Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:that's because of his invasion of Mecca
You mean before Mecca's return to the way of Ibrahim as prophecised in the earliest days of Islam,
, do you mean by the earliest days of Islam?
Anyway, the answer is, no, what I mean is the treaty that Muhammad made with the Meccans
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:so just like the night journey and the Battle of Badr, nobody needed any detail
The Quran gives the relevant details of these two events to convey the point it wants to convey
And you and I both know that the Quran references mean very little without the additional, detailed info. I can't understand why you think that lying is OK. But maybe I can understand it, if I remember that you are not lying to us, you are lying to yourself.
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:No, I meant the name of the Mosque you mentioned
Yes masjid al aqsa, a location in Jerusalem that the early Muslims faced in prayer
Actually, it was the Jews. But, Yes to the rest of your twisted post. So why did we even have to have that clarification when we both knew exactly what I was talking about??
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:And when did that idea of the Kaaba being built by Abraham start?
Seems your memory is short. Here is the tape i once played to you and your people in another thread:<SNIP>
Legitimate historical citation please. Since when did it go from "Quran only" to now including modern authors?? See the duplicitous little game you play???? Well, I do.
Eagle wrote:The progeny of Ismail settled in the area from Havilah (Yemen) unto Shur (near gulf of Aqabah at the north east end of Red sea) Gen21:21,25:9-18, which essentially is the Hijaz where the descendants of Ismail have always identified themselves in, whether in ancient history or today.
The Adnanites of whom the prophet Muhammad was a descendant, were counscious of Ibrahim having constructed the Kaaba.
They performed circumcision and rites that were similar to the Israelite rites of the altar sacrifice even before the coming of Muhammad.
Not only Citation is required for this tall claim, citation of frequency of people actually practicing this is required. Otherwise, it's a made up Musim lie.
The hadith, which are based upon oral tradition and oral tradition in any culture,
You've rejected the authenticity of the hadiths, and now when you need them, there are "certain parts" that are now true, and they are true as you need them to be true. You sir, are even an embarrassment to Muslims. You sir, are simply out of your mind, and I can actually find Muslims to agree with me.
precedes the writing of that tradition, abounds with evidence such as the pre-Islamic poems of Umayyah ibn Abi as-Salt speaking of the trial of the sacrifice which Ibrahim and Ismail went through.
One interesting historical narration is that, per Ibn Kathir,
Yes, Kathir is good when needed, and denied when not conveniently needed, and people such as yourself don't even keep track of that. You are honestly that much out of your mind to where you invent fantasies for yourself.
the horns of the ram sacrificed in substitution of Ismail were religiously preserved in the Kaaba and handed down from generation to generation, upto the times of Abdullah bin Zubair. When Hajjaj besieged the Kaaba in 692, and destroyed part of it, the horns too were destroyed. Ibn Abbas and Sheibi both had seen the horns. Even prior to Islam, Abdul Muttalib, during the siege of Mecca by Abraha, recited a prayer which clearly acknowledges that they recognized the House as belonging to Allah alone: "O Lord! A man protects his family, so protect Your people. Let not their cross and their strength overpower You. If You want to leave our Qiblah at their mercy, then do as You please."
Who wrote that??? Why didn't you quote it??? You obviously got the text somewhere, so obviously the author's name was right next to it, but you didn't quote it.
Why are these writings to be taken as reliable, but then again any historical writings you don't like are to be taken as unreliable??
The history records this legacy of Ibrahim and Ismail, especially with the hanifs,
So now, if a historical accounting of something meets your needs, it's true. But if it doesn't meet your needs, then this is due to the mischief of certain people. That's the excuse. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What sort of a psycho are you???????????
those who were the seekers of the pure way of Ibrahim 3:67, who renounced Idolatry and the consumption of meat slaughtered in the name of idols as well as other pagan rituals. They were non-Jewish, non-Christian Arabian monotheists although some of them, such as Waraqa bin Nawfal, would convert to one of the 2 faiths as a result of their search. These small groups of Meccan men and women detested the use of the Kaaba by the polytheists and kept their practice of religion monotheistic. They affirmed that the Abrahamic legacy had been distorted beyond recognition, whether by the Jews, Christians or Ishmaelites, and these personalities were seeking a return to the pristine religion. The traditions mention their names and how their ways of life would lead them to harassement by the Idol worshipers.
They include names like Uthman ibn Huwayrith, Ubaydullah bin Jahsh, Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nawfal Al-Nabighah al Ja'adi etc, as well as Muhammad the orphan who essentially raised himself, who never worshiped the idols and would retreat away from the pagan environement to contemplate as some of his forefathers such as his great grand father the hanif Hashim ibn Abd al-Manaf would do, until his prophetic call.
In the pre-Islamic poems of Umayyah ibn Abi as-Salt, the haniffiya, the way of Ibrahim, is mentioned by name and Ibn Ishaq quotes it in connection with Abraha's attack on the Kaaba. Sirmah ibn Anas of the Banu Adyy ibn Al Najjar was another hanif, per the work of Isabah, that renounced idolatry and became a hanif and that he worshipped only the God of Abraham. There are countless sources that connect Abraham with the Arabs and those that desired to return to his ways were considered hanifs. This whole tradition revolved especially around the legacy of the Kaaba.
The Arab tradition on this point is so strong and of such old standing that the Quran every now and then refers to it as a matter of undoubted history, and the Arabs never contended with it.
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Prayed in the direction of Jerusalem, until the Jews still did not accept Islam even after Muhammad's overtures, and then, the prayer direction changes from Jerusalem to Mecca
The Muslims faced Jerusalem in Mecca, long before there was any Jewish involvement in their life[/quote]
And why was that??
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:and suddenly here comes a "test" from Allah to see who is faithful and who is not.
Seems you're mixing your wishful thinking with the truth once again. The test regarding the qibla had nothing to do with the people of the book and started long before the Muslims interracted with the Jews. The Quran reports how hard the test was for the Muslims and the prophet Muhammad in particular.
Seems you missed the point again. what was Allah finding out from this test?
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Thanks for making me look like a prophet
Well you do have the holy spirit in you like each christian alleges, you must therefore be a prophet according to your scriptures.
Well, i suppose, more so than you are. At least I don't have to lie.
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:OK, so God does this, and this is "A" "sign" (singular)
Your point being
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Does it say the word "signs" twice in that verse?
Once, what is your point
You said it is talking not about signs being shown to him, it is talking about one sign from among all signs, and you know you were trying to say that you liar. But the verse simply does not bear that out. Is there another twist or diversion you would like to attempt??
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:What is the word for what it is showing "from our signs"?? Is it saying that he will be shown a "thing" from our signs? Is it saying that it is showing him a "sign" from our signs?
Explain yourself properly.
I asked you a question, and it's right above and in writing. So why are you asking me to explain myself properly you charlatan?? There's nothing to explain about my question and the only thing that needs explanation is your behavior. You heard me the first time. I'm not particularly difficult to figure out. I'm pretty much straight forward, which is a term that I know you are absolutely frightened by.
As for the verse itself, it is simple, it says the purpose of the journey was to show him from the signs of Allah.
You said the journey was "A" sign, as in singular. Now the liar adjusts his story. Now it IS INDEED "signs".
It could be one or several.
You said "sign", you liar.
From all my cars i can show you one or two. Both interpretations fit the information given in the verse, without any need to bring the miraj (ascension) story.
Wrong, you filthy, rotten liar. One car means one sign or "sign" just like your rotten arss lied about not too long ago, and "signs" means multiple cars or signs. What sort of uneducated piece of crap do you think you ar3e trying to play this street hustle on???? Are you honestly this bad and dishonest???????
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Excuse me, but is the word "sign" in that verse singular or plural?
Another idiotic comment. The word must be in the plural, because God has many signs to show and the journey was one among those signs.
Then why did you use the word "sign" in singular fashion?
The journey itself was a sign from God's signs. Do you understand now.
I would, except for the verse says "signs", not "sign". So we're right back to what I stated in the first place. Believe me, these games will not work.
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:I most certainly do. In fact, I had to be my Dad's nurse for the last 6 months of his life, which even included helping him with going to the bathroom, of which I do not wish to go into detail. So what is the matter with your head that you would say something so wrong like that?
Your public behavior and paranoia?
Why should it be considered to be paranoia when I actually continually prove my point and you continually run out of answers?? So who[s tellijng the truth and who is not?? Sorry, but that little ploy didn't work. And you're not the first person to try it. Send a message back to the cockroach farm that it doesn't work in this kitchen.
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Excuse me, but who are "my people"?
Those who belong to your umma
Wow, I wouldn't want someone like that next to me when things counted. Why should the US want people who report to Mecca first and foremost??
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:No you are not, you are admitting defeat.
By introducing a term that has no specific bearing as to get the conversation to go somewhere else. But it failed. Keep trying them, and i will answer every single one of them. Every single one.
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:OK, so why didn't you simply say that in the first place?
You and those with you have been educated a few pages back already,
Quote how you specifically spelled it out. But then again, maybe you shouldn't bother because it's already been shown to be faulty
that the information as to the location of the sacred mosque does not depend on the hadith
What does it depend on?? If you think it doesn't depend on the hadiths, then that means you KNOW what it DOES depend on
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:So was the sunna written before 17:1?
Sunna is the oral explanation of the Quranic commandements 16:44, long before the compilation of any hadith
I asked you very clearly and very plainly whether the sunna that you raised in interest to this particular topic, was written before 17:1 was recited or not. Would you care to be honest for just once in your life and give us a straight yes or no answer:?"??
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:How did they know what 17:1 was talking about when Muhammad uttered it?
Obviously the journey had already occured. What is your point
What did they know about the journey to where the Quran didn't think it needed to go into details, like it didn't need to go into details about the Battle of Badr? We are right back into the same point you charlatan. It said "signs", not sign.
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Well sure, because Muhammad told them this was the sacred Mosque after he smashed all of the no compulsion in religion idols.
The Kaaba was referred as the sacred mosque long before the conquest of Mecca. You are all over the place once again.[/quote]
When was the first time that the Kaaba was referred to as the sacred mosque???