Page 3 of 22

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:08 pm
by antineoETC
AhmedBahgat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote: YET, Abi Bakr who was a very wise man...
antineoETC wrote:What evidence do you have that this "Abi Bakr", who is mentioned nowhere in al-Qur'an, actually existed? Please name your primary source.
AhmedBahgat wrote:Idiot

I do not know if he existed or not
antineoETC wrote:So YOUR above statement that he (Abi Bakr) was a "very wise man" should not be regarded as an implicit acceptance by you of his existence. Correct?
Well, according to the Quran, he existed, therefore my statement is accurate, time bandit
antineoETC wrote:Chapter and verse please
9:40
AB. Please provide the translation of 9:40 where the name "Abi Bakr" is mentioned. I cannot find it in any of the ones readily available to me. Thanks

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:00 pm
by AhmedBahgat
antineoETC wrote:AB. Please provide the translation of 9:40 where the name "Abi Bakr" is mentioned. I cannot find it in any of the ones readily available to me. Thanks

Dismissed

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:04 pm
by skynightblaze
antineoETC wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:antineoETC &piscohot

Ahmed is right here. Using hadith to prove hadith as wrong is acceptable and it doesnt necessary mean that he has to believe in it. He could say the same thing to us. We use quran to prove quran wrong . Does that mean we are believers in quran? TO criticize any text one isnt required to believe in it.
False logic. Consider AB's above statement:
See how the prophet warned the people against talking way too much about him: اياكم و كثرة الحديث عني , Iyakum Wa Kuthrat Al Hadith Anny, i.e. Be warned of talking TOO MUCH about me
I asked AB what was the source of this alleged saying of Muhammad. His response was to "dismiss" me. He is presenting the above saying - found nowhere in the Koran - as a reason why people should not believe in hadith or any any other source of "guidance" than the Koran. For people to reject hadith on the basis of the above alleged statement involves their accepting it as genuine. The question logically arises: on what criteria should they accept it as genuine and reject other alleged sayings and doings of Muhammad as false?
I am sorry i commented without reading much however piscohot was saying that he should not use a hadith to debunk the other. If one hadith contradicts the other he could say that there is confusion and hence we do not know what to believe and hence both should be rejected.However i still feel that he has the right to use hadiths against us since we believe them as true.We are supporters of hadiths and thats why we must be able to defend them if he uses them against us .Ofcourse not all the hadiths are true but especially the ones that portray muhhamad cannot be a lie .

POST EDITED

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:05 pm
by AhmedBahgat
Look how the lazy and time bandit was trying to rob my time

{ إِلاَّ تَنصُرُوهُ فَقَدْ نَصَرَهُ ٱللَّهُ إِذْ أَخْرَجَهُ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ ثَانِيَ ٱثْنَيْنِ إِذْ هُمَا فِي ٱلْغَارِ إِذْ يَقُولُ لِصَاحِبِهِ لاَ تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ مَعَنَا فَأَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَيَّدَهُ بِجُنُودٍ لَّمْ تَرَوْهَا وَجَعَلَ كَلِمَةَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ ٱلسُّفْلَىٰ وَكَلِمَةُ ٱللَّهِ هِيَ ٱلْعُلْيَا وَٱللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ }


If you do not help him, that is, the Prophet (s), [know that] God has already helped him, when the disbelievers drove him forth, from Mecca, that is, they made him resort to leaving, when they desired to kill him or imprison him or banish him at the council assembly — the second of two (thāniya ithnayn: this is a circumstantial qualifier), that is, one of two, the other being Abū Bakr: in other words, just as God helped him in such a situation, He will not forsake him in another; when (idh substitutes for the previous idh) the two were in the cave — a breach in the mountain called Thawr — when (idh substituting again), he said to his companion, Abū Bakr — who, upon perceiving the [sound of the] feet of the idolaters [nearby], had said to him, ‘If one of them should merely look below his feet, he will definitely see us!’ — ‘Do not despair; verily God is with us’, assisting [us]. Then God sent down His Spirit of Peace upon him, His reassurance — some say this means upon the Prophet, others, that it means upon Abū Bakr — and supported him, that is, the Prophet (s), with legions, of angels, you did not see, [both] in the cave and in the locations in which he fought battles; and He made the word of those who disbelieved, that is, the call to idolatry, the nethermost, the one vanquished, and the Word of God, that is, the profession of His Oneness (shahāda), was the uppermost, the one prevailing and triumphant. And God is Mighty, in His Kingdom, Wise, in His actions.

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMa ... rProfile=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:12 pm
by AhmedBahgat
antineoETC wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:antineoETC &piscohot

Ahmed is right here. Using hadith to prove hadith as wrong is acceptable and it doesnt necessary mean that he has to believe in it. He could say the same thing to us. We use quran to prove quran wrong . Does that mean we are believers in quran? TO criticize any text one isnt required to believe in it.
False logic. Consider AB's above statement:
See how the prophet warned the people against talking way too much about him: اياكم و كثرة الحديث عني , Iyakum Wa Kuthrat Al Hadith Anny, i.e. Be warned of talking TOO MUCH about me
I asked AB what was the source of this alleged saying of Muhammad. His response was to "dismiss" me. He is presenting the above saying - found nowhere in the Koran - as a reason why people should not believe in hadith or any any other source of "guidance" than the Koran. For people to reject hadith on the basis of the above alleged statement involves their accepting it as genuine. The question logically arises: on what criteria should they accept it as genuine and reject other alleged sayings and doings of Muhammad as false?
skynightblaze wrote:I am sorry i commented without reading much however piscohot was saying that he should not use a hadith to debunk the other. If one hadith contradicts the other he could say that there is confusion and hence we do not know what to believe and hence both should be rejected.However as seen in your case I agree with you that he should not be using hadith to prove his point that hadiths arent required . Thats a fallacy.
How about, you stupid goons, doing the exact same

using the Quran to disapprove the Quran

haha

piss off, jerk

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:27 pm
by skynightblaze
Ahmed wrote:See how the prophet warned the people against talking way too much about him: اياكم و كثرة الحديث عني , Iyakum Wa Kuthrat Al Hadith Anny, i.e. Be warned of talking TOO MUCH about me
Assuming you are right to quote the hadiths how does this statement mean that hadiths are a lie ? Just because Muhhamad said do not speak about me doesnt mean that whatever people said about him or wrote about him is a lie. Muhhamad saying and people recording having no relation at all.

LEt me give you an example . IF i Pm you and say my arse is crooked and do not talk about it anywhere but you still decide to open a topic in this forum about my arse then does that mean my arse isnt crooked just because i said do not speak about my arse? The moral is just because Muhhamad said dont talk about me doesnt mean that his recorded deeds are a lie.
I guess it would be easy to understand for you if i fit arse in the analogy.

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:50 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze
Assuming you are right to quote the hadiths how does this statement mean that hadiths are a lie ? Just because Muhhamad said do not speak about me doesnt mean that whatever people said about him or wrote about him is a lie. Muhhamad saying and people recording having no relation at all.

...LEt me give you an example . IF i Pm you and say my arse is crooked and do not talk about it ...[
well.. that is not really a GOOD example dear skynightblaze and after reading many of your posts, I am very confident that you can give far better examples that will have FAR MORE impact than the above one

Any way one of the VERY BASIC aspect that we have to keep in mind about Q'uran & hadith is, Most of the Muslims(NOT ALL) consider tat both are the words of Muhammad and both were written in to books collecting from various people that were listening to Muhammad AFTER THE DEATH OF MUHAMMAD (Off course Quran apparently done with in 1 to 15 years after Muhammad's death where as Hadith comes 150 to 200 years after the death of Prophet of Islam")

So the point we have to keep in mind is., Because all that stuff is written after the death of Muhammad.. We have absolutely NO WAY of knowing "WHAT IS Q'URAN & WHAT IS HADIT".. In other words.. How do we differentiates BETWEEN THE GABRIEL WORDS that came out of Muhammad's Mouth and Muhammad's won words that are nothing to with Gabriel..

That indeed is a problem.., Islamic LUNATICS don't want think that , but that is a fact in Islam. Other thing, I would like to know from you is.. Does Hinduism has ANY SCRIPTURES., ANY BOOK that says "this is the word of God" through a messenger? I am writing this because you are a Hindu guy so I am just curious. Do you guys consider that Hindu VEDAS as word of God or Gods similar to Q'uran.. Bible.. or Torah ??

with best regards
yeezevee

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:28 pm
by skynightblaze
yeezevee wrote:Assuming you are right to quote the hadiths how does this statement mean that hadiths are a lie ? Just because Muhhamad said do not speak about me doesnt mean that whatever people said about him or wrote about him is a lie. Muhhamad saying and people recording having no relation at all.

...LEt me give you an example . IF i Pm you and say my arse is crooked and do not talk about it ...[
well.. that is not really a GOOD example dear skynightblaze and after reading many of your posts, I am very confident that you can give far better examples that will have FAR MORE impact than the above one[/quote]


:lol: :lol: When you talk to a baby you talk in terms that he will understand. Same is the case here . Robot 's favourite topic is arse. I suspect that he must be having pictures of arse in his bedroom .I used arse in the analogy just for fun. :D
yeezevee wrote: Any way one of the VERY BASIC aspect that we have to keep in mind about Q'uran & hadith is, Most of the Muslims(NOT ALL) consider tat both are the words of Muhammad and both were written in to books collecting from various people that were listening to Muhammad AFTER THE DEATH OF MUHAMMAD (Off course Quran apparently done with in 1 to 15 years after Muhammad's death where as Hadith comes 150 to 200 years after the death of Prophet of Islam")

So the point we have to keep in mind is., Because all that stuff is written after the death of Muhammad.. We have absolutely NO WAY of knowing "WHAT IS Q'URAN & WHAT IS HADIT".. In other words.. How do we differentiates BETWEEN THE GABRIEL WORDS that came out of Muhammad's Mouth and Muhammad's won words that are nothing to with Gabriel..

That indeed is a problem.., Islamic LUNATICS don't want think that , but that is a fact in Islam.
Agreed.
yeezevee wrote: Other thing, I would like to know from you is.. Does Hinduism has ANY SCRIPTURES., ANY BOOK that says "this is the word of God" through a messenger? I am writing this because you are a Hindu guy so I am just curious. Do you guys consider that Hindu VEDAS as word of God or Gods similar to Q'uran.. Bible.. or Torah ??

with best regards
yeezevee
Vedas are believed to be the word of GOD which were revealed to sages.We dont have any prophets or something like that.
Anyway I am an atheist and i dont care about what they say. I would appreciate the things if anyone points out me the good things but would reject if i feel they are bad.In India if you ask most of the hindus the name of 4 vedas they wont be able to tell you. Such is the case here. People yet believe in GOd but they do not believe in the GOD of religion. For e.g Vedas say idol worship is prohibited but hindus still practice idol worship. Actually association of hindus with religion is very less which is a very good sign.

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:58 pm
by Chiclets
antineoETC wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote: YET, Abi Bakr who was a very wise man...
What evidence do you have that this "Abi Bakr", who is mentioned nowhere in al-Qur'an, actually existed? Please name your primary source.
I only came to know of this recently from Baal a former member here, here is what he wrote:
Abu Bakr, means father of the young virgin.

His real name is Abu Quhafah. He gained the name Abu Bakr after marrying off his young virgin daughter. That is quite a revelation to me. Why gain the reputation "Father of the young virgin" just because his daughter was a young virgin?

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:03 pm
by Pragmatist
AhmedBahgat wrote:
antineoETC wrote:AB. Please provide the translation of 9:40 where the name "Abi Bakr" is mentioned. I cannot find it in any of the ones readily available to me. Thanks

Dismissed
Translation 'Please don't ask questions I can't answer' :roflmao: :roflmao: Hey I am good at this maybe I should invent a whole new Krap Kran could not be any worse than the original :roflmao:

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:07 pm
by Pragmatist
skynightblaze wrote:
Ahmed wrote:See how the prophet warned the people against talking way too much about him: اياكم و كثرة الحديث عني , Iyakum Wa Kuthrat Al Hadith Anny, i.e. Be warned of talking TOO MUCH about me
Assuming you are right to quote the hadiths how does this statement mean that hadiths are a lie ? Just because Muhhamad said do not speak about me doesnt mean that whatever people said about him or wrote about him is a lie. Muhhamad saying and people recording having no relation at all.

LEt me give you an example . IF i Pm you and say my arse is crooked and do not talk about it anywhere but you still decide to open a topic in this forum about my arse then does that mean my arse isnt crooked just because i said do not speak about my arse? The moral is just because Muhhamad said dont talk about me doesnt mean that his recorded deeds are a lie.
I guess it would be easy to understand for you if i fit arse in the analogy.
Skynightsblaze please don't talk about arses it gets our ex=con AB all excited you know how obsessive he is about all things arse. Must be nostalgia for his prison lovers.

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:19 pm
by yeezevee
Actually association of hindus with religion is very less which is a very good sign.
that I agree with you., And I wish other religious guys learn something from hindus.
Vedas are believed to be the word of GOD which were revealed to sages.We dont have any prophets or something like that.
So the writers of those Vedas ARE NOT PROPHETS? did I get that right?
Anyway I am an atheist and i dont care about what they say. I would appreciate the things if anyone points out me the good things but would reject if i feel they are bad.In India if you ask most of the hindus the name of 4 vedas they wont be able to tell you. Such is the case here. People yet believe in GOd but they do not believe in the GOD of religion.
So I see., I guess that Pick and choose freedom is there in Hindus .. No hard and fast rule..
For e.g Vedas say idol worship is prohibited but hindus still practice idol worship.
Really? i didn't know that., you mean to say there is ONE GOD but not GODS/ Goddesses in Hinduism? or it is just Idol worship is prohibited? But Hindu Vedas that I read from Ralph Griffith mentions many GODS..., So why worship to the Gods is prohibited?

with best
yeezevee

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

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:39 pm
by sword_of_truth
Ahmed's point about Muhammed telling people not to talk about him is not being used to prove that Hadith are false. The point, as I see it, is to call into question the religious obligation to follow Hadith. It seems to me that it's possible that Muhammed didn't intend for his followers to do things the way they did. I think the Hadith just arose out of the necessity to preserve Muhammed's teachings. I am not aware of any evidence that Muhammed wanted people to do what Bhukhari and Muslim did, except indirectly, in the sense that the Quran by itself was not complete, so it was necessary for additional aspects of the religion to be passed on to subsequent generations. Writing it down was just an implementation of that--a means to an end.

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

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:28 am
by piscohot
skynightblaze wrote: I am sorry i commented without reading much however piscohot was saying that he should not use a hadith to debunk the other. If one hadith contradicts the other he could say that there is confusion and hence we do not know what to believe and hence both should be rejected.However i still feel that he has the right to use hadiths against us since we believe them as true.We are supporters of hadiths and thats why we must be able to defend them if he uses them against us .Ofcourse not all the hadiths are true but especially the ones that portray muhhamad cannot be a lie .

POST EDITED
hello skynightblaze,

I am laughing at Ahmed because he dismissed the hadiths as corrupted and unreliable to a muslimah, especially the one which said that Muhammad married Aisha at six BUT at the same time he tried to prove (using the same corrupted hadiths) that Aisha was like 16 years old when Muhammad married her.

that's dumb

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

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:29 pm
by skynightblaze
yeezevee wrote:
Actually association of hindus with religion is very less which is a very good sign.
that I agree with you., And I wish other religious guys learn something from hindus.
Vedas are believed to be the word of GOD which were revealed to sages.We dont have any prophets or something like that.
So the writers of those Vedas ARE NOT PROPHETS? did I get that right?
Anyway I am an atheist and i dont care about what they say. I would appreciate the things if anyone points out me the good things but would reject if i feel they are bad.In India if you ask most of the hindus the name of 4 vedas they wont be able to tell you. Such is the case here. People yet believe in GOd but they do not believe in the GOD of religion.
So I see., I guess that Pick and choose freedom is there in Hindus .. No hard and fast rule..
For e.g Vedas say idol worship is prohibited but hindus still practice idol worship.
Really? i didn't know that., you mean to say there is ONE GOD but not GODS/ Goddesses in Hinduism? or it is just Idol worship is prohibited? But Hindu Vedas that I read from Ralph Griffith mentions many GODS..., So why worship to the Gods is prohibited?

with best
yeezevee

Bhagavat Gita 7-24: "The ignorant believe that un-manifest Para Brahma (One God) incarnates or takes manifestations, because they do not completely understand My highest, immutable, incomparable, and transcendental existence."


Bhagavat Gita 7:19-21: "All those who do idol worship, All those who worship demigods are materialistic people."


Yajur Veda 3 "...Of that God you cannot make any images."


Yajur Veda 32:3: "God is formless and bodiless"


Yajur Veda 40 "All those who worship the uncreated things, they are in darkness, and you'll enter more into darkness if you worship the created things."


Rig Veda, Vol.8,1 "All Praise are to Him alone"


Hello yeezevee I do not have detailed knowledge but here are some of the verses. Now if people are shown these verses they will say that we do not worship different GODS but only one GOD.IT is only the way we perceive him is different. However i would refrain from commenting . I dont think so i would be able to defend the questions asked by people so i stay away from religion. Regarding prophets I never heard any prophets name . ITs just the sages that received guidance through GOD. I am not sure whether we can call them as prophets like moses , jesus etc etc because no such names have been glorified.Anyway if you have question regarding hinduism you can ask hindus like Ram, charlesmartel . They would be able to explain you better than me. Religion is not for me . I stay away from it for the simple reason i cannot defend them when questioned.

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

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:59 pm
by antineoETC
Ahmed bahgat. Re: your following rendering of surah 9:40:

If you do not help him, that is, the Prophet (s), [know that] God has already helped him, when the disbelievers drove him forth, from Mecca, that is, they made him resort to leaving, when they desired to kill him or imprison him or banish him at the council assembly — the second of two (thāniya ithnayn: this is a circumstantial qualifier), that is, one of two, the other being Abū Bakr



First AB: verse 9:40 makes NO mention of Mecca. So on what basis do you deduce that it was "FROM Mecca" that "The Prophet" was driven?

Second: Verse 9:40 does not contain the words "the other being Abu Bakr". You are therefore deducing that "the second of the two" is this "Abu Bakr" whose name is mentioned NOWHERE in the Koran. So on what basis do you deduce this?

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

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:19 pm
by antineoETC
skynightblaze wrote:However i still feel that he[Ahmedbahgat] has the right to use hadiths against us since we believe them as true.
Ahmed Bahgat is an avowed hadith rejector. I personally don't believe either he or any other Muslims who claim to hold this position truly do so. My view is that this is just a deception ploy to inveigle the unwary into Islam on a false premise - although, like I said, AB may have been propagating this deception so long he has come to half believe it. Notwithstanding, I only ever debate AB and others like him using the Koran alone. It is HE who keeps making references - eg to Abu Bakr who is not explicitly named in the Koran - that can only have been from some non-Koranic source or other. It is a reasonable question to ask just what these non-Koran sources are.

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

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:35 pm
by skynightblaze
antineoETC wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:However i still feel that he[Ahmedbahgat] has the right to use hadiths against us since we believe them as true.
Ahmed Bahgat is an avowed hadith rejector. I personally don't believe either he or any other Muslims who claim to hold this position truly do so. My view is that this is just a deception ploy to inveigle the unwary into Islam on a false premise - although, like I said, AB may have been propagating this deception so long he has come to half believe it. Notwithstanding, I only ever debate AB and others like him using the Koran alone. It is HE who keeps making references - eg to Abu Bakr who is not explicitly named in the Koran - that can only have been from some non-Koranic source or other. It is a reasonable question to ask just what these non-Koran sources are.
Ofcourse Ab is a con man . I do not disagree. He is embarrassed about his faith when he sees the hadith and hence the rejection . HE has to lie to himself to keep his faith. What i want to say he can use the hadiths to debate to prove how crooked and distorted they are just like we use quran to prove how crooked and distorted it is . Hadiths are more reliable than quran for understanding the character Muhhamad. Quran only con men try to escape from the dilemma by ignoring them. WIth quran only approach they can easily sugar coat the verses and make them appear as something different than what they actually mean.

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

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:55 pm
by skynightblaze
Ahmed wrote:The hadith only mentioned that prophet Mohammed told them: I am going to judge between you using the book of Allah
Ofcourse Muhhamad would have never said about following hadith because they didnt exist during his time so how can he ask his followers to follow them? The sunni followers are still not wrong if they follow the hadiths provided hadiths arent a lie.
If the hadiths are true then we can see how muhhamad implemented quran. So following muhhamad from hadiths is like following quran because of the simple belief of muslims that Muhhamad himself cannot violate quran.

In short if hadiths are true then how muhhamad behaved is what quran meant and actually taught because Muhhamad cannot violate quran. SO now if sunni muslims follow hadith they arent wrong because they are following quran by following muhhamad who never violated quran. So even if muhhamad never asked us to follow the hadiths still the sunni muslims following hadiths arent wrong .

To dismiss the sunni muslims you need to prove that the entire hadiths were forged and a lie . IT is then only you can accuse the sunni sect of being misguided.

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

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:30 pm
by skynightblaze
piscohot wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: I am sorry i commented without reading much however piscohot was saying that he should not use a hadith to debunk the other. If one hadith contradicts the other he could say that there is confusion and hence we do not know what to believe and hence both should be rejected.However i still feel that he has the right to use hadiths against us since we believe them as true.We are supporters of hadiths and thats why we must be able to defend them if he uses them against us .Ofcourse not all the hadiths are true but especially the ones that portray muhhamad cannot be a lie .

POST EDITED
hello skynightblaze,

I am laughing at Ahmed because he dismissed the hadiths as corrupted and unreliable to a muslimah, especially the one which said that Muhammad married Aisha at six BUT at the same time he tried to prove (using the same corrupted hadiths) that Aisha was like 16 years old when Muhammad married her.

that's dumb
I think he was trying to say that hadith writers were confused within themselves. One says that she was 6 years old and the other contradicts it .