Page 6 of 13

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:51 am
by IoshkaFutz
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
In other words, you are telling The Cat to shut up. Is that what you want? If The Cat had not brought up the subject, there would have been no lively debate. Let him speak his mind out. If others have failed to register his points, let them think hard. Why kill the topic?


As mostly an observer of this debate, I fail to understand your reaction to Brendalee's post. Where did she tell Cat to shut up?

She observed: "The Muslims started killing folks immediately upon Mohammad's Medina revelations. Long before the ahadith we find the Muslim armies spreading out looting, killing, destroying, raping, and enslaving their non-Muslim neighbours."

This is a valid observation.

She also said: "You obviously have a different approach from many others at FFI. Fine, this is your right."

How is this a "shut-up?"

Then she asks: "Why do you think it is alright for you to insist that anyone who does not think like you is a 'hater?'"

All legitimate questions and comments. To my mind especially the first. Islam being VIOLENT from the get-go.

So what's with you, Ghalibkhastahaal?

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:15 pm
by Brendalee
Yes, what IS up with you, Galibkhastahaal?

This "lively debate" is not one that you have participated in. You have merely stood at the sidelines playing trollish cheerleader and, I would guess, delighting at any heat generated between the kaffirs. No doubt you would love it to continue.

The Cat and I have shared the FFI forums for a very long time. I have in the past expressed my admiration for feline posts. We are familiar with one another due to this long FFI history together and have enjoyed a friendly attitute and (I hope) mutual respect; and so the Cat is unlikely to view my post as personal hostility; and even more unlikely to credit your attempt to manipulate some utterly non-existant meaning such as your "shut up" from it.

Even so, your baseless accusation against me, and your so-obvious attempt to stir up trouble and hostility have cut me to the quick. I am probably so traumatised that I must repair immediately to my bed and spend my day in hopeless depression. Or not. :wink:

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:42 pm
by yeezevee
Brendalee wrote:I am probably so traumatised
Well I don't know whether you are traumatized or not but your questions certainly will traumatise those who have the common sense dear Brendalee..

with best
yeezevee

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:45 pm
by yeezevee
Going back to the question of that Lying Muhammad and his troubles with Quranic ayahs
yeezevee wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Shakir, your admitted favorite.
2:193. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah
8:39. And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do
.

Yes, I think Shakir is the closest translation to the Arabic version we have., .. The Cat it is for you to make Muhammad bin Lyin understand those verses ., I have to go for now...lol.. ..
I was expecting The Cat could answer Muhammad bin Lyin., but The robot comes out at viewtopic.php?p=130684#p130684 with Arabic/English gibberish along with some verses from Quran plus explanation/tafsir of those which lacks commonsense and intelligence. So the robot says this rubbish

Spoiler! :
I searched the Quran and found that the sentence presented by the conwoman Ugly: Fight the unbelievers until all religion is for Allah. to appear in two verses: 2:193 & 8:39

We should see clearly and irrefutably that in both locations the command to fight the unbelievers was fighting the aggressors, not initiating the fight, and in both locations the fight was all about enforcing Allah possession of His house in Mecca. Let’s get the slam dunk going:

1- For 2:193, I will walk you through from verse 2:190 to verse 2:194

Clear commands to fight those who start fighting us, and to never start the fight:
وَقَاتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يُحِبِّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ (190)
And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight you; and be not transgressors, indeed, Allah does not love the transgressors.
[Al Quran ; 2:190]

-> See: fight in the way of Allah with those who fight you; and be not transgressors

The war between Muslims and Kafirs because of the Kabba clearly started by the kafirs, i.e. the aggressors were the kafirs who started the war and expelled the Muslims from their land, and all because of the House in which they don’t even believe that it belongs to Allah alone and His worshippers:
وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ كَذَلِكَ جَزَاء الْكَافِرِينَ (191)
And kill them wherever you confront them, and expel them from wherever they expelled you; and discord (between yourself) is worse than murder. And do not fight them at the sacred mosque until they fight you therein; and if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the reward of the unbelievers.
[Al Quran ; 2:191]

-> See: expel them from wherever they expelled you. And do not fight them at the sacred mosque until they fight you therein; and if they fight you, then kill them.

And if the kafirs stop their aggression on the Muslims and the House of Allah, then Allah may forgive them:
فَإِنِ انتَهَوْاْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (192)
But if they stop (fighting you), then indeed, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 2:192]

-> See: But if they stop (fighting you), then indeed, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Then we come to the verse in question, which is confirming that previous verse, i.e. if the unjust and perpetrating kafirs stop causing discord to or fighting us because of our ownership of the House of Allah and how we worship Him around it (our religion), then we should not fight them any more:
وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلّهِ فَإِنِ انتَهَواْ فَلاَ عُدْوَانَ إِلاَّ عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ (193)
And fight them until there is no discord and the religion is for Allah, but if they stop, then there should be no transgression except against the unjust.
[Al Quran ; 2:193]

-> See: fight them until there is no discord and the religion is for Allah. And but if they stop, then there should be no transgression except against the unjust.

The next verse also confirm that the Muslims were not who initiated the fight, rather the unjust kafirs:
الشَّهْرُ الْحَرَامُ بِالشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ وَالْحُرُمَاتُ قِصَاصٌ فَمَنِ اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُواْ عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ (194)
The sacred month for the sacred month, and for all violations are legal retribution; so whoever inflicts damage to you, then inflict damage to him in the same way he has inflicted damage to you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear.
[Al Quran ; 2:194]

-> See: so whoever inflicts damage to you, then inflict damage to him in the same way he has inflicted damage to you.

From the above we can irrefutable conclude the following:

A- The fight is because of the House of Allah and its ownership and how the rituals of worshipping Allah should be performed around it, i.e. the religion of Islam.

B- The kafirs were the ones who started hostility by either causing discord between the Muslims or by starting to fight them.

C- The Muslims are commanded to only fight those who fight or cause discord between them on their land.

D- The Muslims are commanded to cease fighting if the unjust kafirs ceased fighting because of the religion of Allah (the religion they don’t believe in it from the first place)

E- The damage the Muslims should do to the unjust kafirs must be equal to the damage the unjust kafirs did to the Muslims.


2- For 8:39, it is talking about the same as the above verses, in fact it even gave us some details concerning how the unjust kafirs started to cause discord and fight the Muslims to expel them from their place of worship (the House of Allah). I will walk you through from verse 8:30 to verse 8:40

Here is the unjust kafirs planning to restrain or kill or expel Muhammed:
وَإِذْ يَمْكُرُ بِكَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ لِيُثْبِتُوكَ أَوْ يَقْتُلُوكَ أَوْ يُخْرِجُوكَ وَيَمْكُرُونَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللّهُ وَاللّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ (30)
And when those who have disbelieved planned against you to restrain you or kill you or expel you; and they plan and Allah plans, and Allah is the best of planners.
[Al Quran ; 8:30]

-> See: And when those who have disbelieved planned against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you;

And that was only because he delivered the message of their Lord to them:
وَإِذَا تُتْلَى عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتُنَا قَالُواْ قَدْ سَمِعْنَا لَوْ نَشَاء لَقُلْنَا مِثْلَ هَذَا إِنْ هَذَا إِلاَّ أَسَاطِيرُ الأوَّلِينَ (31)
And when Our signs are recited to them, they say: We have heard, if we will, we would have said like this; indeed, this is only legends of the former.
[Al Quran ; 8:31]

-> See: when Our signs are recited to them, they say: We have heard, if we will, we would have said like this; indeed, this is only legends of the former.

They even showed arrogance and hostility to the delivered message:
وَإِذْ قَالُواْ اللَّهُمَّ إِن كَانَ هَذَا هُوَ الْحَقَّ مِنْ عِندِكَ فَأَمْطِرْ عَلَيْنَا حِجَارَةً مِّنَ السَّمَاء أَوِ ائْتِنَا بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ (32)
And when they said: O Allah! If this is the truth from You, then rain upon us stones from the sky or bring us a painful torture.
[Al Quran ; 8:32]

-> See: And when they said: O Allah! If this is the truth from You, then rain upon us stones from the sky or bring us a painful torture.

But Allah will not punish them while the messenger is still delivering the message and while some of them recognise their mistakes and seek forgiveness:
وَمَا كَانَ اللّهُ لِيُعَذِّبَهُمْ وَأَنتَ فِيهِمْ وَمَا كَانَ اللّهُ مُعَذِّبَهُمْ وَهُمْ يَسْتَغْفِرُونَ (33)
But Allah would not castigate them while you are among them, and Allah will not castigate them while they seek forgiveness.
[Al Quran ; 8:33]

-> See: Allah would not castigate them while you are among them, and Allah will not castigate them while they seek forgiveness.

This verse clearly explains that all those unjust kafirs doing was to hinder others from the House of Allah by considering themselves its guardians while the fact of the matter they are not its guardians:
وَمَا لَهُمْ أَلاَّ يُعَذِّبَهُمُ اللّهُ وَهُمْ يَصُدُّونَ عَنِ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ وَمَا كَانُواْ أَوْلِيَاءهُ إِنْ أَوْلِيَآؤُهُ إِلاَّ الْمُتَّقُونَ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ (34)
And why should Allah not castigate them while they hinder from the sacred mosque. And they are not its guardians; indeed, its guardians are only the pious but most of them do not know.
[Al Quran ; 8:34]

-> See: while they hinder from the sacred mosque. And they are not its guardians; indeed, its guardians are only the pious but most of them do not know.

It was all about the House of Allah, it is never about fighting the kafirs on their land, see this discord the unjust kafirs were trying to do to the sincere worshippers of Allah at His house:
وَمَا كَانَ صَلاَتُهُمْ عِندَ الْبَيْتِ إِلاَّ مُكَاء وَتَصْدِيَةً فَذُوقُواْ الْعَذَابَ بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَكْفُرُونَ (35)
And their prayer at the house was not except whistling and hindering. So taste the torture because of that in which you used to disbelieve.
[Al Quran ; 8:35]

-> See: their prayer at the house was not except whistling and hindering.

And they even tried to spend their wealth to hinder the sincere worshippers of Allah from worshipping Him at His house:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ يُنفِقُونَ أَمْوَالَهُمْ لِيَصُدُّواْ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَسَيُنفِقُونَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ حَسْرَةً ثُمَّ يُغْلَبُونَ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ إِلَى جَهَنَّمَ يُحْشَرُونَ (36)
Indeed, those who have disbelieved spend their wealth to hinder from the way of Allah. So they will spend it, then it shall be upon them regret; moreover, they will be defeated. And those who have disbelieved will be, unto hell, gathered.
[Al Quran ; 8:36]

-> See: those who have disbelieved spend their wealth to hinder from the way of Allah.

The whole affair at the House of Allah was to differentiate between the believers and the unbelievers:
لِيَمِيزَ اللّهُ الْخَبِيثَ مِنَ الطَّيِّبِ وَيَجْعَلَ الْخَبِيثَ بَعْضَهُ عَلَىَ بَعْضٍ فَيَرْكُمَهُ جَمِيعاً فَيَجْعَلَهُ فِي جَهَنَّمَ أُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُونَ (37)
So that Allah may distinguish the wicked from the good and place the wicked some of them upon others, and pile it together and put it into hell. Those are the ones who are losers.
[Al Quran ; 8:37]

-> See: So that Allah may distinguish the wicked from the good

And the same is said in here, if the unjust kafirs stop their plans to hinder others from the house of Allah, then Allah may forgive them:
قُل لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ إِن يَنتَهُواْ يُغَفَرْ لَهُم مَّا قَدْ سَلَفَ وَإِنْ يَعُودُواْ فَقَدْ مَضَتْ سُنَّةُ الأَوَّلِينِ (38)
Say to those who have disbelieved that if they cease (hostility), what has passed will be forgiven for them; but if they return, then the precedent of the former (people) has already passed.
[Al Quran ; 8:38]

-> See: Say to those who have disbelieved that if they cease (hostility), what has passed will be forgiven for them; But if they return to be hostile again: but if they return, then the precedent of the former (people) has already passed. Then what will happen to then will be the same as what happened to the former people who rejected the message of their messengers then hindered others from believing in it

Here comes the verse in question, in which we read the same thing we read in sura 2, we should fight the unjust kafirs who consider themselves the guardians of the house of Allah so they hinder others from worshipping Allah in it:
وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلّه فَإِنِ انتَهَوْاْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ (39)
And fight them until there is no discord and (until) all the religion belongs to Allah. But if they cease (hostility), then indeed, Allah is of what they do Seeing.
[Al Quran ; 8:39]

-> See, they want to manipulate the religion of Allah, the religion that has pilgrimage to the House of Allah to worship Him as main part of it, yet the kafirs want to hinder others from embracing this religion by hindering them from the house of Allah, i.e. the religion of Allah would have belonged to them, not to Allah, that is why we shoud fight them until the religion of Allah (the ouse of Allah and its rituals) only belongs to Him: fight them until there is no discord and (until) all the religion belongs to Allah. But if they cease (hostility), then indeed, Allah is of what they do Seeing.

And again, if the unjust kafirs cease hostility, then it would only because Allah is our Guardians and He will help His worshippers when they fight the unjust kafirs:
وَإِن تَوَلَّوْاْ فَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ مَوْلاَكُمْ نِعْمَ الْمَوْلَى وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ (40)

And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Guardian. Excellent is the Guardian and excellent is the Helper.
[Al Quran ; 8:40]

-> See: And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Guardian. Excellent is the Guardian and excellent is the Helper.

And again, from the above verses, we can irrefutably conclude:

A- The fight is because of the House of Allah and its ownership and how the rituals of worshipping Allah should be performed around it, i.e. the religion of Islam.

B- The unjust kafirs did their best and spend their wealth in planning to restrain or kill or expel the messenger of Allah

C- The messenger of Allah only delivered the message to them, he never started any hostility, it was the kafirs who always did especially seeing Muhammed trying to reclaim back the house of Allah as part of his mission.

D- The Muslims are commanded to cease fighting if the unjust kafirs ceased fighting because of the religion of Allah (the religion they don’t believe in it from the first place)

Here you have it The Cat, you should tell that Ugly, filthy dumb piece of shifty conwoman Bin lyin, that next time he presents a Quran argument, he should not bring a word or a sentence that suits his shifty arse, it is not going to work and will only proves his shiftiness and stupidity. Tell that punk that the fight the Quran is talking about is about an Islamic property on an Islamic land since the time of Ibrahim.
He says
1- For 2:193, I will walk you through from verse 2:190 to verse 2:194
let me put those verses here again

002.190: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

002.191: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

002.192: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

002.193: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

002.194: The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
taking those verse the robot write
See: so whoever inflicts damage to you, then inflict damage to him in the same way he has inflicted damage to you.

From the above we can irrefutable conclude the following:

A- The fight is because of the House of Allah and its ownership and how the rituals of worshipping Allah should be performed around it, i.e. the religion of Islam.

B- The kafirs were the ones who started hostility by either causing discord between the Muslims or by starting to fight them.

C- The Muslims are commanded to only fight those who fight or cause discord between them on their land.

D- The Muslims are commanded to cease fighting if the unjust kafirs ceased fighting because of the religion of Allah (the religion they don’t believe in it from the first place)

E- The damage the Muslims should do to the unjust kafirs must be equal to the damage the unjust kafirs did to the Muslims.
This robot seem not to realize that NO ONE CAME TO Muhammad's HOUSE., Muhammad and his followers were the ones who went houses of other people that were questioning Muhammad's political agenda., The fact Muhammad's Islam and its followers went out of not only Mecca/Madina/Saudi desert but went with war mongering Bedouin tribal brutes in to the lands like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Peria with in 50 year of Islam and later all the way to end of Indian subcontinent in East Spain in the west tells us different story of Islamic onslaught . It is stupid Muslims at this age and time talks about some one persecuting Muhammad., If some one did it is Muhammad's own Qureshi tribe in fact his uncle and aunt apparently persecuted him. EVEN THAT IS A FISHY STORY..

But What is that has to do Muslim thugs after Muhammad's death going into Egypt.. or Syria or Spain and killing people my goofy friend AhmedBahgat??

That is the reason Islam should be called as Cult of Muhammad. And on top of it., What did these idiots who conquered all these lands did? they made it Ghettos and begging bowls out of them . So in the modern times you and me have to move out of so called Islamic hell holes my good friend.

So don't blame people who are questioning Islam., But find a proper way to educate Foolish Muslims. And I tell you your way is not right way.

with best regards
yeezeee

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:55 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
Brendalee wrote:
I never would have pegged you as someone opposed to free thought and free speech.


He does when he can't answer something. You've got to understand, this guy has a huge ego and lives under the delusion that he is more intelligent than others here. So for him to realize that he didn't think of something when laying out his invention, probably drives him through the roof. Momma never taught him how to say "whoops, I didn't think of that" and move on with ease. Arrogance truly is a curse.

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:06 pm
by yeezevee
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote: You've got to understand, this guy has a huge ego and lives under the delusion that he is more intelligent than others here......
Well ego is everywhere and in everyone. It is built in to Biological evolution and none of us are exception to that. May be..may be.. you may find a very rare case in rare times..

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:11 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: If others have failed to register his points, let them think hard.


Have you read my responses?? What part of what he has said do you think that I don't understand? What part do i need to think hard about?? Please explain. And don't forget that he has also said that whether the Quran is man made or not should be irrelevant. So the bottom line, according to Cat, is that Muslims should respect the Quran as their constitution, regardless if it has errors or is man made or not. So it naturally begs the question that if they are to accept this as their constitution, they should know who wrote it. And if it's man made, which Cat says is irrelevant, then we need to ask about who wrote it before we decide to accept it or not. And if we determine that Muhammad wrote it, which is still irrelevant according to the Cat, then Muslims (or any reasonable person) need to ask about Muhammad to determine if we should accept this document as law. And, of course, we can't ask much about Muhammad because according to the Cat, the hadiths are to be discarded. So now, one is left with nothing to grasp.

So his idea all comes down to regarding a book as law, regardless of who wrote it and how reliable or wise that person was. As to why Muslims or anyone is supposed to do that?? I don't have the faintest idea. The only way this repetitive, boring, threatening and downright awful book could ever have any significance and could be taken with any seriousness, is under the necessary assumption that it is the letter for letter dictation of God. Otherwise, it's an awful and boring book void of any philosophical or spiritual depth.

Is that a good understanding of what he is trying to do? If not, please tell me your understanding.

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:26 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
yeezevee wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote: You've got to understand, this guy has a huge ego and lives under the delusion that he is more intelligent than others here......
Well ego is everywhere and in everyone. It is built in to Biological evolution and none of us are exception to that. May be..may be.. you may find a very rare case in rare times..


Some are bigger than others.

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:39 pm
by Brendalee
My dear MBL: You know I adore you, I hope. But I like Cat, also. I always have.

You imply that Cat is incapable of self-examination; I know this is not true.

There is too much testosterone here, MBL. This is what makes it get personal. Repartee, even quite cutting, does not necessarily lead to personally-taken offense. Forgive me if I say that you are both stubborn.

You are both quite capable of arguing your sides without getting overly personal. Other members are quite capable of looking at those arguments and coming to their own conclusions. As I have done.

But my disagreeing with the Cat does not make his ideas bad. Perhaps he is onto something. Perhaps he has not argued his case as well as he might have. I tend to agree with you that there are holes.

But this concept is important to him, whether I credit it or not. But I believe he needs to test his arguments at Muslim sites rather than here. Only then can he see whether he can win the real debate. Their arguments will not be the same as ours.

It is beyond my own doubt that the failure of the ahadith would be a forward step; though the Quran is still virulent. Ahmed's translation might make it less so - and we have no evidence to suggest that the modern Quranists interpretation of Islam would be a threat. But their fight must surely be with the millions of Muslims who say their violent version, backed by scholars and clerics, the tafsirs, traditional shariah, and the Quran (as they perceive it) are what Islam really is.

And that is also the target of FFI.

Cat perhaps has forgotten how valuable FFI has been in disabusing Muslims of their faith in ahadith. In the old forums, sahih ahadith were often the subject of fierce debates. These debates over ahadith have diminished to the point where they are become rare.

And why is this? Well, it is simply because so much of the ahadith paints Mohammad as a monster: a thief, a mafia boss, an assassin, a child-raper, a power-mad and sex-mad despot, a murderer and enslaver. The moment the ahadith believers cite the ahadith, we romp all over them. Most have taken heed, and avoid ahadith debates. OR they utterly lose their absolute faith in ahadith and begin to doubt; or they run away.

But the Cat's main objection seems to be (and I invite correction) that we are wrong to criticise the many flaws in the Quran as most of Islam interprets it. Yet our arguments are not aimed at anything except the traditional interpretations of what the translations say and how it is made manifest in Muslim actions.

Our argument is with those who justify violence, compulsion, enslavement, the oppression of women, and mass murder in Islam's name. If the Quranists intercede themselves and insist that we must not argue so, then I believe they must fail to convince us. Let them change Muslims' ideas of the Quran if they can; Meanwhile we are pretty damned likely to criticise the traditional view, whether it be via the ahadith, the sirat, the traditional scholars and tafsirs, fiqh and the Quran alike. All of these are used by Muslims to justify violence and coersion, and not least the Quran.

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:53 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
Brendalee wrote:My dear MBL: You know I adore you, I hope. But I like Cat, also. I always have.

You imply that Cat is incapable of self-examination; I know this is not true.


I didn't say that. I said that he is incapable of being seen as ever making an error, and then when he can't answer something, he goes into the "above it all" act.

Brendalee wrote:There is too much testosterone here, MBL. This is what makes it get personal. Repartee, even quite cutting, does not necessarily lead to personally-taken offense. Forgive me if I say that you are both stubborn.


Others have seen me admit to errors on this forum, although it's not very often because I think the point through before I post it. And clearly, I do not take myself very seriously as per my avatar, among other things.

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:00 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
Brendalee wrote:Our argument is with those who justify violence, compulsion, enslavement, the oppression of women, and mass murder in Islam's name. If the Quranists intercede themselves and insist that we must not argue so, then I believe they must fail to convince us. Let them change Muslims' ideas of the Quran if they can; Meanwhile we are pretty damned likely to criticise the traditional view, whether it be via the ahadith, the sirat, the traditional scholars and tafsirs, fiqh and the Quran alike. All of these are used by Muslims to justify violence and coersion, and not least the Quran.


Brenda, the problem is that I actually do believe that the radicals are the real Muslims and are the truthful ones about Islam and the others are merely fooling themselves. Muhammad was no Sufi, and he certainly was no Buddha. So I can't lie about Islam and help reshape it just because I hope that will keep Muslims from being violent. You do not appease darkness and you do not chase darkness out with a broom, you turn on a light and it becomes exposed for what it really is.

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:01 pm
by yeezevee
Brendalee wrote:

...Our argument is with those who justify violence, compulsion, enslavement, the oppression of women, and mass murder in Islam's name. If the Quranists intercede themselves and insist that we must not argue so, then I believe they must fail to convince us. Let them change Muslims' ideas of the Quran if they can; Meanwhile we are pretty damned likely to criticise the traditional view, whether it be via the ahadith, the sirat, the traditional scholars and tafsirs, fiqh and the Quran alike. All of these are used by Muslims to justify violence and coersion, and not least the Quran...

good words.. good words dear Brendalee., that is the bottom line and The Cat types should have full freedom and support from people of ffi to take out the rotten structure that is built in to Islam and it doesn't matter whether it comes from Quran or Haidth or Sunnah.. off course people like SKB and lying Muhammad should also have freedom to question The Cat, The Mughul and the Robot and many guys and to highlight past brutal mistakes of Islam , so that the method The Cat type's are designing will have proper antidote effect to viral Islam and I believe such harsh questions are needed to guide these guys and give proper direction to their modified Islam..

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:08 pm
by skynightblaze
Brendalee wrote:You imply that Cat is incapable of self-examination; I know this is not true.


A few months I would have agreed with you but not now anymore. I had plenty of debate with him since last 2-3 months and I found he is incapable of self examination.I could be wrong but I didnt find any difference between him and BMZ . Both of them keep repeating the same arguments again and again even when they have no merit. This might sound harsh to you because may be you are attached to him more than myself but this is my frank opinion . I was driven nuts in the debate and I really got pissed off when he didnt have a point and yet tried to ridicule and underestimate his opponent and thats where I lost my temper.TO be frank he cant understand simple points made.

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:15 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote: .... I was driven nuts in the debate and I really got pissed off when he didnt have a point and yet tried to ridicule and underestimate his opponent and thats where I lost my temper.TO be frank he cant understand simple points made.
well , that is where one of the problem is., your problem is loosing temper., How about some cold water showers..

Read more of Cat at ..
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/profi ... ile&u=2587

My problem with The Cat is. he is shifting gears too fast From "There was No Muhammad to "Let us make Quran as Islamic -Law.. and may be re-translate Quran to soften a bit

You see here http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... ht=#152422 that he wrote on May 10, 2005 ., 6 years ago,, and he says

You talk so much about Safiyah, Aischa and Muhammed but there are no reliable accounts of their ''relations'' before around 830. There is NOT EVEN AN EXISTING MANUSCRIPT OF IBN ISHAQ. All we have is the saying of Ibn Hisham (died 833). The Hadiths came from Al-Bukhari (died 870) and the earliest Shari'i's around 820. ALL THOSE ARE TWO HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED EVENT. The Mudawwana does not speak of Muhammed authority. We have none of the presumed primary sources. Everything suddenly appeared in the beginning of the 9th C and one must ask where did these compilers took their materials from ?

For a historian, Muhammed stands as a storey-tellers' compilations, much the same way as the english bards made-up Robin Hood. It is said that Al-Bukhari kept 7,397 hadiths over existing 600,000 ! It means that 592,603 hadiths were false, or 99%. So much for a beggars belief. Where did these 600,000 hadiths come from in the first place ?

MECCA wasn't even know as a trade center from any external sources, including Sassanides, Byzantines, Armenians or Greeks, before at least 720 but they knew about Ta'if and Yathrib (Medina). The only big trading place then wasn't in Arabia at all but in Adulis, Ethiopia.

Even the name ISLAM is not arabic but from a Samaritan book ''Memar Marqua'' as Islama meant ''Peace bearers''. The Dome of the Rock is no mosque. It has no Qibla, or prayer direction. Until at least 640, Jews and the then known as Magaritai (arabic Muhajirun) or Saracens were cousin's friends around Abraham. So where does fit the conflicts between Muhammed and the Jews before 640 ? Was his God Allah or Bla-Bla ?


Then he didn't explore much on that but he comes back and says "let us make Quran as The Law" or constitution to Muslims . I don't know what Laws he finds in Quran? I say NOTHING.. they are all silly statements of some people who put together a book which is full of repetition and see this from him http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 014#157014
'As a fitting pinushment for all his heinous crimes against women, ia was a Jewish woman whoi poisoned him in her rightful quest for revenge after the battle of Khaybar. During the last four years of his life, his health declined, epileptic fits became more frequent and his other infirmities increased. After living a life of rape, perversion, destruction and plunder, at age 62, Mohammed gasped his last breath on the lap of his 17 year old child bride Ayesha who watched him die a slow, long ang horrible death''.

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:34 pm
by Brendalee
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Brendalee wrote:Our argument is with those who justify violence, compulsion, enslavement, the oppression of women, and mass murder in Islam's name. If the Quranists intercede themselves and insist that we must not argue so, then I believe they must fail to convince us. Let them change Muslims' ideas of the Quran if they can; Meanwhile we are pretty damned likely to criticise the traditional view, whether it be via the ahadith, the sirat, the traditional scholars and tafsirs, fiqh and the Quran alike. All of these are used by Muslims to justify violence and coersion, and not least the Quran.


Brenda, the problem is that I actually do believe that the radicals are the real Muslims and are the truthful ones about Islam and the others are merely fooling themselves. Muhammad was no Sufi, and he certainly was no Buddha. So I can't lie about Islam and help reshape it just because I hope that will keep Muslims from being violent. You do not appease darkness and you do not chase darkness out with a broom, you turn on a light and it becomes exposed for what it really is.


I personally do not see this as a "problem" because I totally agree with you. I do not believe that the Quranists, who comprise such a relatively tiny number, are going to succeed in rebuilding Islam in the way they hope to do. So, let them prove it first, before they seek to disarm the critics of Islam, even as it utilises deceit and violence to spread itself among us.

And until they do that, Islam is what it IS; and not what they prefer it to be or claim it to be. No matter how much they might convince themselves that they are right and traditional Islam was just some big error, it is that so-called "error" which the non-Muslim people of the word have to contend with, and have HAD to contend with for over 1400 years.

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:23 pm
by Brendalee
Yeezevee says:
"that is the bottom line and The Cat types should have full freedom and support from people of ffi to take out the rotten structure that is built in to Islam and it doesn't matter whether it comes from Quran or Haidth or Sunnah..


And here is the reason that I have with-held and will continue to with-hold such support:

When a violent and insane mass-murderer is breaking down your door and screaming that he is going to kill you, THIS is not the time to ring his doctor and chat about the advisability of a change in his medication. To do so is a total waste of time that you do not have to waste.

Your first task is self-defence. Once you are secure and safe, THEN you can ring his doctor and say, "Guess what? I think this fellow needs a change of prescription. He's really violent and crazy!"

THEN, you might even contribute to his care.

Even now as I type this, the madman that is traditional Islam is beating against our doors seeking to break them in, is slaughtering people all over the world, is lying to us with deceptive words about how Islam is a peaceful religion, is insinuating itself into our judicial and governmental bodies, even into our security systems. Until we are safe and secure from the threat, it is utterly stupid to "take our eyes off the ball" and be worried about negotiating with his doctor for improved care. What we need to be doing instead is protecting ourselves and warning the neighbours.

Just as a further point, it is not the business of NON-Muslims to reform Islam. Only Muslims can do this, were it possible at all (and I think it is not possible). It is THEIR religion.

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:45 pm
by skynightblaze
yeezevee wrote: well , that is where one of the problem is., your problem is loosing temper., How about some cold water showers..


TO be frank Yes that is my problem but I really dont know how to deal with it. Its natural and it automatically comes out.

Yeezevee wrote:Read more of Cat at ..
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/profi ... ile&u=2587

My problem with The Cat is. he is shifting gears too fast From "There was No Muhammad to "Let us make Quran as Islamic -Law.. and may be re-translate Quran to soften a bit


I have no idea what goes in his mind.He is changing his stance every now and then.

Yeezevee wrote:You talk so much about Safiyah, Aischa and Muhammed but there are no reliable accounts of their ''relations'' before around 830. There is NOT EVEN AN EXISTING MANUSCRIPT OF IBN ISHAQ. All we have is the saying of Ibn Hisham (died 833). The Hadiths came from Al-Bukhari (died 870) and the earliest Shari'i's around 820. ALL THOSE ARE TWO HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED EVENT. The Mudawwana does not speak of Muhammed authority. We have none of the presumed primary sources. Everything suddenly appeared in the beginning of the 9th C and one must ask where did these compilers took their materials from ?

For a historian, Muhammed stands as a storey-tellers' compilations, much the same way as the english bards made-up Robin Hood. It is said that Al-Bukhari kept 7,397 hadiths over existing 600,000 ! It means that 592,603 hadiths were false, or 99%. So much for a beggars belief. Where did these 600,000 hadiths come from in the first place ?


To be frank these arguments were brought by him in the debate and they can be refuted.First of all we have manuscript of Ibn Hisham. See it here..

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/PERF665.html

Secondly why hadiths became so enormous can also be answered. If the same hadith was narrated by say 10 people then it wasnt counted as 1 hadith but 10 hadiths and hence the hadiths were huge in collection .Secondly Bukhari collected all genuine hadiths which were more than 600,000 out of which he included only a few thousand to avoid repetition . This is a myth that Bukhari collected 600,000 hadiths and included only thousands which were reliable .The fact is all of them were reliable but he included only few to avoid repetition. Even I was shocked to know this. I made some mistakes during the debate because I didnt know some things like for e.g I didnt know the command to not write hadiths was abrogated. I argued with CAT in one of the threads with the belief that hadiths were prohibited but then I learned from Witty boy about this in the recent thread and then correct myself .

One more thing even the claim that there was no hadith till the 9th century is false.HE keeps on repeating the same things again and again. We have manuscripts of Malik's Muwatta which date around 795 and also its well known fact that hadiths existed during muhammad time and they continued till Bukhari compiled all of them into one collection by sifting between the hadiths.

For rest of the history quotes I have no clue so I have deleted it from the quote.

Yeezevee wrote:Then he didn't explore much on that but he comes back and says "let us make Quran as The Law" or constitution to Muslims . I don't know what Laws he finds in Quran? I say NOTHING.. they are all silly statements of some people who put together a book which is full of repetition and see this from him http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 014#157014
'As a fitting pinushment for all his heinous crimes against women, ia was a Jewish woman whoi poisoned him in her rightful quest for revenge after the battle of Khaybar. During the last four years of his life, his health declined, epileptic fits became more frequent and his other infirmities increased. After living a life of rape, perversion, destruction and plunder, at age 62, Mohammed gasped his last breath on the lap of his 17 year old child bride Ayesha who watched him die a slow, long ang horrible death''.
[/quote]

I think only Allah knows whats going in his mind :lol: . Now if he says muhammad lived an unholy life(the part in red) where in the world did he get this information ? IF he claims that its the hadiths then how can the same man argue against hadith now? If he claims he got this information in red from quran then why the hell is this man wanting people to accept quran here?

See ?? How he is trapped at his own logic?

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:56 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
yeezevee wrote:Then he didn't explore much on that but he comes back and says "let us make Quran as The Law" or constitution to Muslims . I don't know what Laws he finds in Quran? I say NOTHING.


That's what I asked about as well. Seems like almost all of this "constitution" of laws called Islam comes from the hadiths. So on the one hand, he relegates Islam to being a group of laws nowadays and a constitution of laws, and he wants to throw the hadiths out, but most of Islamic law actually comes from the hadiths. So he is contradicting his own goals. There simply aren't enough laws in the Quran and it is not comprehensive enough to make it constitute a set of laws or a constitution. For example, what does the Quran tell us to do when someone is falsely convicted?? How does it say this person should be compensated, especially if the person had their hand cut off??

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 5:00 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
skynightblaze wrote:One more thing even the claim that there was no hadith till the 9th century is false.HE keeps on repeating the same things again and again. We have manuscripts of Malik's Muwatta which date around 795 and also its well known fact that hadiths existed during muhammad time and they continued till Bukhari compiled all of them into one collection by sifting between the hadiths.


Can you substantiate that or link it??

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 5:06 pm
by skynightblaze
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:One more thing even the claim that there was no hadith till the 9th century is false.HE keeps on repeating the same things again and again. We have manuscripts of Malik's Muwatta which date around 795 and also its well known fact that hadiths existed during muhammad time and they continued till Bukhari compiled all of them into one collection by sifting between the hadiths.


Can you substantiate that or link it??


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/PERF731.html

Here is malik Muwatta;s hadith manuscript .



Btw rest of the things I learned it from here..

http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/c ... ctors.html

Read the following title in the above link.

Were Ahadith Written Down for the First Time in the Third Century of Hijra?

Let me find another link for you from Sheikh haddad on the early hadiths issue.. I had quoted in the debate. I will post it after searching.