Welcome Anonymous, It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:26 pm                    >>Main Site<<

qur'an only

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.

Re: qur'an only

Postby skynightblaze » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:03 pm

The post is going to be lengthy as I am going to summarize the compilation of the quran issue so that people know that the current day quran was not at all a result of unanimous agreement between the caliphs as falsely claimed by CAT.
The process started when Umar urged Abu Bakhr to collect the quran and hence Abu Bakhr appointed Thabit to compile the quran. See below.
Spoiler! :
Abu Bakr told Umar and Zaid, “Sit at the entrance of the mosque. When one brings you something from the Book of Allah with two witnesses, then record it.”

Now let us reason.If 2 caliphs knew the quran by heart, they could have easily formed 2 witnesses amongst themselves and wrote the entire quran themselves but instead Abu Bakhr tells Umar that if 2 witnesses bring a verse to him, he should put it in quran. Isn’t this an admission from Abu Bakhr and Umar that they were not knowledgeable enough?? Why would they need people to come with 2 witnesses and tell them a particular verse if they already knew the entire quran? If this is not enough proof then we can see an admission from Umar himself ( Click the spoiler below)that he or anyone did not know the entire quran and that there were people who were better than him in knowledge..

Spoiler! :
When Ibn Umar—son of the second Muslim caliph—heard people declaring that they knew the entire Qur’an, he said to them: “Let none of you say, ‘I have learned the whole of the Koran,’ for how does he know what the whole of it is, when much of it has disappeared? Let him rather say, ‘I have learned what is extant thereof.’”
Umar said, “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an), yet we leave some of what he recites.” Ubayy says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave it for anything whatever.”


Secondly, Was Abu Bakhr attesting the work done by Umar in the real sense using his knowledge??

Abu Bakhr simply delegated the task of collecting the quran and was relying completely on Umar and Thabit. No where do we see Abu Bakhr actually attesting to the each and every verse of quran by giving his inputs using his knowledge so the real compilers of the first draft of quran were Umar and Thabit along with some other men who brought 2 witnesses and ABU BAKHR was not involved in the real sense.

Thirdly, did Uthman and Ali agree with this copy of Umar and company?

Uthman and Ali were not involved in the first draft of compilation so the first draft was not prepared by consent of 4 caliphs at all. Infact 3 of the caliphs were inactive. Uthman did not agree with the first draft at all when he prepared the final draft in 653 AD because he asked some quraish men and Thabit to make changes to the draft prepared by Umar and company. This is supported by the fact that Marwan burned the original copy with Hafsa (the daughter of caliph Umar) after her death in 665 AD because it was not in agreement with Uthman’s copy. Hafsa did not follow the Uthmanic quran. This shows that Uthmanic copy did not agree with Umar’s copy.

TO be CONTINUED....
Last edited by skynightblaze on Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:23 pm, edited 2 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: 3598
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am
Gender: Male

Re: qur'an only

Postby skynightblaze » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:05 pm

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
Now what About Ali?
Ali had a quran of his own which differed from Uthman’s copy ( for e.g chapters like Hafad and the Khal are absent in current day quran which Ali wrote in his book apart from a few additions) however he gave up his own copy to support Uthmanic copy later. This shows that either Ali unwillingly gave up his copy or he was not confident about his own knowledge of islam. In either case, it shows that Ali’s testimony or support to any verse from Uthmanic quran does not count as reliable.

Fourthly, Muhammad never told his companions to learn the quran from any of the caliph. He named 4 people namely Salim (who died in the battle of Yamana), Abu Musa, Ibn Masud and Ubai. Since muslims would take Muhammad’s judgment as final, they need to accept that none of the 4 caliphs were considered scholarly enough by Muhammad. Add to this, the fact that these scholars of quran massively disagreed with the Thabit;s quran.

Fifth, people should look at the methodology of collection of the quran. 2 witnesses bring a verse and it is put in quran. What is the guarantee that they were not lying? Is this a scholarly way? How difficult is it to gather 2 witnesses who can support you? During my school days, we used to play pranks. 2 or even a group of us would falsely testify against someone just to make that fellow get a scolding or beating from the teacher. So it is not that really difficult.

TO BE CONTINUED
Last edited by skynightblaze on Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:23 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: 3598
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am
Gender: Male

Re: qur'an only

Postby skynightblaze » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:22 pm

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

Sixth, Zaid bin thabit was the only one who was involved in the entire process of collection of the quran however how reliable was he himself? Zaid Bin Thabit was born in 610 Ad when experts like Ibn Masud started learning the quran. To understand religion, one should be atleast 12 -15 years old guy. This would mean that Zaid listened to the quran only for a period of 7 to 10 years being an adult as against others who listened to it all their life when they were adults. More ever Zayd himself describes the task of collecting the quran as harder than moving a mountain. This shows that neither was Zayd nor was Umar (from his admissions mentioned earlier) were confident about their knowledge of quran.

So the conclusion is there was never a unanimous copy of the quran that was attested by all the caliphs at a time as falsely claimed by CAT but rather the quran of today was a result of additions or deletions done by Umar and Uthman as per their liking . So now CAT should be able to tell who the 2 witnesses were for each verse in the quran. The fact is that we do not even know for certain who narrated any particular verse from the quran. It could be simply be anyone. It could be Zayd + Umar , Zayd + quraish or simply anyone and we saw that none of them can be reliable.

Anyway, I have avoided giving proper references to reduce the length. If anyone wants a reference from which I derived my facts, let me know.
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: 3598
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am
Gender: Male

Re: qur'an only

Postby MesMorial » Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:51 am

MANFRED;


Obviously you have not heard of the idea of a circular argument. You are highlighting a fundamental problem with "Qur'an only": Any argument about the Qur'an itself automatically becomes circular and therefore logically invalid. "The Qur'an is because it says so."


Unless we’re talking about Islam as a religion, and not the divinity of the Qur’an. You miss the point every time. Unfortunate you wasted so much time on a long response.



Well, then you must also admit that others have the same right to read the text the way they like.


Except your arguments don’t reach shoulder-height. My main point has been that you should accept it and stop posting replies which are a step behind what I am saying. In this cocoon it might pass time, but in the jungle of ideas you would not survive.

That means that Sunnis who have a different reading to your own, is as valid as your own reading.


Desperate reasoning. But I can use it against you and say you should stop obsessing over the Qur’an then, and focus on replacing regressive values.

In fact, their Islam is more relevant than yours, as far as I am concerned. Islam only interests me as far as it affects me. I know it to be false. If you want merely to follow a home-brew religion in your own home, why should I care? No problems at all, as long as it does not affect other people. But when it comes to ideas that this religion demands that I must be fought and subdued, then it becomes a danger and needs to be exposed. Islam does not only demand this, his has a hideously deficient ethics and allows slavery and the beating of wives, to name but two things that really are sick.


Except apologetics just makes you look silly. Besides, you already know that the verses say otherwise. You say you are only concerned with how Islam affects you, which translates to you only care what the majority say. So let them talk and moralise, then you can say it’s bad then they can moralise then you can say it’s bad.

Or I can say: “I’m only interested in clearing the smoke in which negative justifications thrive, finding out why Islam (whatever version) doesn’t work and suggesting more effective and constructive routes to spiritual fulfilment.”

So the argument "the Sunnis have it all wrong" to me is an irrelevance. In fact, you have it wrong too. That is not the point, though. Because there are more Sunnis than people like you, they are a greater threat.


And I am a greater solution than you : )



You mentioned somewhere that you don't like "herd thinking". Excellent! So stop creeping round at the periphery of a big herd, and follow them at a distance while still deriding them. Go your one way, all the way. Start by admitting to yourself you don't need that little book. Have a good close look at Mohammed. Is he really someone you want to be like? Have a cold look at that text of yours. Start with surah 9. Is that what YOU are about? Are you a word-breaker like Mohammed? Is violence really a way to spread a religious idea? Or is the religious idea really only being used as an excuse for unwarranted violence in this text?


You might have mistaken me with someone else.

Read it again with open eyes. The Qur'an is the strongest witness against Islam.


But you said everyone’s opinion is equally valid, thus you waste time mentioning that.

Why don’t you go back to basics, and re-evaluate your approach, your ideas and your priorities. To get anywhere sometimes you have to drop things. My weapon is not the Qur’an. Qur’an is just a part of the means. My weapon against you is reasoning.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer
User avatar
MesMorial
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am
Gender: None specified

Re: qur'an only

Postby MesMorial » Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:56 am

SKYNIGHTBLAZE;


It doesn't matter. As explained to MANFRED, in dealing with Islam, start at the root before losing yourself in that stuff. The root begins in the person who accepts something, not the something.

Keep it focussed, keep it simple, and keep it real. The real bit you have to deal with. Until then :no1:

And hypothetically, if you were right, you suffer from the same misordered priorities as FRANKIE. If you want to deal with Islam then expose it, don't repeat what you think Islam is (before apologetics shines its own light and cancels your waves). Find out the differences between the source of Islam and what people say, good or bad (although the point would be to see if bad practices could be used to expose their "faith"). Don't become attached to what it says, but focus on replacing values through understanding why people subscribe.

As for those who are bad extremists, isolate them and side with moderates against them. Use focussed conscience-pricking for less committed supporters of bad practices.

And importantly, just because someone follows the Qur'an in a nice way that doesn't agree with your interpretation, try to differentiate their intentions (e.g. life-guidance, spiritual-fulfilment) from the scripture itself.

In the meantime, both your approach and your technical analysis seem to have a misguiding and degenerating influence. We can talk supposed history, but I would be wasting my time.
Last edited by MesMorial on Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer
User avatar
MesMorial
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am
Gender: None specified

Re: qur'an only

Postby MesMorial » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:19 am

So let's get out first priority straight:

Freedom from dissatisfaction/pain, which practically translates to "a peaceful, balanced world".

Anybody going to disagree?

If you agree, the Islam issue must be dealt with in context of that. There is my point.

So to get a peaceful and balanced world, people have to be balanced and thus be mindful of their tendencies, motivations and attachments (etc.). Recognise the root, recognise the problem, recognise the point:

http://allpoetry.com/column/9958825-Isl ... y-Noctifer

Even if you think that this cannot be achieved, at least be part of the momentum. Therein lies your own satisfaction :)

This is why preoccupation with books and labels is childish.

Hope it's clear now :) It requires us to do the thinking, not just reading supplemented by other opinions. It is also not a passive approach, but involves assertion and collaboration.

But I am not going to play babysitter to excuses which by now should be transparent without me pointing them out.
Cheers
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer
User avatar
MesMorial
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am
Gender: None specified

Re: qur'an only

Postby manfred » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:57 am

So let's get out first priority straight:

Freedom from dissatisfaction/pain, which practically translates to "a peaceful, balanced world".

Anybody going to disagree?


I do.
This is a platitude. You cannot please all at the same time. To please the Palestinians all Jews must die. Jews might not be overjoyed by that.

A peaceful world require people to be tolerant of others, and have respect for all others. Muslims are the most intolerant people you can meet. In 1600 year Muslims have not stopped to spread hatred and violence. So stop being a hypocrite talking about peace.

If you agree, the Islam issue must be dealt with in context of that. There is my point.


We would be a lot closer to a peaceful world without Islam.

So to get a peaceful and balanced world, people have to be balanced and thus be mindful of their tendencies, motivations and attachments (etc.). Recognise the root, recognise the problem, recognise the point:

http://allpoetry.com/column/9958825-Isl ... y-Noctifer


No, they must be mindful of others and see them as equal to themselves. Self-obsession and naval-inspections do not bring peace.

Even if you think that this cannot be achieved, at least be part of the momentum. Therein lies your own satisfaction :)


By showing people the face of Islam, we are trying to make the world a more peaceful place. You are not part of any solution you are part of the problem.

This is why preoccupation with books and labels is childish.


Is that why you cling to your little green manual of hate, and even condone crucifixion?

Hope it's clear now :) It requires us to do the thinking, not just reading supplemented by other opinions. It is also not a passive approach, but involves assertion and collaboration.


So you are going to start thinking anytime soon? No thinking person could possibly subscribe to Islam in any shape or form.

But I am not going to play babysitter to excuses which by now should be transparent without me pointing them out.
Cheers


So stop making them, and start replying to posts with arguments rather than so much hot air.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
User avatar
manfred
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm
Gender: Male

Re: qur'an only

Postby MesMorial » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:22 am


I do.
This is a platitude. You cannot please all at the same time. To please the Palestinians all Jews must die. Jews might not be overjoyed by that.

A peaceful world require people to be tolerant of others, and have respect for all others. Muslims are the most intolerant people you can meet. In 1600 year Muslims have not stopped to spread hatred and violence. So stop being a hypocrite talking about peace.


Speaking of hypocrites, your very assessment of Muslims speaks volumes. You have your own psychological problem to deal with first. Thankyou for demonstrating more.

We would be a lot closer to a peaceful world without Islam.


Again. No concept of what you are doing, blind 2-d attachment to a label.

No, they must be mindful of others and see them as equal to themselves. Self-obsession and naval-inspections do not bring peace.


You are obsessed with a label. You speak of equality and respect, meantime demonstrating the opposite.

By showing people the face of Islam, we are trying to make the world a more peaceful place. You are not part of any solution you are part of the problem.


Repetition and self-affirmation without substance. Your problem is your hatred and one-sightedness. So I am a part of it, like vinegar in a maggoty wound.


Is that why you cling to your little green manual of hate, and even condone crucifixion?


So stop making them, and start replying to posts with arguments rather than so much hot air.


Poor sad Manfred.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer
User avatar
MesMorial
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am
Gender: None specified

Re: qur'an only

Postby manfred » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:22 am

It is not possible to be tolerant of those who want to either subdue you or kill you. That is the mistake of the so called liberal politicians in the west. Slaughterhouse operatives like the animals to be "peaceful" and tolerant to the the treatment they receive there too. For you and your kind tolerance is a something you demand loudly from others but never give. Peace for you is defined by a choice of either surrender and accept Islam, be a dhimmi and pay yiziya or death.

So don't defile words like peace and tolerance by putting them into your mouth. Wallow in the filth of your religion if you must, but don't tell the world of peace and tolerance, something you despise. You and your religion can only bring strife and misery.

A Muslim like you is like a rather unique robber: First he tried to obtain your wallet with a drawn knife. If his victim fights back or runs away he feels justified in killing him. It is a crime against the robber to run from him or to fight him, deserving a death penalty. But if he hands over his wallet, the robber still complains: his victim lacks tolerance, he has not offered his house keys and guided him to his house, so that he can rape his wife and children and steal everything else that is his. That is what a you mean by tolerance and peace.

You do indeed wish for "freedom from dissatisfaction and pain". YOUR dissatisfaction. YOUR pain. If others suffer as a consequence it matters nothing to you, as your are one of the "best of people", and others are the "worst of people", the "apes and pigs", "fuel for the fire".

As you have answered pretty much none of any of the points anyone has made to you, and only responded with platitudes or ad hominem responses, you are undeserving of further attention, until you change your approach.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
User avatar
manfred
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm
Gender: Male

Re: qur'an only

Postby sum » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:35 pm

Hello MesMorial

Your quote -
As explained to MANFRED, in dealing with Islam, start at the root before losing yourself in that stuff. The root begins in the person who accepts something, not the something.

Absolute rubbish.

What is the root? It is the Koran, not the person. If the Koran can not make itself abundantly clear then differences of understanding will occur. You must admit that the Koran is a total failure in giving a clear and unambiguous message for people to follow. It can not even make itself clear whether people are to follow Muhammad`s life`s example. Your friends, the Sunnis, think that it is correct to follow Muhammad`s example but you and others think that it is not. What a pathetic guidance when muslims do not know for sure what the actual guidance is.

You are as bad as the Koran in being totally unclear as to whether you follow the Koran, Minhajism or anything else. After innumerable requests to you to tell us if you accept crucifixion as a legal punishment you continue to be evasive with replies that give a superficial impression that you have answered when you have not. If you reject the Islam of the Sunnis tell us which Islam you do accept as the truth. There must be some sect(s) that you accept because if there were none you would not have singled out the Sunnis.

sum
sum
 
Posts: 4814
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: qur'an only

Postby The Cat » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:11 pm

sum wrote: The ahadith have isnads of human beings whereas the Koran`s isnad involves unproven entities. The names that you mention are only "valid" after Muhammad

You've got it all wrong... History isn't concerned by spiritual entities like Gabriel. It goes with humans and facts only...

Now, it's the hadiths that have unproven entities, contrary to the Koran. The very act of having a chain of transmission
(of the ahaad type, 8 for most of them) is a clear proof of unreliability. Ever heard of the Chinese Whispers?

The 'revelations' were witnessed by all the above people plus corroborating experts, about 5, when written down.
Koran has been made contrary to the example set forth by Muhammad, who never reunited the book in his lifetime.

Then a single line of narrators (ahaad) is also invalid from a koranic perspective, asking between 2-4 witnesses to have legality.
That's why all those attested leaders asked for witnesses, thus respecting such a commandment, contrary to the 'sahih' hadiths.

Again, from the horse mouth...
skynightblaze wrote: viewtopic.php?p=123938#p123938
Basically they contradict the quran and hence we need to accept that hadiths cant be taken as source of guidance....

SNB is just as unreliable and incoherent as the hadiths-toys he wants to play with.
How some members are still supporters of this hollow guy is still a mystery to me.

His 'arguments' have been argued and smashed way before
viewtopic.php?p=160095#p160095
viewtopic.php?p=160620#p160620

Repeating that 16.116 dismisses any authority from all those fiqh/sharia hadiths carriers, about 95% !! :sharia:
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
The Cat
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: qur'an only

Postby manfred » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:32 pm

And this transmission is any better?

Some remember many years later that...
Mohammed said this or that... (or possibly something else, later edited out...)
who claimed to have heard this from a creature called Jibril who nobody but Mohammed ever saw, with lots of wings, apparently...
and this talking creature claimed that his words were the words of some deity called Allah, who before Mohammed was an idol in Mecca, but who then got promotion to being the God of the Jews and Christians as well...

This is an at least 4 chain Chinese whispers where two of the chains are, well, how shall I put it, utterly unlikely and completely unverifiable. in addition we know that the text itself is not even complete, and was collated and edited later. This means it is neither complete nor in the right context.

Hadith at least have human beings in the chain all the way. Of course that does not mean they are always reliable, but sometimes they shed some light on otherwise unintelligible Quranic texts.

As I tried to explain before, we need to evaluate Islam AS IT IS, and it is not sensible to suggest how Muslims should define their own beliefs or what texts they would want to consult.

Islam is built on sand, shifting and fleeting. All of it, including the "qur'an only" variety.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
User avatar
manfred
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm
Gender: Male

Re: qur'an only

Postby sum » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:41 pm

Hello The Cat

Your post -

sum wrote:The ahadith have isnads of human beings whereas the Koran`s isnad involves unproven entities. The names that you mention are only "valid" after Muhammad

You've got it all wrong... History isn't concerned by spiritual entities like Gabriel. It goes with humans and facts only...

Now, it's the hadiths that have unproven entities, contrary to the Koran. The very act of having a chain of transmission
(of the ahaad type, 8 for most of them) is a clear proof of unreliability. Ever heard of the Chinese Whispers?

The 'revelations' were witnessed by all the above people plus corroborating experts, about 5, when written down.
Koran has been made contrary to the example set forth by Muhammad, who never reunited the book in his lifetime.

Then a single line of narrators (ahaad) is also invalid from a koranic perspective, asking between 2-4 witnesses to have legality.
That's why all those attested leaders asked for witnesses, thus respecting such a commandment, contrary to the 'sahih' hadiths.


I`m sorry, The Cat, but you are the one who is wrong. I will accept that some ahadith are inaccurate but they have an isnad of people. This makes them initially plausible. The Koran has Allah and Gabriel in the isnad and is therefore very suspect indeed. There are no facts to confirm that Allah exists or that Gabriel exists. You claim that the "revelations" were witnessed by people plus corroborating experts. To the best of my knowledge nobody saw Gabriel or heard Gabriel communicate with Muhammad and so there are NO witnesses, only people who witnessed what Muhammad said that he had heard from Gabriel.

History is concerned with both facts and religion because religion can influence people and explain the cause and direction of historical events. The two are very often inseparable. If history is to disregard everything but facts then history should disregard the Koran and many of the ahadith. I believe that the Koran does not have a divine origin but the words deeds of Muhammad are indeed largely factual. Do you believe that the Koran has a divine origin and that it was truly revealed by Gabriel to Muhammad? Would you care to face a devout muslim and tell him that you did not believe the Koran had a divine origin?

sum
sum
 
Posts: 4814
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: qur'an only

Postby MesMorial » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:28 am

MANFRED;

It is not possible to be tolerant of those who want to either subdue you or kill you. That is the mistake of the so called liberal politicians in the west. Slaughterhouse operatives like the animals to be "peaceful" and tolerant to the the treatment they receive there too. For you and your kind tolerance is a something you demand loudly from others but never give. Peace for you is defined by a choice of either surrender and accept Islam, be a dhimmi and pay yiziya or death.

So don't defile words like peace and tolerance by putting them into your mouth. Wallow in the filth of your religion if you must, but don't tell the world of peace and tolerance, something you despise. You and your religion can only bring strife and misery.

A Muslim like you is like a rather unique robber: First he tried to obtain your wallet with a drawn knife. If his victim fights back or runs away he feels justified in killing him. It is a crime against the robber to run from him or to fight him, deserving a death penalty. But if he hands over his wallet, the robber still complains: his victim lacks tolerance, he has not offered his house keys and guided him to his house, so that he can rape his wife and children and steal everything else that is his. That is what a you mean by tolerance and peace.

You do indeed wish for "freedom from dissatisfaction and pain". YOUR dissatisfaction. YOUR pain. If others suffer as a consequence it matters nothing to you, as your are one of the "best of people", and others are the "worst of people", the "apes and pigs", "fuel for the fire".

As you have answered pretty much none of any of the points anyone has made to you, and only responded with platitudes or ad hominem responses, you are undeserving of further attention, until you change your approach.


I am not Muslim, and secondly the doctor does not treat an infection by hating the host. Your emotions are quite irrelevant. Now, your rejection of balance/peace (as a goal) is more telling in that you have no alternative but your emotions.


To you and Sum, I say run off before your leaks become even more obvious. I do in fact use the Qur’an, as my .44 Magnum revolver. You know what that means? It means "you’re **** out of luck." :cool:

Hadith at least have human beings in the chain all the way. Of course that does not mean they are always reliable, but sometimes they shed some light on otherwise unintelligible Quranic texts.

As I tried to explain before, we need to evaluate Islam AS IT IS, and it is not sensible to suggest how Muslims should define their own beliefs or what texts they would want to consult.


You’re pulling triggers but nothing is coming out. This is what I’d call making a bad argument “matter of fact”. A sneaky subliminal affirmation of your claim.

Refute this:

http://allpoetry.com/column/9958825-Isl ... y-Noctifer

It is a good response to your repetitions, although it is in the first post.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer
User avatar
MesMorial
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am
Gender: None specified

Re: qur'an only

Postby skynightblaze » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:27 am

"revelations" were witnessed by people plus corroborating experts

That is ofcourse a lie. Quran of Thabit was never compiled by any expert and well if 4-5 guys were witnesses to the quran of Thabit and if that makes it reliable then quran of Ibn Masud, Ubay and Abu Musa were even more popular so they should be given priority over any other quran.The whole of Kufa affirmed Ibn Masud's quran, the whole of Syria backed Ubai/Ubay's quran and the whole of damascus backed Abu Musa's quran. We also have ahadith which show that Sahabas backed their quran so really 4-5 people attesting to Thabit's quran tells us nothing. In addition to this, we also had quran from Ibn Abbas, caliph Ali. Now here are a couple of questions :

1)If the quran of Thabit was so reliable why were people during that time reluctant to follow it? Why were people so keen to follow quran of Masud, Ubay and Abu Musa???

2) If the quran of Umar was authentic than any other quran then Umar would know how misguided people during his life time were since majority of them followed the people mentioned in Question 1. In such a case why didn't Umar make his copy official and keep his copy with himself from 635 Ad to 653?? Was he not concerned about people being misguided?

As far as hadith are concerned, not all of them are true and neither are all of them false. The ahadith which speak about criminal acts are definitely true because external evidences to islam mention the same things. I have quoted a lot of non muslim writers in my RC thread and they seem to mention that Muhammad was a criminal so we can be certain of the truthfulness of some ahadith if not All. Who cares if other ahadith are true or not?

The intention of this fraud is to pull wool over people'e eyes and make them accept that quran alone is a valid stance. I have always doubted his sincerity and it is time and again proven that he is a fraud posing as a non muslim.It should be obvious to anyone that he is a quran alone muslim. He talks about 16:116. Little does he understand that Darth has destroyed him and shown him that the verse quoted by him supports us rather than him. None can be humiliated more when the argument brought by a person supports his opponent rather than him :lol:
Last edited by skynightblaze on Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:05 am, edited 2 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: 3598
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am
Gender: Male

Re: qur'an only

Postby skynightblaze » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:34 am

@Mesmorial

I don't think you are making sense.Your mentor tells us that there is a difference between compilation of quran and ahadith and that quran is authentic because of its compilation. I have shown that quran was not at all collected reliably . He time and again claims ahadith to be chinese whispers but then so was the quran. If you reject one work then by principle of consistency, you need to reject quran too because it is no different than ahadith. Inspite of all the isnads and chinese whispers in the ahadith, many of them have been confirmed by early non muslim writers i.e. writers writing even before a single sahih hadith or sira was written.
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: 3598
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am
Gender: Male

Re: qur'an only

Postby manfred » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:48 am

I am not Muslim

Well, if that true then you must be an apostate. Better watch your back. Don't travel to Muslim countries....
Frankly, I do not believe you, I am sorry to have to say. Still, in the end it does not matter if your are ashamed of your religion and do not want to be identified with it. You are you, let's stick to that.

the doctor does not treat an infection by hating the host.

I do not hate you, but I have not much love for your ill thought out ideology, and the pompous and self-righteous way you push that. Also the fact that you refuse to give honest and to the point answers to almost all posts does not endear you to members here.

Now, your rejection of balance/peace (as a goal) is more telling in that you have no alternative but your emotions.


We all know what a MUSLIM LIKE YOU means when he speaks of peace.

As to your waffle about islamophobia, here is a good reply:


Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
User avatar
manfred
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm
Gender: Male

Re: qur'an only

Postby MesMorial » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:01 am

MANFRED;


Well Pat Condell (having thin Qur’anic know-how) has a different definition. He forgets that Islamophobia needs distortion, but focusses on the “vicitimisation” of Islam. My concern is not whether you offend Muslims or what their reactions might be; my concern is what you (and they) get objectively wrong (and your primitive attitudes and approaches).

For instance, I offend you and you play the victim by calling me Muslim. Muslims get offended by you and say you are picking on them.

The real point you have to go home with is that I am better at doing what Islamophobes try to do than they are. I am still not sure what your problem is; you never explained it logically.



SKYNIGHTBLAZEZ;


For 1000000000000000000000000th time, when discussing what Islam is, what matters is what the Qur’an says.
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer
User avatar
MesMorial
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am
Gender: None specified

Re: qur'an only

Postby skynightblaze » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:35 pm

For 1000000000000000000000000th time, when discussing what Islam is, what matters is what the Qur’an says.

In that case don't make idiotic arguments like ahadith are hearsay and that is why you reject them but at the same time uphold the quran. Finally, we already know what quran says and we are not impressed at all. I asked you questions regarding quran and you were not able to answer them. So take your insensible rants somewhere else where people are gullible enough to fall for it.
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: 3598
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am
Gender: Male

Re: qur'an only

Postby manfred » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:55 pm

my concern is what you (and they) get objectively wrong (and your primitive attitudes and approaches).


No, Mesmorial, that is not your concern at all.

Your concern is you are in need of attention, and you post things here for that reason alone. You don't engage in any discussions at all. It is all "look at me" and "I am better". You keep insulting others and do not answer any points made to you.

Start answering sum, SNB, iffo, me and others with real points not gibberish and hot air. If you can't, go away. It's not a competition or a beauty contest, it is a discussion forum. We want to discuss, explore and understand, and not to be lectured and patronised.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
User avatar
manfred
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm
Gender: Male

PreviousNext

Return to Islam: Questioned, Defended, & Explained

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Who is online

In total there are 4 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 135 on Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:37 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Info

The team
Delete all board cookies
• All times are UTC [ DST ]