read other translations and they say for e.g " God doth not wish to place you in a difficulty" (Y. Ali)
So what is the correct translation?
Both are ok, i.e Allah does not want to put us in difficulty when we cannot find water while we are dirty, as under this circumstance, we do not need to be puzzled, just use clean soil instead
skynightblaze wrote:3)

Irrespective of the translation it is clear that GOD doesnt want to put us in a difficulty.Using cold water is a difficulty too.
Well, not for everyone, in fact my elder brother never uses hot water to have a bath, even in the most coldest weather ever, and I am sure you have seen people even jumping in pools filled with ice, therefore cold water will never kill you if came in touch with you for 5 minutes or less

also if you look at Bukhari crap again, he used another verse to justify his man made and invented law, he never used the same verse as you are doing.
skynightblaze wrote: What sense does it make when Allah relieves humans of one difficulty(difficulty of being without water) but doesnt want to relieve them of the other difficulty(difficulty of using cold water)?? Well the point was not to complicate matters before prayers. right?? SO how is Bukhari wrong?
The issue is not about the difficulty of using cold water ot cold soil, of course if the weather is caold, then wny water and any soil will be also cold, makes sense to you?

therefore the difficulty is only concering not finding water, and to make it easy, we should use clean soil instead

now if there is water and in liquid state, regardless how cold it is, we should only use it to do Wudo, and it will only be a matter of 2 to 3 minutes exposed to it, which I believe is good for the blood circuit
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:19 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: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

BTW, what's the difference between clean soil and dirty soil? Is one washed in the leading laundry detergent and the other washed in the inferior brand? :lol:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Salam All

Another day passed, and a new day has started for us to talk another Bukhari crap. In today’s sunnah lesson by Bukhari, we should learn how Bukhari portrayed the noble prophet as a clear cut monster who fears no one even not fearing Allah.

The following crap of hadith is also listed under the Wudo chapter الوضوء , looks like Bukhari had so many hadith about Wudo, we have looked at many from that chapter, and as you have seen, in all such hadith from such chapter, we were never told how to perform Wudo, not forgetting that we already do not need to know how to do it from any human because Allah clearly told us how to perform Wudo in His Quran, let’s look at such hadith which is used intensively by the enemy of Islam to defame Mohammed and all his followers:

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... =226&doc=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image

The above is not a saying by the prophet, rather a saying by a bunch of people who were talking g about an alleged incident that has absolutely nothing to do with Wudo, the alleged incident only portrays the prophet as a monster who tortured other people. Bukhari listed the above crap under the sub-title of: أبوال الإبل والدواب والغنم ومرابضها , i.e. The urine of the cattle and its other benefit.

Have Bukhari followers not asked themselves, what is the relation between the urine of the cattle and Wudo?

I did ask that question and I want to see how one of those Bukhari associates can answer such simple question.

Let me walk you through such crap of hadith which suppose to teach us something about Wudo:

The hadith is alleged by Anas Ibn Malik who said:

Some people came from a city called Akel or Arinah, and they embraced Islam in Madinah, so the prophet commanded them to accompany a man who was taking care of the cattle and sheep. The prophet also commanded them to drink from the urine and milk of the cattle and sheep, so the people did what the prophet told them, (sort of they were sick or suffering from a disease, the hadith did not tell us what was wrong with them at all). Then when their health returned to them, they killed the man who was talking care of the cattle and sheep, and stole the cattle.

The news came to the prophet in the following day. So he sent some men to chase them and bring them before him, so when those killers got arrested and were brought before the prophet, he ordered the following to be done to them:

1- Cut off their hands and legs
2- Insert nails in their eyes
3- Throw them into an area in Madinah (Harrah) that is known to be very hot
4- And if they ask for water to drink, no water should be given to them.


Such crap of hadith did not end there, at the end of it, another guy said another thing, the guy is named Abu Qalabah who said:

These people stole, and killed, and disbelieved after their belief, and they fought Allah and His messenger.

End of hadith

Wow, was really the prophet such a monster according to Bukhari?

It cannot be according to the Quran, in the Quran the prophet is one of sublime morality, and indeed it cannot be according to other man made crap from their man made books of hadith, for example, we read above that the tortured people asked to drink water after having their hands and legs chopped off, and after they had their eyes nailed, and after they were thrown in a very hot area in Madinah: that they ‏يستسقون فلا يسقون , i.e. they wanted water to drink but water was not given to them as commanded by the prophet of course.

Let me quickly interrupt the walk trough the above crap of hadith and show you how the above crap about the prophet personality contradicts another crap in the same chapter in the same book of Bukhari, a book that is only filled with Batil, i.e. Falsehood:

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... =168&doc=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image

Again the above crap is from the same chapter of Wudo, in which we learn from the always questionable Abu Hurairah the following saying by him, he said that he heard the following from Mohammed:

A man saw a dog eating the dust from thirst, so the man put some water in his hands then put it in front of the dog mouth until the dog was not thirsty any more, so Allah thanked the man and made him enter Jannah

And again that was not the end of the hadith, at the end it was said that during the time of the prophet, the dogs were allowed to urinate, and enter the mosques, and they were not ever spraying water to clean it.

End of hadith

Holy crap man, what the hell was that? Can you see the clear contradiction regarding the prophet personality between the two hadith and many other hadith? Well, let me explain it to you then:

1) In the first hadith a group of thieves and killers were horribly tortured and were denied water to drink, while in the second hadith, Allah thanks a man who gave water to a very thirsty dog.
2) The dogs at the time of the prophet were allowed to even enter and urinate inside the mosques and Mohammed was ok with that to a degree that they even did not wash it. The crap books of hadith tell us also that dogs are very dirty and should never be inside our houses.

And as always, what the hell such hadith has to do with Wudo? The same bloody question that even a child can answer, yet no hadith worshipper stands up to answer it.

Let’s go back to the main hadith that we are discussing and let me make this clear, I am not defending those thieves and killers (assuming that the story is truthful). The Quran clearly told us what to do with the thieves and the killers:

1- For the thieves, their hands must be chopped off, yet the hadith is telling us that they also had the legs chopped off.

2- For the killers, they must be killed, yet the hadith is telling us that they had their eyes nailed, and they were refused water after being thrown into a very hot area, obviously to die. So in a way they killed them but before they have done that, they horribly tortured them.

Can I ask everyone again, what does the above crap have to do with Wudo? Absolutely NOTHING

It also seems that some of the people could not comprehend the alleged horrible action by the prophet so someone in the name of Abu Qalabah tried to somehow relate the prophet horrible deeds indirectly to the Quran by saying the following:

These people stole, and killed, and disbelieved after their belief, and they fought Allah and His messenger.

Clearly, Abu Qalabah was indirectly referring to the following Quran verse:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that, they should be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides or they should be expelled from the land ; this is for them a disgrace in this world, and for them in the hereafter a great torture.

[Al Quran ; 5:33]

انما جزاء الذين يحاربون الله ورسوله ويسعون في الارض فسادا ان يقتلوا او يصلبوا او تقطع ايديهم وارجلهم من خلاف او ينفوا من الارض ذلك لهم خزي في الدنيا ولهم في الاخرة عذاب عظيم

-> See, 5:33 is detailing to us the punishment for those who wage war on Allah and His messenger, as well strive to make mischief in the land, here is what we should do to such people:

1- They should be killed

or

2- Crucified

or

3- Their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides

or

4- They should be expelled from the land

Let us now analyze the crimes of those people:

A- Did they steal? YES
B- Did they kill innocent soul? YES

They have never fought Allah and His messenger, and certainly disbelieving constitute no crime in the life of this world that earns itS committer the death penalty, however let me just concede that doing A & B above may be classified as Making mischief in the land, so those people had earned ONE of the above 4 punishments listed in 5:33

I.e. they should have been killed OR crucified OR their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides OR they should be expelled from the land

Certainly you cannot impose all punishments together, and certainly, NAILING THEIR EYES is not a punishment that is listed above, and most certainly throwing them in a hot pit is not a punishment listed above, and surely denying them drinking water cannot be a punishment for any crime, in fact in any country which implement capital punishment, they always ask the condemned if they like to eat or drink a special meal before they are executed, they still treat the criminals with dignity.

As you have clearly seen, we have never talked Wudo, this is because there is nothing in the above two hadith that tells us an atom weight of information about Wudo, that is why Bukhari had nothing to say about Wudo, yet he listed the above crap under a chapter named Wudo, how stupid that man was, and how stupid most Muslims have been and still are to uphold such book filled with falsehood and defamation against the noble prophet which is a rich source for the low kafirs to defame the noble prophet, yet those confused Muslims classify it as the most authentic book after the Quran on the planet, I say yes, it is indeed uniquely authentic, authentic in how it exposes to us the stupidity of those hadith worshipers, and it should be an authentic motive for every sincere Muslim to fight those hadith worshippers that perhaps they repent and give heed to Allah, but we should not worry about their repentance, a soul will not repent unless Allah wills, what we should worry about all of us sincere Muslims IS TO RECLAIM BACK OUR GREAT RELIGION from the sinful hands of those stupid hadith worshippers, this is how you prove to Allah in the 21st century that you are an indeed a sincere Muslim who loves Allah and His religion.

Salam

piscohot
Posts: 2187
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:16 am

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by piscohot »

AhmedBahgat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:1) What is meant by clean soil?
any dust that do not smell bad nor have any sh!t or other dirt on it
:lol:

why are women dirtier than soil, ahmed?
Quran miracle (16:69) : Bees eat ALL fruits
Quran miracle (27:18) : an ant SAID, "O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not."

User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by AhmedBahgat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Spoiler! :
Salam All

It’s been long time since last sunnah lesson by mister Bukhari, I really missed his silly and laughable lessons, I can assure you that we have still too many lessons to go though.

In one of the previous Bukhari lessons about Wudo http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?n ... =4250#4250" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We witnessed how useless such hadith in there, in that lesson I posted the following two Quran verses:

O you who have believed! Do not come near the prayer when you are confused until you know what you say, nor when you are unclean -unless being travelers on the road- until you wash yourselves; and if you are sick or on a journey or the call of nature comes to anyone of you or you have touched the women, but you cannot find water then use clean soil, and wipe your faces and your hands; indeed Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.

[Al Quran ; 4:43]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَقْرَبُواْ الصَّلاَةَ وَأَنتُمْ سُكَارَى حَتَّىَ تَعْلَمُواْ مَا تَقُولُونَ وَلاَ جُنُبًا إِلاَّ عَابِرِي سَبِيلٍ حَتَّىَ تَغْتَسِلُواْ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَى أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاء أَحَدٌ مِّنكُم مِّن الْغَآئِطِ أَوْ لاَمَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء فَلَمْ تَجِدُواْ مَاء فَتَيَمَّمُواْ صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُواْ بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَفُوًّا غَفُورًا (43)

-> Clearly, Allah told us when we should perform Tayamum, see: فَلَمْ تَجِدُواْ مَاء فَتَيَمَّمُواْ , i.e. but you cannot find water then use clean soil, it cannot get clearer than this:

THE ONLY REASON TO DO TAYAMUM IS WHEN WE CANNOT FIND WATER

This clear command from Allah was repeated in another verse, let’s have a look:

O you who believed! When you stand up for the prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles; and if you are unclean then purify yourselves, and if you are sick or on a journey or the call of nature comes to anyone of you or you have touched the women, but you cannot find water then use clean soil, and wipe your faces and your hands from it (the clean soil); Allah does not want to put on you any difficulty, but He wants to purify you and complete His favor upon you, so that you may give thanks.

[Al Quran ; 5:6]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلاةِ فاغْسِلُواْ وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُواْ بِرُؤُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَينِ وَإِن كُنتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُواْ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَى أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاء أَحَدٌ مَّنكُم مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لاَمَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء فَلَمْ تَجِدُواْ مَاء فَتَيَمَّمُواْ صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُواْ بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُم مِّنْهُ مَا يُرِيدُ اللّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهَّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ (6)

-> How clear again: فَلَمْ تَجِدُواْ مَاء فَتَيَمَّمُواْ , i.e. but you cannot find water then use clean soil, i.e.:

THE ONLY REASON TO DO TAYAMUM IS WHEN WE CANNOT FIND WATER

Mister Bukhari in his man made book is telling us something else as a reason to do Tayamum, let’s have a look from a chapter in his book that he named التيمم , Al-Tayamum, i.e. Using clean soil to purify the self if we cannot find water

The following hadith has no number, it seems that it is part of the introduction for that chapter; however we still need to look at it:

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... =0&Rec=579" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image

The above is not a saying by anyone, rather an explanation to the purpose of the hadith to follow for which a sub-title was given as: إذا خاف الجنب على نفسه المرض أو الموت أو خاف العطش , i.e. If one who is not clean fears to be sick, or fears death, or fears thirst, upon himself. Bukhari means that, if any Muslim is Junub (no purified), he/she can do Tayamum if he/she fears to be sick or to be thirst or to die, if he/she uses water.

So, for Bukhari to justify his new man made law, he said that it was mentioned that Amr Ibn Al-Aas used to do Tayamum when he was Junub because the night was cold. Then Bukhari brought in the following verse:

O you who believed! Do not eat your money among yourselves in falsehood, except that it is a trade by your mutual consent; and do not kill yourselves; indeed Allah is Merciful to you.

[Al Quran ; 4:29]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَأْكُلُواْ أَمْوَالَكُمْ بَيْنَكُمْ بِالْبَاطِلِ إِلاَّ أَن تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَن تَرَاضٍ مِّنكُمْ وَلاَ تَقْتُلُواْ أَنفُسَكُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا (29)


Bukhari did not even put down the whole verse, rather the last sentence of it, a typical move by the hadith worshippers, this is what Bukhari listed only from 4:29

…. وَلاَ تَقْتُلُواْ أَنفُسَكُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا ,

i.e.

…. and do not kill yourselves; indeed Allah is Merciful to you.

Now you can see what Bukhari wanted to do, he is telling us that if the weather is cold, which means the water would be cold, and because if we do Wudo with it, we may get sick, we should do Tayamum instead which should be justified by the Quran verse 4:29 when it said at the end: and do not kill yourselves; indeed Allah is Merciful to you.

Bukhari even tried harder to convince the people with the man made law that was invented regarding when we should do Tayamum, by telling g us at the end of the above chapter introduction, that the people told the prophet about what Amr Ibn Al-Aas used to do, but the prophet said nothing, i.e. he was ok with it that we do Tayamum when the water is cold.

Now, I have serious problem with the above:

Firstly, if I take it as such, then I must be a Mushrik because I will be taking the following two commands:

1) To do Tayamum when there is no water (from Allah)
2) To do Tayamum when there is water but it is cold (from Bukhari)

Clearly, I have to be a Mushrik. Remember verse 42:21

Or have they associates who have prescribed for them in the religion that Allah does not sanction? And were it not for the word of judgment, decision would have certainly been given between them; and surely the unjust shall have a painful punishment.

[The Quran ; 42:21]

أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاء شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةُ الْفَصْلِ لَقُضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (21)

-> See, ” أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاء شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ”, i.e. Or have they associates who have prescribed for them in the religion that Allah does not sanction?, and we know well that Allah never sanctioned doing Tayamum when the water is cold, therefore Bukhari must be one of those who prescribed to us in the religion that which Allah never sanctioned, and consequently anyone who takes what Bukhari prescribed in addition to what Allah prescribed, MUST BE A MUSHRIK.

How clear.

Some may say: Hold on, Bukhari has a valid point according to 4:29 so we do not kill ourselves.

I say, then lets’ see what Al-Tabari said in explaining 4:29, not what I said, as some people accuse me that I interpret the Quran according to my desires, so my desires are out of the picture in here, let’s see what Al-Tabari desire was in explaining that part in 4:29 which Bukhari used to justify his invented law:

Image

See what Al-Tabarai said regarding …. وَلاَ تَقْتُلُواْ أَنفُسَكُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا

He said that it means, do not kill one another, i.e. do not fight with yourselves and kill each other

Bukhari however understood it as killing the self, and I should say, that Bukhari may have a point of understanding it that way, i.e. killing the self, but that cannot be used to change Allah laws other than what He said to us already.

For example, Allah ordained on us the fasting of Ramadan, but He exempted those who are sick, therefore the exemption came from Allah, not from another human

Another clear example is doing Wudo with clean soil (Tayamum) when we cannot find water. As Allah clearly told us twice in verse 4:43 & 5:6, try to remember the two verses by remembering that 4+4+3=11 and 5+6=11

Bukhari on the other hand is giving us exemption on top of an exemption, which is to do Tayamum if we find water but the water is cold because we may be sick, so if we do Wudo using cold water we will be of those who are killing themselves, and because we should not do that, then we should do Tayamum instead of Wudo even if we can find water.

Bukhari excuse has to be non sensible because if do that then anything can be done too, for example:

I will not pray when it is freezing cold because if I get out of bed, I will be sick

I will not go to the mosque because if I walk in the street and I may get killed by a robber

I will not go to Hajj because the ship may sink, or the plane may fall from the sky

I can keep going, and bring so many silly excuses which will still be logical under 4:29 which says: and do not kill yourselves.

The bottom line is this, Allah clearly told us when we should do Tayamum, when we cannot find water. Period

If you take what Bukhari is teaching you, which is to ALSO do Tayamum when there is water but the weather is cold, then YOU MUST BE A MUSHRIK

Ironically how cold is cold can not be the same for everyone.

Here you have it, another clear example to how the books of Bukhari teach you to be a Mushrik. Not forgetting that having these man made books from the first place next to the Book of Allah is clear cut shirk, it is like SHIRK UPON SHIRK, no wonder we read in the Quran that most of those who believe in Allah, they do believe in Him but only while they are Mushrikoon (12:106)

Salam

Salam all

This is a reply from my elder brother on facebook concerning the above comment, my brother is 45 years old Doctor and lives in Egypt:

Hamdy at 5:52pm April 20

bro......you realy made me laugh...loool...i believe you my man...hell you are damn right.
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by skynightblaze »

Ahmed wrote:any dust that do not smell bad nor have any sh!t or other dirt on it
How coming cleaning yourself with dirt make you more cleaner than you were before? :lol: This is common sense. SOil is soil and dirty. There is no point in mudding myself and making me further dirty than i was before.More ever the verse actually is an insult to women. well when you touch women you are unclean and you get clean by by using soil? Doesnt that mean that women are viewed as filthy than soil?
Ahmed wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: What sense does it make when Allah relieves humans of one difficulty(difficulty of being without water) but doesnt want to relieve them of the other difficulty(difficulty of using cold water)?? Well the point was not to complicate matters before prayers. right?? SO how is Bukhari wrong?
The issue is not about the difficulty of using cold water ot cold soil, of course if the weather is caold, then wny water and any soil will be also cold, makes sense to you?
therefore the difficulty is only concering not finding water, and to make it easy, we should use clean soil instead
now if there is water and in liquid state, regardless how cold it is, we should only use it to do Wudo, and it will only be a matter of 2 to 3 minutes exposed to it, which I believe is good for the blood circuit
Using Cold soil is not same as using cold water.Soil is preferable than cold water.The question is still unanswered.The aim is clear that Allah wants to relieve you so that praying becomes easier. I dont see any point in giving this concession in case of unavailability of water and denying when it comes with a difficulty of using cold water . Forget what Bukhari said and take the question as if based on quran itself. IT still doesnt make sense.
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
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Post by debunker »

Hello Sky,

Tayammum is just a "symbolic" ritual to take place of actual Wudu when water is hard to come by. Tayammum is the simple act of wiping "dry sand" on the face and two hands only....As I said it's only a symbolic ritual.

And women are not filthy. Sexual intercourse (with women) requires ritualisitic bathing for both the man AND the woman. (This is "stolen" from the Bible by the way). The phrase "if you touch women" means if you have sexual intercourse. Even in today's language touching a woman refers to having sexual intercourse... didn't you know that already?

And somewhere in this forum someone claims that women are treated like dirt in the Quran when they are menstruating. The fact is when a woman is menstruating NOTHING changes except for two things: 1- No sexual intercourse 2- The woman doesn't have to pray nor fast while she's menstruating. That's it. This is also "stolen" from the Bible with A LOT of modifications, because in the Bible, a woman is treated like a highly contagious leper as long as she's menstruating, and NOT only that, her menstruating is considered a SIN she has to atone for by burning a bird!
Leviticus 15:19-30
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
account suspended for inappropriate language

Post Reply