Allah as Law: The Law!

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
Post Reply
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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 . ..
Well that islamic-awareness.org is such a Sunni organization directly linked to Muslims of Indian subcontinent., I trust very little of what they write.. These idiots shout their lungs out that little girl marriage with Muhammad is the best thing ever happened to humanity

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These fools don't even realize such Prophet can not be a prophet of Allah and he can not be model character to even Muslims forget to humanity..

yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by yeezevee »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
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. ............
Well Cat may have something else in his mind that he didn't spell out on the laws of Quran and how Muslims should use them or Non-Muslim lawyer like The Cat can use them to subdue Islam and replace the rules of that Talaq..Talaq.. kill the apostates ., Not allow Muslim females marry people of other religions..etc..etc..

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

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by skynightblaze »

@MBL

The first hijri century is from 622 Ad onwards till 722 AD. See the hadith collection. The following quote is from Sh. G. F. Haddad

Among the manuscripted hadith collections of the first Hijri century are:

1. `Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As (d. 63), al-Sahifa al- Sadiqa, originally containing about 1,000 hadiths of which 500 reached us, copied down by `Abd Allah directly from the Prophet - upon him blessings and peace - and transmitted to us by his great-grandson `Amr ibn Shu`ayb (d. 118);

2. Hammam ibn Munabbih's (d. 101 or 131) al-Sahifa al- Sahiha which has reached us complete in two manuscripts containing 138 hadiths narrated by Hammam from Abu Hurayra (d. 60), from the Prophet - upon him blessings and peace;

3. The lost folios of Aban ibn `Uthman (d. 105) the son of `Uthman ibn `Affan (d. 35), from whom Muhammad ibn Ishaq (80-150/152) narrated;

4. The accomplished works of `Urwa (d. ~92-95) - the son of al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam and grandson of Asma' and `A'isha the learned daughters of Abu Bakr the Truthful. `Urwa ordered them burnt, after a lifetime of teaching from them, during the sack of Madina by the armies of Syro-Palestine under Yazid ibn Mu`awiya in 63;

5. Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri's (d. 120) Sira, from which Ibn Ishaq also borrowed much;

6. `Asim ibn `Umar ibn Qatada ibn al-Nu`man al-Ansari's (d. 120 or 129) Maghazi and Manaqib al-Sahaba, another principal thiqa source for Ibn Ishaq and others;

7. `Abd Allah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn `Amr ibn Hazm al-Ansari's (d. 135) tome, another main source for Ibn Ishaq Ibn Sa`d, and others;

8. The most reliable Sira of the Madinan Musa ibn `Uqba al-Asadi (d. 141), praised by Imam Malik and used by Ibn Sa`d and others.
http://www.livingislam.org/n/vih_e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by skynightblaze »

yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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 . ..
Well that islamic-awareness.org is such a Sunni organization directly linked to Muslims of Indian subcontinent., I trust very little of what they write.. These idiots shout their lungs out that little girl marriage with Muhammad is the best thing ever happened to humanity

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These fools don't even realize such Prophet can not be a prophet of Allah and he can not be model character to even Muslims forget to humanity..
I quoted even G.f haddad. HE too says the same thing. Read my previous post.
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.

yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote: I quoted even G.f haddad. HE too says the same thing. Read my previous post.
No.. I read that post and more of that guy from Beirut,, Gibril F. Haddad who got his Ph.D. in Islamic studies from Columbia University and some Syrian University. Here is his stuff at http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/haddad/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But how does that fellows Ph. D proves that early Islamic literature hadith is from Muhammad's mouth?? it does not.. He was listed as one of 500 Muslim inflectional of this time ., I don't know what means .. There are terrorists in that group

http://thebook.org/books_pdf/500Muslims_2009.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

good book to read and send some e-mail of article from FFI..

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

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

skynightblaze wrote:@MBL

The first hijri century is from 622 Ad onwards till 722 AD. See the hadith collection. The following quote is from Sh. G. F. Haddad

Among the manuscripted hadith collections of the first Hijri century are:

1. `Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As (d. 63), al-Sahifa al- Sadiqa, originally containing about 1,000 hadiths of which 500 reached us, copied down by `Abd Allah directly from the Prophet - upon him blessings and peace - and transmitted to us by his great-grandson `Amr ibn Shu`ayb (d. 118);

2. Hammam ibn Munabbih's (d. 101 or 131) al-Sahifa al- Sahiha which has reached us complete in two manuscripts containing 138 hadiths narrated by Hammam from Abu Hurayra (d. 60), from the Prophet - upon him blessings and peace;

3. The lost folios of Aban ibn `Uthman (d. 105) the son of `Uthman ibn `Affan (d. 35), from whom Muhammad ibn Ishaq (80-150/152) narrated;

4. The accomplished works of `Urwa (d. ~92-95) - the son of al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam and grandson of Asma' and `A'isha the learned daughters of Abu Bakr the Truthful. `Urwa ordered them burnt, after a lifetime of teaching from them, during the sack of Madina by the armies of Syro-Palestine under Yazid ibn Mu`awiya in 63;

5. Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri's (d. 120) Sira, from which Ibn Ishaq also borrowed much;

6. `Asim ibn `Umar ibn Qatada ibn al-Nu`man al-Ansari's (d. 120 or 129) Maghazi and Manaqib al-Sahaba, another principal thiqa source for Ibn Ishaq and others;

7. `Abd Allah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn `Amr ibn Hazm al-Ansari's (d. 135) tome, another main source for Ibn Ishaq Ibn Sa`d, and others;

8. The most reliable Sira of the Madinan Musa ibn `Uqba al-Asadi (d. 141), praised by Imam Malik and used by Ibn Sa`d and others.
http://www.livingislam.org/n/vih_e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So it looks like the more accurate thing to say would be that BUKHARI and MUSLIM were gathered hundreds of years after Muhammad, but the hadiths themselves, were not created hundreds of years later. I wonder if any of these hadiths were repeated later in Bukhari and Muslim and whether the story remains essentially consistent. That would be interesting to find out.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: I quoted even G.f haddad. HE too says the same thing. Read my previous post.
No.. I read that post and more of that guy from Beirut,, Gibril F. Haddad who got his Ph.D. in Islamic studies from Columbia University and some Syrian University. Here is his stuff at http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/haddad/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But how does that fellows Ph. D proves that early Islamic literature hadith is from Muhammad's mouth?? it does not.
What it does is to answer the Quran only claim that the hadiths didn't even exist until a couple of hundred years after Muhammad, so as to make them look as unreliable as possible. I'll bet you that a very good portion of them are actually well preserved eye witness accounts, and then, as always, there will always be some embellishments and inaccuracies as well, as this is what people do, whether intentionally or unintentionally. but you've got to remember, that chances are, these people did not fabricate these out of thin air because the punishment would be hell for doing so. And this is where the next story comes from about the Jews and false Muslims inventing these things. They need that concept because a Muslim would be too afraid to do that, so there has to be a conspiracy player, just like there had to be a conspiracy with the Bible, so that it can no longer be trusted and all trust immediately, in one fell swoop, after thousands of years and many books, goes to the Quran. Reminds me once again of the never explained problem that Allah protects the Quran, but didn't think to do that with past scriptures.

The Cat tries to say that the Quran does not level this charge of Bible corruption, but that's nonsense as it clearly does say they altered it and changed the words and their places and they know what they do. That's a willful, conscious, conspiracy. You can't trust just one verse from the Quran that might indicate his point, you have to look at others as well because the Quran changes it's mind all over the place, aka, abrogation, as the circumstances changed, as anybody would do. So when it suited Mo, the Bible was good and he is merely completing it and he acts as though you should recognize what he is saying from their own Bible, but when the Bible didn't suit Mo, that's where the verse about it being willfully and purposefully altered comes out.

He does this sort of stuff all over the place and people don't pick up on it when it's so easy to see. It amazes me. The reason why it's always this constant little "shell game" with Muslims here, where the rules keep getting altered and swapped in and out based on the current circumstances, rather than keeping the rules consistent regardless of the circumstances, is that this is actually the way the Quran is as well. I never truly realized it, but this is why they think they can just change the rules and then change them back as they need to and not see how horribly flawed, subjective and self serving their logic is. They can't see it because Muhammad couldn't see it either. Well, actually, that might not be entirely true as he did at least think he should acknowledge that clearly things are being abrogated, but he never offered any good explanation as to why except for the good old reliable "it's a test from Allah" excuse. The Quran tells them one prayer direction, and then changes it's mind and alters the direction and then says "um....uh....I did this because um....let's see, let's see.....I did this to test you. Yeah yeah, that's it. TO TEST YOU!!! :lol: That is simply awful. It's like the reasoning of a 5th grader.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by AhmedBahgat »

yeezevee wrote: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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 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
Image

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

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Wow!!! yeezevee completely silenced the mobot !!!
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by yeezevee »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:Wow!!! yeezevee completely silenced the mobot !!!
That guy becomes Abu Bakr when it comes to Muhammad..Prophet of Islam., He is lucky he moved out of Egypt and he is spending time in FFI..

Other wise his analytical abilities are so poor, I would have not surprised if some one said to me that Robot is following this guy ...the man who sings songs "Born in USA"




crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by crazymonkie_ »

We all seem to be drifting at this point. All interesting points, but it's starting to look an awful lot like the "parent" thread from which this was split.

The main problem here: The Cat's attempt to make the Quran into a legal document, as opposed to a combination of legal and religious document. The Quran does not have enough in the way of unambiguous legal rulings or punishments to be a legal document as he envisions, and it has far too much religious imagery and ideas in it to be a legal document even in the sense of something as ancient as the Code of Hammurabi (let alone the Napoleonic Code or the U.S. Constitution!)

It fails as a legal document because it lacks much of the legal framework necessary for a flexible and thorough legal system. The fact that it is supposed to be for all time and 'perfected' as part of the final Deen makes this worse. All legal systems require flexibility, and a final or perfect system by definition needs no flexibility and can give none.

So what is left for the Quran? If we take away its potential status as legal document, it's still very obviously a religious document. And because this is the primary status left to the Quran, the source of its authorship is very much at stake. If its source is not divine, it's simple enough to ask "Who are you to tell me how to live my life?" or to disregard most of its content. But if its source is not divine, it also lacks value aesthetically and spiritually. Compared to other similar documents, the Quran is shallow and has little relative to other teachings to impart. If it is not divine, it is essentially worthless.

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

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by skynightblaze »

So it looks like the more accurate thing to say would be that BUKHARI and MUSLIM were gathered hundreds of years after Muhammad, but the hadiths themselves, were not created hundreds of years later. I wonder if any of these hadiths were repeated later in Bukhari and Muslim and whether the story remains essentially consistent. That would be interesting to find out.
SorrY i had to edit the post as I didnt answer your specific question. Look on the next page. I have provided references indicating that bukhari indeed considered previous books for collection but he used some criteria to filter the sahih from non sahih hadiths..Yeezevee asked the same question. look at my post to him.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
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: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by skynightblaze »

@Brendalee

I am sorry to say but your friend CAT is a troll.Has anyone ever verified what he says ? I dont think so. He copy pastes his arguments from some muslim site and tries to pass them as if his own and these arguments are nothing new . They have already been debunked .All one has to do is do some googling .

If you dont believe my words just look at his arguments..I started a poll here where I have placed all the links to my debate with him. just read it when you have time and find it for yourself how pathetic he is at debate.I wont say anything more and I apologize If I have hurt you by this.I respect you and I really like your posts.Btw following is a link to the poll which has links to the debate.

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=8146" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by crazymonkie_ »

This is gradually becoming exactly the same thread as the previous one. Can we please get back to the OP? There's still a lot to say on the subject.

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

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by piscohot »

yeezevee wrote:Ok..Ok., Now I have problems., I have to deal with many of you guys which indeed is hard because some of you(if not all) are smart ..lol..

So what say dear skynightblaze
skynightblaze wrote:
yeezevee wrote: I have no idea, but The Cat is trying valiantly.well that is NOT your problem., it is Cat's problem and other Quran only Muslim problem. What all they are asking from you is "PLEASE SUPPORT US IN OUR ENDEAVOR" making all Muslims to follow Quran only and no more hadith. Would you mind giving support to them??
How can anyone support you Yekee? We will support elimination of both quran + hadiths and not just hadiths.WE cant tolerate quran either. Einstein's(CAT) ideas are crazy . He is telling here to consider quran as the book of law.
No..no.., It is not book of law for you., it is book of law for Muslim folks.., there is abig differnec between the two.

O.k., you can not tolerate Quran??? why?? is it whole Quran or only some verses of Quran that bother you dear SKB??

You see, The moment The Cat agrees "that it doesn't matter Quran is word of Allah /God or not" and it is law book and is only to Muslims to follow and others need not worry., then where is the problem with people like you dear SKB? The problem he is creating is to those who oppose people like you. SO why not give an helping hand to these Quran only folks??
1.because majority of muslims are NOT quran-only muslims and because you are not sure of the intentions of quran only muslims.
are they quran only muslims because the quran said so or are they such because the hadiths have caused enough embarassment and ridicule to their beloved prophet, Muhammad.
2. why support quran only muslim? The quran isn't any better than the hadiths.
Since it doesn't matter if the quran is the word of Allah or not(it is Law for muslims), likewise what does it matter if the hadiths are 'suspect' when majority of muslims believed in its authencity? Is it wrong to argue from their points of belief and instead insist it is right ONLY to do so from the point of a miniscule minority of quran only muslims?

What's the objective here? To convert all muslims to quran only muslims? :lol:

Cat dreamily said that you can only effectively argue with muslims if you stick ONLY to quran verses and the interpretations of it.
but Cat too said:
Their mind-language is totally different from our. The Koran is above all criticizing simply because it is The Law, the Islamic Constitution. The whole building of Islam is based on that. If you want to talk their mind-language we must argue from within the law, just like lawyers do... for criticizing it from outside, like we do, is of no avail.
I am not sure what he is trying to say here: are you allowed to argue about quran verses when you already stated that it is 'above all criticizing'?

You want to put forth your points to quran only muslims by using only the quran verses and you will get a rational response from them?

keep dreaming.

let's see a 'rational' response from a quran only muslim,
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8258&start=40

you think that the reponse will be any different from a quran and hadith muslim?
:lol:
That's why we MUST be knowledgeable in what is The Law according to the Koran, for only then can we construct a valid case.
My second post, coming in some other day, shall deal with this crucial aspect...
maybe Cat's second post will prove his point.
we'll see.

at this moment, all i can see is that a quran verse to quran verse argument will only put us in a circus on a merry go round ride.
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
IoshkaFutz
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by IoshkaFutz »

Psicohot says:
at this moment, all i can see is that a quran verse to quran verse argument will only put us in a circus on a merry go round ride.

I prefer the funnyhouse room with distorted mirrors and the smoke machine in the middle.

Anyhow, the real problem is not "Allah as Law: the Law!" but "Allah as spirit: the Spirit!"
“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer - German Lutheran Pastor and Theologian. His involvement in a plot to overthrow Adolf Hitler led to his imprisonment and execution. 1906-1945

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

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by skynightblaze »

yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: I quoted even G.f haddad. HE too says the same thing. Read my previous post.
No.. I read that post and more of that guy from Beirut,, Gibril F. Haddad who got his Ph.D. in Islamic studies from Columbia University and some Syrian University. Here is his stuff at http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/haddad/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But how does that fellows Ph. D proves that early Islamic literature hadith is from Muhammad's mouth?? it does not.. He was listed as one of 500 Muslim inflectional of this time ., I don't know what means .. There are terrorists in that group

http://thebook.org/books_pdf/500Muslims_2009.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

good book to read and send some e-mail of article from FFI..
I dont know about terrorists in there .G.F Haddad is a scholar of hadiths. The point here is that there existed early hadiths against what CAT claims. For 40 odd pages he is repeating same crap again and again.

If there is no guarantee that those hadiths came from mouth of muhammad then there is also no guarantee that quran has the exact content that muhammad wanted because the same companions also collected quran. So either you have quran + hadiths or else its none.
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: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by skynightblaze »

@All

I just want to ask a question here . What is bothering me at this point of time is one of his replies..Let me do some explanation..

CAT argues that early muslims didnt warrant collection of hadiths because muhammad ordered not to collect anything other than the quran .If this was true then we shouldnt be finding tafsir from Ibn Abbas in that case who lived during muhammads time because the 4 righteous caliphs and companions of muhammad whom CAT also considers reliable would have made sure that order of muhammad was followed.

TO this argument of mine CAT replied that Shaytan(Satan) made Ibn abbas write a tafsir. Now this reply is simply ridiculous! How can anyone in this world believe that a shaytan exist and made IBN ABBAS write a tafsir unless one is a muslim??????? A point to note is that islamic scripture themselves never say that but CAT somehow thought that this was a valid reply.

y I am not drawing any conclusions here but this is a shocking bit and thats why I need someone to answer my question. I would be glad if anyone answers this question.

It would be too early to draw any conclusions because I dont know about his past work on FFI and some of you might help me in clearing my doubts about this mysterious character of CAt.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by skynightblaze »

crazymonkie_ wrote:This is gradually becoming exactly the same thread as the previous one. Can we please get back to the OP? There's still a lot to say on the subject.
I am sorry for diversion but you see Cat isnt even showing up here to reply and almost everyone has attacked his arguments in this thread .
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
zamie
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:56 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Allah as Law: The Law!

Post by zamie »

skynightblaze wrote:@All

I just want to ask a question here . What is bothering me at this point of time is one of his replies..Let me do some explanation..

CAT argues that early muslims didnt warrant collection of hadiths because muhammad ordered not to collect anything other than the quran .If this was true then we shouldnt be finding tafsir from Ibn Abbas in that case who lived during muhammads time because the 4 righteous caliphs and companions of muhammad whom CAT also considers reliable would have made sure that order of muhammad was followed.

TO this argument of mine CAT replied that Shaytan(Satan) made Ibn abbas write a tafsir. Now this reply is simply ridiculous! How can anyone in this world believe that a shaytan exist and made IBN ABBAS write a tafsir unless one is a muslim??????? A point to note is that islamic scripture themselves never say that but CAT somehow thought that this was a valid reply.

y I am not drawing any conclusions here but this is a shocking bit and thats why I need someone to answer my question. I would be glad if anyone answers this question.

It would be too early to draw any conclusions because I dont know about his past work on FFI and some of you might help me in clearing my doubts about this mysterious character of CAt.

I believe that cat said earlier he did not believe in the koran's divine legitimacy. So if he does not believe in it's holiness or religious legitimacy, how can he use a religious or supernatural arguments to justify his point?
The muslim challenge. If you cannot answer it, your religion is refuted.
(viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8341)

"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Post Reply