Exposing a hadith worshipper (Neveen Salah Labib) Facebook

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
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 »

MBL,

These two verses could have only been inspired by God Himself. The reason I asked Cassie's help to translate these two verses from the original language (Hebrew) they were written in, is to be 100% sure that the translations in English are accurate. These verses could have only been inspired by God and only stubborn atheists argue that it isn't.
account suspended for inappropriate language

User avatar
charleslemartel
Posts: 2884
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah

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

Post by charleslemartel »

debunker wrote:Hello Piscohot,

Like I explained to Sky, it's not having sex with women that makes men unclean, it's the emission of semen. A man who had a semen discharge (with or without intercourse) is called "Junub" and must bathe not to "literally" clean himself but to symbolically purify himself. So washing with water is symbolic. Wiping the face and hands with sand (in place of water) is symbolic.
Hello Debunker,

I do not understand one thing: the uncleanliness is real; it is not symbolic. How can a symbolic purification, disregarding the actual uncleanliness, purify a man?

Bathing in order to actually clean yourself makes far more sense, doesn't it?
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.

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 »

What's so real about the uncleanliness of a man after semen discharge? If it's about literal cleanliness, then washing his privates is more than enough. But since it really isn't about actual physical cleanliness, purification rituals are required (bathing/Wudu/Tayammum).
account suspended for inappropriate language

User avatar
charleslemartel
Posts: 2884
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah

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

Post by charleslemartel »

debunker wrote:What's so real about the uncleanliness of a man after semen discharge? If it's about literal cleanliness, then washing his privates is more than enough. But since it really isn't about actual physical cleanliness, purification rituals are required (bathing/Wudu/Tayammum).
Right. So now you can see the futility of these symbolic rituals.

If the uncleanliness is real, no symbolic purification is going to work; it is utterly futile.
If the uncleanliness is also symbolic, well, the so called symbolic purification is not going to work.

It is utterly futile in either case.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.

User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

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

Post by KhaliL »

debunker wrote:What's so real about the uncleanliness of a man after semen discharge?
So it is about spiritual uncleanliness..??!! Do you know where did this spiritual uncleanliness come from? It stems from the notion SEX IS SIN.

It is no brainer I think for a person like you to comprehend. Since sex is sin, BOTH SINNERS :lol: should perform purification rituals after committing the sin.

Regds
KF

User avatar
Aksel Ankersen
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:45 am
Location: Coastlines

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

Post by Aksel Ankersen »

debunker wrote: Isaiah 40:22
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Arabic Bible uses the tem "ball" instead of circle. In Hebrew, is it BALL or CIRCLE?
I don't know Hebrew, but having checked the dictionaries, the word used is khug ( ח֣וּג ) which is sometimes defined as an arch or dome, as well as a circle.

However khug certainly can mean a circle, the word is used in describing the marking of the horizon as a circle.

In His preparing the heavens I [am] there, In His decreeing a circle on the face of the deep,

בַּהֲכִינֹ֣ו שָׁ֭מַיִם שָׁ֣ם אָ֑נִי בְּח֥וּקֹו ח֝֗וּג עַל־פְּנֵ֥י תְהֹֽום׃

-Proverbs 8:27
بدرود , بدرود , بدرود

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 Bahgat wrote:Ignronat, they cannot be a contradiction between book a and book b, you styupid punk, you need a contradiction between book a and book a, how stpid you are
also you confused, 16:33 has nothing to do with 5:33, unless a stupid dumn bum like you thinks that they are related because each verse is numbered 33, hahahaha, see how stupid you are, let me now bring 16:33 in here to confirm your stupidity and confusionL

16:33 هل ينظرون الا ان تاتيهم الملائكة او ياتي امر ربك كذلك فعل الذين من قبلهم وما ظلمهم الله ولكن كانوا انفسهم يظلمون


See you idiot, 16:33 has nothing to do with 5:33, 16:33 is talking about those filthy kafirs who reject that the angels will come to them one day to take their souls

how stupid you are?
I want a honest answer from you here.Did you by mistake read what I wrote earlier using your bum instead of your eyes? What a retard you are. I brought up 16:126 and not 16:33 MR. Re Read what I wrote and then answer.What book "a" and book "b" are you talking about here? Both the verses belong to the same book quran you jerk.

Ahmed Bahgat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: Further how does bukhari placing the hadith under a irrelevant title prove that hadith is false?
Of course, you stupid, it proves that the Books of hadith are only filled with Batil and contradiction, as well it has no sunnah in it
The sunnah is there you fool . Read the part below.

Ahmed Bahgat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: The narration of this incident was reported not just Bukhari but by others too . One could be wrong but not all . Why would all of them lie? We see they differ each other in minor details but they dont contradict each other in this incident. All share the same story so it cannot be false.
Read Bukhari hadith again you confused, and see how Abu Qalabah said that they deserved so because of 5:33, i.e. 5:33 waqs already revealed

you are dismissed
Here is the hadith .Let us see whether the sub narrator said this punishment was ordered because of 5:33 or not. Focus on the part in red.




Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.")


Answer me a single question. Was it not true that they fought against the prophet and spread mischief in the land by murder and theft? The answer is YES so how can you say that the sub narrator lied here?. YOu would have a point if the sub narrator had specifically said that prophet ordered a extra cruel punishment even after the revelation of this verse.Where does the hadith say that?

Hadith of Sunan Abu DAwud tells us this extra fact that the verse was revealed after prophet had already ordered the punishment. Sunan Abu DAwud covers this detail while Bukhari doesnt.Both Bukhari and Sunan Abu DAwud report the same incident with minor differences and they dont contradict each other.

The reality was Muhhamad ordered a cruel punishment and later the 5:33 came rebuking the prophet and restricting the punishment.Your filthy arse has been once again exposed here.
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.

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:
I have a message for you from BMZ, but please do not reply to me, reply to him as I am only carrying a message from him to you and from you to him that is if you have anything to say:
Please carry this message to him:

BuggeroffMuslimZealot.
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 »

debunker wrote:Hello Sky,

You ignored my comment that men also become unclean for being "Junub" (after semen discharge) regardless of sexual intercourse. In fact, the verse 4:43 begins with this instruction for men to bathe if they were Junub and never approach prayer until they bathed. So if you think that the Quran degrades women for their monthly blood discharge, then you should also think that it degrades men for their semen discharge.

As for symbolic cleansing I mean that using sand (or EVEN WATER) is NOT meant to literally clean, but rather to symbolize cleanliness. After all, if it's literally about cleanliness then a Junub man (after semen discharge) can simply wash his privates and that's it. But it's not literally about cleanliness and and the bathing requirement is a ritualistic one to symboblize cleanliness/purification.
Bathing is prescribed whenever you are unclean . IT means that man becomes unclean after having sex otherwise bathing wouldnt have been prescribed.Well if bathing was all about symbolic cleanliness rather than actual cleanliness then it should have been prescribed for both the sexes. Right? Dont you think its strange that only men have to perform this ritual before praying and women can go to prayers without this ritual? This is the reason I dont think that it was symbolic cleanliness otherwise both the sexes would have been ordered to do. Therefore my view is that as per quran men become actually dirty after having sex with women because women are dirty .
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.

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

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

Post by piscohot »

skynightblaze wrote:Therefore my view is that as per quran men become actually dirty after having sex with women because women are dirty .
women are not only dirty, they are dirtier than dirt.

You touch a woman and the only way you can clean yourself if there is no water around is to rub dirt on your hands and face, what does that tell you?

I still find it strange that Allah did not tell them to rub dirt on their penis as well. The penis is the real source of 'uncleanliness', according to debunker.
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
Chiclets
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:19 pm

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

Post by Chiclets »

piscohot wrote:I still find it strange that Allah did not tell them to rub dirt on their penis as well. The penis is the real source of 'uncleanliness', according to debunker.
Rubbing sand on a skinless penis :ohmy:
gupsfu wrote:When someone uses the "taken out of context" argument without explaining what it's really supposed to mean, you know he's lying.
Muslims are so secure in their faith that they need to kill those who don’t share it.

User avatar
charleslemartel
Posts: 2884
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah

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

Post by charleslemartel »

Chiclets wrote:
piscohot wrote:I still find it strange that Allah did not tell them to rub dirt on their penis as well. The penis is the real source of 'uncleanliness', according to debunker.
Rubbing sand on a skinless penis :ohmy:
That is why Allah prescribed it only for the face and the hands.

Piscohot does not know.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.

User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

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

Post by KhaliL »

charleslemartel wrote:
Chiclets wrote:
piscohot wrote:I still find it strange that Allah did not tell them to rub dirt on their penis as well. The penis is the real source of 'uncleanliness', according to debunker.
Rubbing sand on a skinless penis :ohmy:
That is why Allah prescribed it only for the face and the hands.

Piscohot does not know.
I don't think so since we know Muhammad used exactly three stones to wipe his arse.

Narrated Abu Huraira: I followed the Prophet while he was going out to answer the call of nature. He used not to look this way or that. So, when I approached near him he said to me, "Fetch for me some stones for ' cleaning the privates parts (or said something similar), and do not bring a bone or a piece of dung." So I brought the stones in the corner of my garment and placed them by his side and I then went away from him. When he finished (from answering the call of nature) he used, them . [Sahih Bukhari: Book: 4, Hadith: 157]

Narrated 'Abdullah: The Prophet went out to answer the call of nature and asked me to bring three stones. I found two stones and searched for the third but could not find it. So took a dried piece of dung and brought it to him. He took the two stones and threw away the dung and said, "This is a filthy thing." [Sahih Bukhari: Book: 4, Hadith:158]


If one can wipe his arse with stones, then what is the problem in using sand to wipe penis?

Besides, if anyone focus on the bolded highlighted part in the hadith, it points to a miracle and prophet-hood of Muhammad (pbuh) too. See.. Prophet knew dung is a filthy thing. How could a man lived 1400 years ago knew exactly dung is a filthy thing?


Regards

KF

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 »

Ahmed Bahgat wrote:Ignronat, they cannot be a contradiction between book a and book b, you styupid punk, you need a contradiction between book a and book a, how stpid you are
also you confused, 16:33 has nothing to do with 5:33, unless a stupid dumn bum like you thinks that they are related because each verse is numbered 33, hahahaha, see how stupid you are, let me now bring 16:33 in here to confirm your stupidity and confusionL

16:33 هل ينظرون الا ان تاتيهم الملائكة او ياتي امر ربك كذلك فعل الذين من قبلهم وما ظلمهم الله ولكن كانوا انفسهم يظلمون


See you idiot, 16:33 has nothing to do with 5:33, 16:33 is talking about those filthy kafirs who reject that the angels will come to them one day to take their souls

how stupid you are?
skynightblaze wrote:I want a honest answer from you here.
Sure, punk
skynightblaze wrote: Did you by mistake read what I wrote earlier using your bum instead of your eyes? What a retard you are. I brought up 16:126 and not 16:33 MR. Re Read what I wrote and then answer.What book "a" and book "b" are you talking about here? Both the verses belong to the same book quran you jerk.
I appolgise punk, I have problem with my eyes and I swear that I saw it 16:33, sorry again, filthy kafir

So, let's bring 16:126 in here:

16:126 وَإِنْ عَاقَبْتُمْ فَعَاقِبُوا بِمِثْلِ مَا عُوقِبْتُمْ بِهِ ۖ وَلَئِنْ صَبَرْتُمْ لَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لِلصَّابِرِينَ

You stupid punk, I walked the kafirs through this verse before, this verse even prove that the alleged hadith is fukin wrong, because the verse says if you punish others, then punish them the same way they punished you, this has nothing to do with committing crimes you fool, but even if I take it as such, then for the two crimes committed by them (theft and murder), then they should only have their hands cut, then after that, killed

not tortured you filthy kafir and hadith advocate bound to hell
skynightblaze wrote: Further how does bukhari placing the hadith under a irrelevant title prove that hadith is false?
Ahmed wrote:Of course, you stupid, it proves that the Books of hadith are only filled with Batil and contradiction, as well it has no sunnah in it
skynightblaze wrote:The sunnah is there you fool . Read the part below.
Hahaha, let's see how fool your are:
Ahmed Bahgat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: The narration of this incident was reported not just Bukhari but by others too . One could be wrong but not all . Why would all of them lie? We see they differ each other in minor details but they dont contradict each other in this incident. All share the same story so it cannot be false.
Read Bukhari hadith again you confused, and see how Abu Qalabah said that they deserved so because of 5:33, i.e. 5:33 waqs already revealed

you are dismissed
skynightblaze wrote:Here is the hadith .Let us see whether the sub narrator said this punishment was ordered because of 5:33 or not. Focus on the part in red.
But I said before you dumb, that the kafirs are not allowed to use the hadith against me, let me explain this to a fool like you

I believe that the Quran is the only divine book on the planet, and I believe that the hadith books is not even worth the papers it is printed
on

Therefore you can only use the Quran agaisnt me

Now, for you kafirs and your fellow confused Muslims, you all are hadith advocates, therefore I can use the hadith against you

See, how confused you are, therefore before I even read the following crap hadith, it will be dismissed
skynightblaze wrote: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.")
skynightblaze wrote: Answer me a single question. Was it not true that they fought against the prophet and spread mischief in the land by murder and theft? The answer is YES so how can you say that the sub narrator lied here?. YOu would have a point if the sub narrator had specifically said that prophet ordered a extra cruel punishment even after the revelation of this verse.Where does the hadith say that?
I don't answerr hadith provided by kafirs, the above has to be dismmised, honestly I did not even read it
skynightblaze wrote: Hadith of Sunan Abu DAwud tells us this extra fact that the verse was revealed after prophet had already ordered the punishment. Sunan Abu DAwud covers this detail while Bukhari doesnt.Both Bukhari and Sunan Abu DAwud report the same incident with minor differences and they dont contradict each other.
How about you shove Abu Dawood and Bukhari up your arse, that should make you happy
skynightblaze wrote: The reality was Muhhamad ordered a cruel punishment and later the 5:33 came rebuking the prophet and restricting the punishment.Your filthy arse has been once again exposed here.
again, you stupid punk, Abu Qalabah recited 5:33 indirectly at the end of bukhari hadith,which means that the verse was revealed before the incident, and this is what the verse said

it said: this OR this OR this OR this

i.e. it cannot be about such incident, because in such incident they did that and that and that and that

See, another hadith advocate lie, so you only need to dismiss your stupid arse

cheers
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 »

Here it is, mister MyArseAblaze

it was a comment I made to Farid:

Salam all

I decided to highlight to you, a clear cut Mushrik Muslim in action "Farid"

He is bringing this crap by all these people to explain the following verse:

وَإِنْ عَاقَبْتُمْ فَعَاقِبُوا بِمِثْلِ مَا عُوقِبْتُمْ بِهِ ۖ وَلَئِنْ صَبَرْتُمْ لَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لِلصَّابِرِينَ (126)
[The Quran ; 16:126]

The verse is only 17 words, and is so simple to understand, here is the my translation to it on the fly:

And if you punish (others) then punish as the like of that with which you were punished, and if you be patient, then that is good for those who are patient.

How simple, it does not need rocket science to understand those very easy 17 words, the message in the verse above is clear, it must be talking about people who are alive, two conflicting parties, let's call them party A and party B

party A punished a few from party B (for whatever reason that was unjust)

now party B must take revenge from party A

so party B should punish party A with something similar to how part A punished party B

How simple

It can not be talking about dead people, simply we cannot punish dead people.

For example, the goons keep punishing the Muslims on this web site, their punishment is nothing but insults and unfounded accusation against the prophet, therefore the Muslims should punish them with the same, i.e. by insulting them back and accusing them with the same exactly.

The verse however gives those who have been punished first, the option of not punishing the perpetrators back and just be patient, which should be better than replying wiith similar punishment, however IT IS AN OPTION, i.e. those who go for replying back with similar punishment COMMITTED NO SIN and certainly are not violating the Quran in any way as Farid is alleging according to the data in his Barbie world

What is funny that Farid failed to understand such simple message, or possibly, he does not want to use his brain in his pinhead, he wants to follow other people spin explanations, so possibly if they are wrong, he might try to blame them, hahahahah, only cowards do that, let's look at the spinning of so called tafsir:
farid wrote:Salaam,

I believe you have the Quran misinterpreted Ahmed. Allow me to quote to you from the science of Quran about why the 9:126 was revealed and see if it has anything to do with arguments.
What a clear cut confused Mushrik of a freak you are Farid, you keep calling it science of the Quran yet you bring to us some Jerry Springer stories from other source, ARE YOU THAT CONFUSED?, you now sound to me like one of the those confused Ahmadie sectarian followers, am I right that you are an Ahmedie?

farid wrote:16:126]. Abu Hassan al-Muzakki informed us> Abu'l-'Abbas Muhammad ibn Ishaq> Musa ibn Ishaq> Yahya ibn 'Abd al-Hamid al-Humani> Qays ibn Abi Layla> al-Hakam> Muqassim> Ibn 'Abbas who reported that,
holy crap, so for us to understand 16:126 we need to believe that all these people above existed, who the fuk are all these people?

did you meet any of them?, can you confirm their Jerry Springer stories?

Is their Jerry Springer stories what you call Quran science?
farid wrote: on the day Hamzah was killed and mutilated,
Oh yeh, we heard about such allegation, so verse 126 is related to Hamza death, right?
farid wrote: the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: “If I get my hand on the Quraysh I will mutilate seventy men of them.
Hmmm, so the messenger of Allah was acting like a revenge maniac of a freak, for one that was mutilated, he wanted to mutilate 70 in front

hahahahahah, are you fukin drunk, mister Farid

mister Farid, I started to be convinced that you are full of sh!t, a typical Ahmedie if my guess is right that you are one of their confused followers, if not, you must be another confused follower of another sect

Let's continue your Jerry Springer crap that only defamed the prophet so far:
farid wrote: Allah, exalted is He, then revealed (If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently,
Hmmm, so your man made crap of hadith clearly confirmed to us that the prophet ONCE again was talking according to his desires to mutilate 70 men in front of one, and Allah needed to correct him

the correction of Allah may be rendered like this:

If one of your dead is mutilated by the enemy then you should mutilate one dead from the enemy, but not more than one

Are you full of that amount of crap mister Farid

look you idiot, I am not even going to waste my precious time with such non sense of bull sh!t, I actually cannot
farid wrote: verily it is better for the patient), upon which the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: 'I would rather be patient, O Lord!' ” The commentators of the Qur'an said: “When the Muslims saw what the idolaters did to their dead at the Battle of Uhud in terms of ripping open their stomachs, cutting off their male organs and mutilating them in the most ugly way, they said: 'If Allah gives us a chance to get our hands on them, we will mutilate them even worse than what they did; we shall maim them in a way that none of the Arabs did before to any other Arab; and we shall do this and we shall do that'. The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, stopped at the body of his paternal uncle Hamzah with his nose and ears amputated, his male organs cut off and his stomach ripped open. Hind bint 'Utbah had taken a piece of his liver, chewed it and swallowed it but her stomach could not take it and she threw it up. When the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, heard of this, he said: 'She would have never entered hell if she did digest it; Hamzah is too noble in the sight of Allah to allow any part of his body to enter hell'. When the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, saw Hamzah [lying dead and mutilated], he had never seen, before that, anything which was more painful to his heart. And so he said: 'May Allah's mercy be on you; you were, as far as I know, someone who kept his ties of kinship and did always good deeds. Had it not been for the grieving of those who survived of your family, it would have pleased me to leave you as you are until you are resurrected [on the Day of Judgement] from different bellies. By Allah, if Allah, exalted is He, gives me the opportunity to lay my hand on them, I will mutilate seventy men of them, for what they did to you'. But Allah, exalted is He, revealed (If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient) and so the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: 'I would rather be patient', and then he made amends for the oath he had made”. Here, we need to mention how Hamzah was killed. 'Amr ibn Abi 'Amr al-Muzakki informed us> Muhammad ibn Makki> Muhammad ibn Yusuf> Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Ju'fi> Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah> Hujayn ibn al-Muthanna> 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Abi Salamah. And we were informed by Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya> his father> Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Thaqafi> Sa'id ibn Yahya al-Umawi> his father> Muhammad ibn Ishaq> 'Abd Allah ibn al-Fadl ibn 'Ayyash ibn Abi Rabi'ah> Sulayman ibn Yasar> Ja'far ibn 'Amr ibn Umayyah al-Damri who said: “I travelled with 'Ubayd Allah ibn 'Adiyy ibn al-Khiyar through Hums. While we were there 'Ubayd Allah said to me: 'Do you wish to go to visit Wahshiyy to ask him how he killed Hamzah'. I said: 'If you want to'. A man said to us: 'You will find him in the courtyard of his house; he is a man who is always drunk. However, if he is sober, he will speak in Arabic and you might find what you are after'. When we got to him, we greeted him and he raised his head. We said: 'We have come to you to tell us about your killing of Hamzah, may Allah have mercy on him'. He said: 'I will relate to you exactly what I related to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, when he asked me about the same. I was a slave of Jubayr ibn Mut'im ibn 'Adiyy ibn Nawfal whose uncle Tu'aymah ibn 'Adiyy was killed at the Battle of Badr. When the Quraysh marched toward Uhud, Jubayr ibn Mut'im said to me: 'You are free if you kill Hamzah, Muhammad's uncle, as a revenge for the killing of my uncle Tu'aymah'. I went out with them. It is to be remembered that I am an Abyssinian who is expert in throwing spears, like all Abyssinians, and I never missed my target. When the two sides met, I went looking for Hamzah until I saw him in the middle of the army, like a white-and-black camel, slaughtering people with his sword such that nothing stood in his way. By Allah, I was waiting for my moment, hiding behind a rock or tree, so that he drew closer to me, when Siba' ibn 'Abd al-'Uzza passed me and went toward him. When Hamzah, may Allah have mercy on him, saw him, he called him: 'Here, O son of a cutter of clitoris!' Then he struck him on the head and, by Allah, he did not miss. I moved my spear about until I felt comfortable and threw it at him. It caught him in the lower abdomen and the spear came out from his feet. He made a move toward me and then collapsed and I left him to die. I went toward him, retrieved my spear and joined the people at the camp. I did not want to kill anyone else, for I only killed him to gain my freedom. When I went back to Mecca, I was emancipated. I stayed there until Islam spread throughout it upon which I travelled to al-Ta'if. In Ta'if, they sent emissaries to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, and mentioned that he does not harm emissaries. And so I went with them to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace. When he saw me, he said: 'Are you Wahshiyy?' and when I answered in the affirmative, he asked again: 'You are the one who killed Hamzah?' I said: 'What happened is exactly as it was related to you'. He said: 'Could you keep your face away from me?' I left. When the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, died and Musaylimah the liar emerged to the people, I thought to go and kill Musaylimah to cancel out my killing of Hamzah. I went out with people, and what happened to him is now known' ”.
Dismissed

All that crap to understand the simple 17 words in 16:126, hahahaha, I cannot fukin believe it, how dumb and stupid the majority of the Muslims are and have been for 1400 years

those confused Muslims are telling us that Allah is allowing the mutilation of the dead

farid wrote:Al-Jalalyn also agrees with this.
After Hamza [b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib] had been killed and mutilated, and the Prophet (s) had seen him and said, ‘Verily I will mutilate 70 of them for you’, the following was revealed: And if you retaliate, retaliate with the like of what you have been made to suffer; and yet if you endure patiently, [refraining] from revenge, verily that, namely, [that] enduring, is better for the patient. Thus the Prophet (s) refrained [from taking revenge] and made atonement for his oath, as reported by al-Bazzār.
Now I wonder, why the crap above by another Mushrik Muslim is not the same size as the first crap? aren't they tell us the same thing? they both are in agreement, but it seems the first Crapper wanted to impress the confused followers by showing that he can write more, hahahahah

At the end of the day, both Crappers are telling us the Allah is allowing the mutilation of the dead as a way of revenge when the enemy mutilate our deads

What load of crap is that?

Well, if it is coming from clear cut Crappers, then damn right, it has to be full of loads of crap, defaming Mohammed and even defaming Allah
farid wrote:Lets take a look at tanwir al-miqbas min tafsir ibn Abbas:
No more looks you idiot, you can shove Ibn Abbas up your arse
farid wrote: (If ye punish) mutilate, (then punish) mutilate (with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted) with the like of that which your dead were mutilated. (But if ye endure patiently) and abstain from mutilation, (verily it is better for the patient) in the Hereafter.

Thank you Ahmed.
Do not thank me you punk, you are a disgrace to all Muslims

Piss off, that is my thanks giving to you

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 Bahgat wrote:But I said before you dumb, that the kafirs are not allowed to use the hadith against me, let me explain this to a fool like youI believe that the Quran is the only divine book on the planet, and I believe that the hadith books is not even worth the papers it is printedonTherefore you can only use the Quran agaisnt me
Now, for you kafirs and your fellow confused Muslims, you all are hadith advocates, therefore I can use the hadith against you
See, how confused you are, therefore before I even read the following crap hadith, it will be dismissed


IF you are making accusations against the hadiths dont you think that one cannot use hadiths to defend it? LEt us reverse the case. I bring in some contradiction from quran and you use another verse from quran to defend it. now should I say that you are not allowed to bring quran to defend itself as I dont believe in it? Same is happening here.However I dont believe in the entire hadith but the ones which show muhhamad in negative light are 100 % correct as per me and thats why I am defending it.

Your primary accusation was it violates the verse 5:33 and now your corrupt arse says that it violated 16:126. Let us examine each of them below.YOu have proved one point though that Bukhari missed some of the details but that doesnt mean he faked the entire incident.All your questions are answered if we consider the hadiths other than Bukhari.Whatever Bukhari said wasnt sufficient to answer your questions but neither was he wrong in stating whatever he said. You need to prove that the entire incident was a lie and to do that you need to show holes in the narrations of hadith writers as well .IF whatever narrations we have dont answer your questions it will be only then you can say that such an incident never happened and thereby say that Bukhari faked it.

Right now we can only say that Bukhari missed some information.

Ahmed wrote:I appolgise punk, I have problem with my eyes and I swear that I saw it 16:33, sorry again, filthy kafir
So, let's bring 16:126 in here:
You stupid punk, I walked the kafirs through this verse before, this verse even prove that the alleged hadith is fukin wrong, because the verse says if you punish others, then punish them the same way they punished you, this has nothing to do with committing crimes you fool, but even if I take it as such, then for the two crimes committed by them (theft and murder), then they should only have their hands cut, then after that, killednot tortured you filthy kafir and hadith advocate bound to hell

There are hadiths that tell us that muhhamad did the same things that these men did .
Here is what goons from answering christianity brought in defense to answering islam's response.

However, in one of the narratives reported in Ibn Al-Jarood's Al-Muntaqaa, Anas (ra) is reported to have explained the reason for this punishment as well. The companion of the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
The Prophet (pbuh) branded their eyes because they had branded the eyes of the herdsmen. (volume 1, Pg. 216)
This explanation adequately clarifies the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered the branding the eyes of the culprits, in compliance with the Qur'anic directive of Qisaas (Al-Baqarah 2: 178, Al-Maaidah 5: 45) for the punishment of murder and inflicting physical injury on someone.
It is also said in Fathul Wadud that the Prophet let them die of thirst as Qisas because they did so to the shepherd.
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... 4&Rec=5478" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SO there is your answer. Muhhamad punished them with crimes they had committed .IT is clear that muhhamad used verse 16:126 to justify his acts there since the verse 5:33 wasnt revealed back then.

Btw fighting against shepherd was considered war against the messenger and Allah so this verse is applicable even today. You never answered my question.Today again if such a war is fought against muslims it would be termed as war against Allah and his messenger just like it was termed back then.What stance are muslims supposed to take ? Follow 5:33 or do what the other party does as instructed by 16:126? There lies in the clear cut internal contradiction. You can dismiss quran just like you do with the hadiths . ITs not better than them.

Ahmed Bahgat wrote: Read Bukhari hadith again you confused, and see how Abu Qalabah said that they deserved so because of 5:33, i.e. 5:33 waqs already revealed you are dismissed
YOur filthy arse is trying to play tricks here. The sub narrator only described the situation that was prevalent but he never said that the punishment was inspired through 5:33.The situation was that people of UKL had committed theft and murder and fought against Allah and his messenger and thats what BUkhari said. You fool, now if anyone was supposed to describe the acts of people of UKL then how were they supposed to describe it? ARe you trying to say Bukhari should have said something else?What sort of stupid esteemed friend you are?

Ahmed Bahgat wrote: again, you stupid punk, Abu Qalabah recited 5:33 indirectly at the end of bukhari hadith,which means that the verse was revealed before the incident, and this is what the verse saidit said: this OR this OR this OR this
i.e. it cannot be about such incident, because in such incident they did that and that and that and that
See, another hadith advocate lie, so you only need to dismiss your stupid arse

cheers
Referring to the circumstances that existed during that time doesnt indicate that the verse was revealed before the incident.IT was true that they had fought the prophet and committed mischief in the land . IT echoes the situation that was there during that time. SO nothing wrong in mentioning that .ITs not clear from the text of bukhari hadith that the verse was revealed before the incident.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

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

Post by skynightblaze »

@BAHGAT

In quran there are plenty of verses which say obey Allah and his messenger. Obeying Allah is obeying quran but how are you supposed obey Muhhamad? I hope you dont tell me that from quran we obey muhhamad because you would be shooting your foot.
You tried to cope out of this issue quoting quranic verses instructing us to follow Ibrahim . You further said that there is no hadith to follow Ibrahim and yet the verse tells us to follow him. This is no good explanation. From where and how are you going to follow muhhamad? That question still remains unanswered.
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:@BAHGAT

In quran there are plenty of verses which say obey Allah and his messenger. Obeying Allah is obeying quran but how are you supposed obey Muhhamad? I hope you dont tell me that from quran we obey muhhamad because you would be shooting your foot.
You tried to cope out of this issue quoting quranic verses instructing us to follow Ibrahim . You further said that there is no hadith to follow Ibrahim and yet the verse tells us to follow him. This is no good explanation. From where and how are you going to follow muhhamad? That question still remains unanswered.
Idiot, the Quran said any prophet must be obeyed, i.e. obeying them in the way to Allah

dismiss yourself

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:
Spoiler! :
Ahmed Bahgat wrote:But I said before you dumb, that the kafirs are not allowed to use the hadith against me, let me explain this to a fool like youI believe that the Quran is the only divine book on the planet, and I believe that the hadith books is not even worth the papers it is printedonTherefore you can only use the Quran agaisnt me
Now, for you kafirs and your fellow confused Muslims, you all are hadith advocates, therefore I can use the hadith against you
See, how confused you are, therefore before I even read the following crap hadith, it will be dismissed


IF you are making accusations against the hadiths dont you think that one cannot use hadiths to defend it? LEt us reverse the case. I bring in some contradiction from quran and you use another verse from quran to defend it. now should I say that you are not allowed to bring quran to defend itself as I dont believe in it? Same is happening here.However I dont believe in the entire hadith but the ones which show muhhamad in negative light are 100 % correct as per me and thats why I am defending it.

Your primary accusation was it violates the verse 5:33 and now your corrupt arse says that it violated 16:126. Let us examine each of them below.YOu have proved one point though that Bukhari missed some of the details but that doesnt mean he faked the entire incident.All your questions are answered if we consider the hadiths other than Bukhari.Whatever Bukhari said wasnt sufficient to answer your questions but neither was he wrong in stating whatever he said. You need to prove that the entire incident was a lie and to do that you need to show holes in the narrations of hadith writers as well .IF whatever narrations we have dont answer your questions it will be only then you can say that such an incident never happened and thereby say that Bukhari faked it.

Right now we can only say that Bukhari missed some information.

Ahmed wrote:I appolgise punk, I have problem with my eyes and I swear that I saw it 16:33, sorry again, filthy kafir
So, let's bring 16:126 in here:
You stupid punk, I walked the kafirs through this verse before, this verse even prove that the alleged hadith is fukin wrong, because the verse says if you punish others, then punish them the same way they punished you, this has nothing to do with committing crimes you fool, but even if I take it as such, then for the two crimes committed by them (theft and murder), then they should only have their hands cut, then after that, killednot tortured you filthy kafir and hadith advocate bound to hell

There are hadiths that tell us that muhhamad did the same things that these men did .
Here is what goons from answering christianity brought in defense to answering islam's response.

However, in one of the narratives reported in Ibn Al-Jarood's Al-Muntaqaa, Anas (ra) is reported to have explained the reason for this punishment as well. The companion of the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
The Prophet (pbuh) branded their eyes because they had branded the eyes of the herdsmen. (volume 1, Pg. 216)
This explanation adequately clarifies the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered the branding the eyes of the culprits, in compliance with the Qur'anic directive of Qisaas (Al-Baqarah 2: 178, Al-Maaidah 5: 45) for the punishment of murder and inflicting physical injury on someone.
It is also said in Fathul Wadud that the Prophet let them die of thirst as Qisas because they did so to the shepherd.
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... 4&Rec=5478" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SO there is your answer. Muhhamad punished them with crimes they had committed .IT is clear that muhhamad used verse 16:126 to justify his acts there since the verse 5:33 wasnt revealed back then.

Btw fighting against shepherd was considered war against the messenger and Allah so this verse is applicable even today. You never answered my question.Today again if such a war is fought against muslims it would be termed as war against Allah and his messenger just like it was termed back then.What stance are muslims supposed to take ? Follow 5:33 or do what the other party does as instructed by 16:126? There lies in the clear cut internal contradiction. You can dismiss quran just like you do with the hadiths . ITs not better than them.

Ahmed Bahgat wrote: Read Bukhari hadith again you confused, and see how Abu Qalabah said that they deserved so because of 5:33, i.e. 5:33 waqs already revealed you are dismissed
YOur filthy arse is trying to play tricks here. The sub narrator only described the situation that was prevalent but he never said that the punishment was inspired through 5:33.The situation was that people of UKL had committed theft and murder and fought against Allah and his messenger and thats what BUkhari said. You fool, now if anyone was supposed to describe the acts of people of UKL then how were they supposed to describe it? ARe you trying to say Bukhari should have said something else?What sort of stupid esteemed friend you are?

Ahmed Bahgat wrote: again, you stupid punk, Abu Qalabah recited 5:33 indirectly at the end of bukhari hadith,which means that the verse was revealed before the incident, and this is what the verse saidit said: this OR this OR this OR this
i.e. it cannot be about such incident, because in such incident they did that and that and that and that
See, another hadith advocate lie, so you only need to dismiss your stupid arse

cheers
Referring to the circumstances that existed during that time doesnt indicate that the verse was revealed before the incident.IT was true that they had fought the prophet and committed mischief in the land . IT echoes the situation that was there during that time. SO nothing wrong in mentioning that .ITs not clear from the text of bukhari hadith that the verse was revealed before the incident.
Dismmissed

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 »

SkyArseAblase

if you want to reply to the hadith using the hadith then you can only use hadith from the same book where I posted hadiith

for example, if I post hadith from Bukhari and you want to defend it, then you have only two sourses to bring evidences from

Quran and Bukhari book

for example, if I post hadith from your male lover Abu Dawood, and you want to defend it, then you have only two sourses to bring evidences from

Quran and Abu Dawood book

do you understand, esteemed friend?

Post Reply