9/11

[debunker]

daniel pipes is a shameless liar. In one instance he shown a portion of a verse to help prove his lie... all I did was to comment by showing the whole verse which gave a totally different meaning... my comment was deleted by the pig.

by the way, the article you're giving a link to is full of lies (flat out lies, telling half truths or simply gross exaggerations), but then again, that is expected.

[HomerJay]

LIES LIES, IT'S ALL LIES! MOHAMMED SPENT EVERY DAY HELPING LITTLE OLD LADIES ACROSS THE STREET! HE EVEN DONATED HIS OWN ORGANS TO SCIENCE BEFORE THERE WAS TRANSPLANT TECHNOLOGY!!!

Oh and every hadith that says anything bad about him is unauthentic and made up by zionists... and George Bush.

[debunker]

what's wrong homer? why the outburst? I told you I experienced the lies and dishonesty of this piece of shit, personally. FUCK Daniel Pipes!

[HomerJay]

You're probably right. Whenever you try to take a verse like "Cut every head off, rape every woman, and take their camels and watches", and quote instead "Cut every head off, rape every women, and take their camels", it completely changes the whole tenor of the verse. let's face it, there is always a time and a place for "striking off every head and cutting off every finger-tip", it's always just a matter of context. I mean, who among us hasn't found the need to strike off a few finger-tips?

[debunker]

one of us must have a very bad sense of humor, Homer, because I don't get yours... anyway, when are you going to stop the nauseating incessant out-of-context reference to 9:5?

there are two very disturbing things in Quran: it sanctioned slavery + in a few verses it ordered conquest. If you point to such verses then I have no choice but to just keep quiet... i won't do like the shameless Christians and try to justify slavery, for example (even though, at least the Quran highly encouraged emancipation, but i admit that's not enough). I will simply admit it and shut up... unfortunately, however, you are NOT content with what is actually there... you keep conflating wars againt Meccans/hostile tribes with the few conquest verses. This behavior is disgusting, not to mention very dishonest (but it's nothing new or unexpected, you're at home here, Homer.)

[HomerJay]

You regret "the few conquest verses"and decide you'll just "keep quiet" about them? (and then you start a reflexive tu quoque of course re. Christian history) Isn't ONE exhortation to conquer by one's Prophet (a supposedly perfect man to be emulated forever) sufficient grounds for an ethical person to disqualify Mohammed from Profhethood?

Fine. I won't address any of Mohammed's many "conflicts" any more. All warlords (and peaceful Prophets it seems) believe and write that their actions are always defensive and retaliatory. I'm sure Ghengis Khan would have written in his diary how it pained him to HAVE to attack and enslave all those people, were he able to write. I know I know, the other guy threw the first punch. So, as V suggests, "let's consider the character of this dramatis personae".

I'm sure you don't want to talk about the things that Ishaq, Tabari, and Bukhari and Islam have to say about our good friend Mohammed (though most will attest that these collections are necessary to understand the context of the quran's instructions), but let's just stick with the good book. I wasn't referencing 9:5, by the way. That one is dull and pretty much exactly like 9:29 (the bane of illiteracy is that you repeat yourself a thousand times)

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Verse 29 was needed in case his men missed 24 verses ago that kaffir hunting season was open. And yes, I know, you need to go to the hadith to find out which SPECIFIC treasonous actions Mohammed was reacting to defensively, but then you open up the "Kinanah's chest-campfire" and other cans of worms. So let'sjust stick with something that looks to character and not debatable history.
No, I was referencing my personal favorite:

[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

I have no problem with the neck smiting, always a sound tactic to go for the clean kill. But maybe you can give me your interpretation of the instruction to strike off the "fingertips". I've asked this of many people and nobody has given me a decent answer. I, naturally, have my own interpretation. What, pray tell, is yours?

And PLEASE don't say it is simply a call to fight hard. You don't call for a specific body part like that for no reason. It's like saying "fight hard, and go for the ear-lobes too".

[debunker]

You regret "the few conquest verses"and decide you'll just "keep quiet" about them? (and then you start a reflexive tu quoque of course re. Christian history) Isn't ONE exhortation to conquer by one's Prophet (a supposedly perfect man to be emulated forever) sufficient grounds for an ethical person to disqualify Mohammed from Profhethood?

1- I said nothing about Christian history. I was talking about Christians justifying all Yahweh's orders.
2- The Quran never claimed that Muhammed was perfect... I said this a million times already.
3- I did apostate once because of slavery/conquest (became a Deist) but oddly enough, reading Yahweh's example of supreme morality in the Bible shocked me back into believing in the Quran. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

I'm sure Ghengis Khan would have written in his diary how it pained him to HAVE to attack and enslave all those people, were he able to write. I know I know, the other guy threw the first punch. So, as V suggests, "let's consider the character of this dramatis personae".

Now, Homer, again I don't get your sense of humor. Ghengis Khan?

I'm sure you don't want to talk about the things that Ishaq, Tabari, and Bukhari and Islam have to say about our good friend Mohammed (though most will attest that these collections are necessary to understand the context of the quran's instructions), but let's just stick with the good book. I wasn't referencing 9:5, by the way. That one is dull and pretty much exactly like 9:29 (the bane of illiteracy is that you repeat yourself a thousand times)

Most? Well, the idea of Hadith books is that they are *supposedly* "authenticated" historical accounts of the prophet's life. Meaning? No.. Tabari/Ibn Ishaq are not generally accepted as authentic... they're always looked at with suspicion. But, hey, according to Hadith alone Muhammed is almost as much of a thug as Yahweh and many of His Biblical heros thugs.... that's why I look at the Bible and Hadith, both, as corrupted books. (yet, I don't discard them completely).

And please stop with this repitition sucks nonsense. It sucks because you're reading the super boring translations.

I have no problem with the neck smiting, always a sound tactic to go for the clean kill. But maybe you can give me your interpretation of the instruction to strike off the "fingertips". I've asked this of many people and nobody has given me a decent answer. I, naturally, have my own interpretation. What, pray tell, is yours?

And PLEASE don't say it is simply a call to fight hard. You don't call for a specific body part like that for no reason. It's like saying "fight hard, and go for the ear-lobes too".

Oh don't read too much into it Homer, it's just an expression like: "tear'em apart!"

I hope your juicy imagination won't lead you into thinking that the fingertips would be kept as trophies or something? Much like how Yahweh's holy men were obsessed with the foreskins of their enemies? Hmm?

[HomerJay]

1- I said nothing about Christian history. I was talking about Christians justifying all Yahweh's orders.

What I meant was you revert to the default Muslim apologetic position of pointing fingers in other irrelevant directions instead of facing accusations. Of course Christians (and everyone else on the planet) look to justify their abhorrent actions, it's just that Christians don't point to CHRIST to say these things are OK. Muslims CAN point to Mohammed, which is the enduring problem on Earth.

2- The Quran never claimed that Muhammed was perfect... I said this a million times already.

You may have said it a million times and I'm sure you're right that it isn't in the good book, but a million Muslims say it every day at the top of their lungs. Fom a practical standpoint, it doesn't really matter if ANY Muslim believes Mohammed is PERFECT, only that he is to be emulated in all things for all time.

3- I did apostate once because of slavery/conquest (became a Deist) but oddly enough, reading Yahweh's example of supreme morality in the Bible shocked me back into believing in the Quran. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

There you go again. Is your theology based on NOTHING but what your neighbor is doing/believing? I can see how reading the sermon on the mount would shock you back into the tranquility of Mohammed's day-to-day life.

Most? Well, the idea of Hadith books is that they are *supposedly* "authenticated" historical accounts of the prophet's life. Meaning? No.. Tabari/Ibn Ishaq are not generally accepted as authentic... they're always looked at with suspicion.

Even though Ishaq was the first biographer, someone who had little motivation for falsification? Even though many of his accounts are corroborated by other biographers? Still, though, I've read a poll saying that 85% of worldwide Muslims consider Bukhari to be sahih. Do you not think it dangerous to follow the example of a man that HE describes?

But, hey, according to Hadith alone Muhammed is almost as much of a thug as Yahweh and many of His Biblical heros thugs.... that's why I look at the Bible and Hadith, both, as corrupted books. (yet, I don't discard them completely).

Moahammed is EXACTLY as much of a thug as a lot of OT "heroes". Here's the problem, though. No Christian or Jew today is patterrning their life after that reprobate Solomon or drunken Noah or scumbag David. we don't excuse our actions by saying, "well David lusted after a married woman and got her pregnant and after trying to hide the paternity had the husband placed in the vanguard of a battle to be killed, so what I did was OK". We all agree LOTS of OT characters were fallible and a lot of them were jerks. So please don't try to excuse Mohammed by lumping him with irrelevant comparisons. We have hundreds of millions of Muslims who ARE excusing their behavior by pointing to the example of Mohammed (try every Muslim in Danish and Australian prisons convicted of rape).

And please stop with this repitition sucks nonsense. It sucks because you're reading the super boring translations.

I'll stop as soon as Allah does. Here we go again with the "It can't be translated from the lyrical and magical arabic". Please. It's been translated and re-translated for 1200 years by Muslim experts. And I've read translations by pro-Islam sites that sound just as boring and repetetive. there's only so many ways to translate 500 times "The unbeliever will burn for his unbelief, for Allah is all good, all-merciful". Funny how Christ's words seemed to survive translation from ancient Aramaic pretty well.

Oh don't read too much into it Homer, it's just an expression like: "tear'em apart!"
I hope your juicy imagination won't lead you into thinking that the fingertips would be kept as trophies or something? Much like how Yahweh's holy men were obsessed with the foreskins of their enemies? Hmm?

You may be right that it is just a "tear them limb from limb" expression, and I hope you're right. It may have been some harmless local arabic war custom of taking foreskin or scalp or ear trophies. So I could be wrong about this (Wow, I haven't said that in a LONG while).

So this is just my own pet theory. Feel free to (try) to find fault with it. I believe striking at the "fingers" is unlikely to be an expression of combat fervor. "Cut em to pieces", or "rip em a new one" maybe, but fingers? unlikely. War trophies? ALL their fingers? Again, unlikely. A scalp or a foreskin would be more symbolic and efficient to transport. No, I believe he mentioned the fingers for another specific reason, and I believe it's an advisement that is on display in contemporary times in places like liberia, sierra leone, and darfur.

Mohammed's Islam was envisioned as a very mobile one. Any impediments to forward advancement were discouraged by edict. The building of permanent homes or businesses was discouraged with the pronouncement that interest on loans was forbidden, and the need for prisons was obviated by the penal law of the sword. It's impractical for a marching army to keep prisoners, after all. So what to do with those fighters who surrender? You can't keep digging ditches and decapitating them all. For one, all that blood rusts swords something awful. And two, there's always the chance some un-authorized and un-authentic biographer is around to record it. So something else was tried (IMO).

What's a good way to neutralize an enemy fighter, send an ongoing message about not opposing you, and make the ex-fighter a burden to his community?: mutilate the hands and send the POWs on their way. They aren't killed, after all. Maybe that's what's meant by Allah is "all-merciful"?

[debunker]

What I meant was you revert to the default Muslim apologetic position of pointing fingers in other irrelevant directions instead of facing accusations. Of course Christians (and everyone else on the planet) look to justify their abhorrent actions, it's just that Christians don't point to CHRIST to say these things are OK.

Although, this an off topic issue, but Christians DID point to Christ all the time and spilled blood in his name... in any case, Jesus and his Daddy (Yahweh) are one and the same and Jesus DID say that His Daddy's OT is not to be ignored, so, there.

There you go again. Is your theology based on NOTHING but what your neighbor is doing/believing? I can see how reading the sermon on the mount would shock you back into the tranquility of Mohammed's day-to-day life.

No, Homey, I was just saying that my inability to reject that there is a God made me search for Him in other scriptures (the Bible) and the horror I seen made me run back to a book (the Quran) I had issues with (slavery/conquest).

Even though Ishaq was the first biographer, someone who had little motivation for falsification? Even though many of his accounts are corroborated by other biographers? Still, though, I've read a poll saying that 85% of worldwide Muslims consider Bukhari to be sahih. Do you not think it dangerous to follow the example of a man that HE describes?

What did I say about Muhammed, according to Bukhari et al, being more like one of Yahweh's endorsed thugs, and whom I abhore, you don't understand?

And please enough with the no-motivation-for-falsification argument. I never accused Bukhari/Muslim Ibn Tabari/Ibn Isahaq of being dishonest. I always maintained that these men were story collectors of events that happened 100, 150 and 200 years before their respective times.

As for the story tellers themselves (the narrators) being oh so pious Muslims, read my conversation with Sky here.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2512&start=80#p41470
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2512&start=100#p41563

the rest of the conversation is in that same thread.

Moahammed is EXACTLY as much of a thug as a lot of OT "heroes". Here's the problem, though. No Christian or Jew today is patterrning their life after that reprobate Solomon or drunken Noah or scumbag David. we don't excuse our actions by saying, "well David lusted after a married woman and got her pregnant and after trying to hide the paternity had the husband placed in the vanguard of a battle to be killed, so what I did was OK". We all agree LOTS of OT characters were fallible and a lot of them were jerks. So please don't try to excuse Mohammed by lumping him with irrelevant comparisons. We have hundreds of millions of Muslims who ARE excusing their behavior by pointing to the example of Mohammed (try every Muslim in Danish and Australian prisons convicted of rape).

No, No, No dear! Please I'm referring to Yahweh, the monster who ordered Moses of committing all sorts of war crimes, including enslaving virign girls after killing all their families and razing their towns to the ground... I have written many posts in this forum about the supreme morality of Yahweh and how he endorsed all sorts of unimaginable thuggary... I can provide links if you want?

I'll stop as soon as Allah does. Here we go again with the "It can't be translated from the lyrical and magical arabic". Please. It's been translated and re-translated for 1200 years by Muslim experts. And I've read translations by pro-Islam sites that sound just as boring and repetetive. there's only so many ways to translate 500 times "The unbeliever will burn for his unbelief, for Allah is all good, all-merciful". Funny how Christ's words seemed to survive translation from ancient Aramaic pretty well.

Oh please, don't get me started on Christ words... they are, by far, the most boring I ever read anywhere... to be honest, I do appreciate the first two thirds of Yahweh's Holy book for its entertainment value: Horror, obscenity, etc. And I do appreciate a lot Paul's teachings (a lot of them do make sense)... but when it comes to that idiotic hippie in the Bible, I can't stand reading his stupid pearls of wisdom.

You may be right that it is just a "tear them limb from limb" expression, and I hope you're right.

I AM right.

It may have been some harmless local arabic war custom of taking foreskin or scalp or ear trophies. So I could be wrong about this (Wow, I haven't said that in a LONG while).

No dear, that's a filthy ancient Jewish custom.

So this is just my own pet theory. Feel free to (try) to find fault with it. I believe striking at the "fingers" is unlikely to be an expression of combat fervor. "Cut em to pieces", or "rip em a new one" maybe, but fingers? unlikely. War trophies? ALL their fingers? Again, unlikely. A scalp or a foreskin would be more symbolic and efficient to transport. No, I believe he mentioned the fingers for another specific reason, and I believe it's an advisement that is on display in contemporary times in places like liberia, sierra leone, and darfur.

Mohammed's Islam was envisioned as a very mobile one. Any impediments to forward advancement were discouraged by edict. The building of permanent homes or businesses was discouraged with the pronouncement that interest on loans was forbidden, and the need for prisons was obviated by the penal law of the sword. It's impractical for a marching army to keep prisoners, after all. So what to do with those fighters who surrender? You can't keep digging ditches and decapitating them all. For one, all that blood rusts swords something awful. And two, there's always the chance some un-authorized and un-authentic biographer is around to record it. So something else was tried (IMO).

What's a good way to neutralize an enemy fighter, send an ongoing message about not opposing you, and make the ex-fighter a burden to his community?: mutilate the hands and send the POWs on their way. They aren't killed, after all. Maybe that's what's meant by Allah is "all-merciful"?

WOW, Homer! I must say, even the horrors of the Bible can't match up your vivid imagination? Or can it? But since it's merely a theory, I don't feel inclined to address your speculations.

But if you want to speculate that Muhammed wanted to send horror messages to others, I would say he should have followed the example of Yahweh who endorsed Joshua, when "devoting" the peaceful city of Jericho to the Lord!

[AbdulRahman]

daniel pipes is a shameless liar. In one instance he shown a portion of a verse to help prove his lie... all I did was to comment by showing the whole verse which gave a totally different meaning... my comment was deleted by the pig.

by the way, the article you're giving a link to is full of lies (flat out lies, telling half truths or simply gross exaggerations), but then again, that is expected.

Debunker,

By upholding the flag of Islam you are the lier.

A chain of logic is as strong as its weakest link.
Come up with an answer to my Qurbani/Eid-ul-Adha problem
Go consult your top notch Mullah, Islamic so called philosophers, and then come back to debate me.

Why can't you accept the truth I brought up and then move to the next topic.
Can you?

I say, Muslims have no other option but to run, run from the truth as fast as they can.
This is exactly what you did.

Now, you need to think, what Islam did to your mind.
Why you had to run?
What is going on your head?
Is it not that one side of your neural network, the good honest part, is telling you the turth as I presented but on the other damaged part of the neural network is telling you to uphold Islamic teaching?
See, what one had to end up dong by taking the side of Islam?
He/she must surrender the good part of the brain to Islam. Islam means surrender.

You are trapped. Now the only thing you can do is not to think about the issue I raised.
See the problem?

[debunker]

By upholding the flag of Islam you are the liar.

listen you xxxxxxxx! watch your language when you address me or I'll have to deal with you accordingly.

Now, I didn't engage with you because you're no more than a worthless idiot who thinks greatly of himself, you're very stupid yet you think you're smart. I made a joke of you, yet you think I feel threatened by your idiocy. You are so disgustingly stupid, I won't be able to have any fun discussing anything with you... so, buzz off!

[kenmirzz]

yes like everyone else muslims also had internal wars.
salvation lies in the hereafter. we go to paradise, everyone else goes to hell. that is the salvation for anyone who is a muslim.

to become a muslim, all you have to do is say a simple one line sentence

THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MUHAMMAD IS MESSGNER OF ALLAH.

if you say that line then you wont go to hell. you have to say it in front of two adults muslims so that they are witnesses of God that you are a muslim.

Hi Mr Omrow, sorry to overlook your reply and do not respond. According to your logic, when it comes to internal war, Islam and Muslims are like everybody else, no specialty at all? You indirectly admit that Islam still won't give you a peaceful society, a peaceful world and a peaceful life. In other words, Islam is a failed ideology when it comes to politics and salvation because of the internal skirmishes that occur even unto this day and age. If it fails in the worldly test, how sure you are that it is going to rescue you in the hereafter?

No buts and ifs my human friend, paradise is not reserved for a bunch of Shahada-believing people who themselves engaged in fighting each other and decapitated to the max. In this world, there's no perfect society, no perfect civilization and no perfect next worldly paradise. When Islam failed and still fail to form a perfect society and perfect civilization, it left us wonder on how true of its perfect paradise claim.


Humanity is but one family.

[joseph]

I think you missed the point.

You as an Atheist have no idea what will take place in the next life.

According to you anything can happen. You live in doubt.

Atheists say they dont know. Muslims say they know.

[byteresistor]

I think you missed the point.

You as an Atheist have no idea what will take place in the next life.

According to you anything can happen. You live in doubt.

Atheists say they dont know. Muslims say they know.

Muslims belief is based on a big logical fallacy.

[kenmirzz]

I think you missed the point.

You as an Atheist have no idea what will take place in the next life.

According to you anything can happen. You live in doubt.

Atheists say they dont know. Muslims say they know.

Mr All-Knowing Joseph. For your information, I am not an Atheist. I am an apostate from Islam turn a Deist. If you know nothing about me, stop making wild speculation. Reserve that for god. We can move on now, Mr All-Knowing.

So, you convincingly know what will take place in the next life? Send me a postcard when you get there, okay. I do not live in doubt but with certainty that Islam is full of doubt. You know why? Let me elaborate.

You see, since its inception until now, did Islam ever reform the society? If yes, why were there so many bloodshed in Islam? A brief reading about the Battle of Jamal and Siffin will make you nearly puke. As a convert to Islam, what is your brilliant opinion on this issues?

If you said that the Christians under the banner of Inquisition caused endless bloodshed, the atheists under the banner of communism caused endless bloodshed, then the Muslims under the banner of politics caused endless bloodshed too. Read about Yazid Bin Muawiya and Hajjaj Bin Yusuf Ath-Thaqafi. The latter was a great jurist, faaqih. He murdered innocent human, Muslims and Non-Muslims Hindus like nothing. Why Islam was able to produce such monsters that equaled Hitler? Nearly each of your caliphs committed blunder, even the "Rightly Guided Caliphs". Uthman Bin Affan was biased to his kinsmen and a nepotist. Ali Bin Abi Talib was a ruthless murderer. Marwan Al-Hakam was another cruel dictator.

Why did all these people that were nurtured under Islam turn out to be despotic? Were they influenced by socialism? communism? No!

Get a life Mr Joseph.


Humanity is but one family.

[yeezevee]

debunker says :

2- The Quran never claimed that Muhammed was perfect... I said this a million times already.

READ Siddiq Osman Noormuhammad of Toronto what The Holy dolly Qur'an says On OUR BELOVED PROPHET MUHAMMAD Sallallahu 'alayhi wa Sallam.. Saw.. Mr. PBUH at http://www.iqra.net/verses-muhammad/

If that guy Mr. PBUH is not perfect, there is no reason for Allah not to make a perfect guy and send his word through him or her., what is this Quran comes out of Allah or one of Muhammad's hole??

yeezevee

[KhaliL FarieL]

debunker says :

2- The Quran never claimed that Muhammed was perfect... I said this a million times already.

READ Siddiq Osman Noormuhammad of Toronto what The Holy dolly Qur'an says On OUR BELOVED PROPHET MUHAMMAD Sallallahu 'alayhi wa Sallam.. Saw.. Mr. PBUH at http://www.iqra.net/verses-muhammad/

If that guy Mr. PBUH is not perfect, there is no reason for Allah not to make a perfect guy and send his word through him or her., what is this Quran comes out of Allah or one of Muhammad's hole??

yeezevee

Thank you yeezevee for the link.
______________________________

Allah says in Qur’an:

In the Messenger of Allah you have a fine example for he who hopes for Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah abundantly. [Qur'an 33.21]

Does not this dictate “Muhammad being a perfect man among the mankind”? How can Allah propose an imperfect man as a “fine example” for all mankind to the end of times?

In Surah Qalam (Chapter 68) Allah says it again:

And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted standard of character.[Qur'an 68:4]

Allah has not used this term “Khuluqin Adheem” to denote any others in Qur’an except Muhammad. Of Muhammad, Allah reminds people in that time:

Your companion (Muhammad) has neither gone astray nor has erred. Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only an Inspiration that is inspired. [Qur'an 53:2-4]

Nor has he(Muhammad) erred, this peculiarity of Muhammad should be noted. Allah says Muhammad has not erred ever. It is denotative of Muhammad’s “Maesoom” (sinless) nature. And it is reasonable enough for Allah to choose such a person as the ideal example for mankind to emulate. If Allah had chosen an imperfect man for mankind, that would have been detrimental for Allah’s unique quality of being a “moral agent”. An imperfect man can do imperfect deeds and people can emulate those wickedness too since Allah has dictated “Muhammad as a fine example for those who hope for Allah and the last day”. God must not be hoping for this to happen to his subjects if he is a moral agent. Allah has to be a moral agent, and that’s why he made Muhammad on exalted standard of character who speaks not of his own desire but only speaks what he has been inspired. For the same reason, Allah promoted Muhammad as the perfect example for mankind to emulate.

So, Muhammad has to be a perfect man. If he is not, that means Allah has chosen the wrong person for mankind.

Regards
KF

[debunker]

Muhammed (like other prophets, sinned)

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1700&start=520#p35514

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1700&start=540#p35549

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1700&start=540#p35566

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1700&start=540#p35589


033.021
PICKTHAL: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.

> good example doesn't mean perfect (or sinless).

053.002
YUSUFALI: Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled.
PICKTHAL: Your comrade erreth not, nor is deceived;
SHAKIR: Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray;

> The context of that verse is that the revealed Quran is not in error:

Spoiler! :

053.003
YUSUFALI: Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.
PICKTHAL: Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire.
SHAKIR: Nor does he speak out of desire.

053.004
YUSUFALI: It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:
PICKTHAL: It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired,
SHAKIR: It is naught but revelation that is revealed,

[KhaliL FarieL]

Muhammed (like other prophets, sinned)

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1700&start=520#p35514

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1700&start=540#p35549

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1700&start=540#p35566

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1700&start=540#p35589

Of sin, I think we have discussed earlier. To be a sinner, Muhammad should have contravened Allah's prohibitions. But you have not yet provided one model for Muhammad violating Allah.

An act can only be considered as "sin" if Allah has forbidden that act for mankind. Only after Allah's forbiddance established, the act becomes sin. Allah is the one who decides what is right and wrong.

It would be interesting to note Allah worked on an evolving moral framework. He did not find any problem with incest in the first place but later we see him prohibiting it.

033.021
PICKTHAL: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.

> good example doesn't mean perfect (or sinless).

Nor I said it is. But I was asking a valid question “should not or does not this dictate perfect-ness”?

053.002
YUSUFALI: Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled.
PICKTHAL: Your comrade erreth not, nor is deceived;
SHAKIR: Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray;

> The context of that verse is that the revealed Quran is not in error:

Spoiler! :

053.003
YUSUFALI: Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.
PICKTHAL: Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire.
SHAKIR: Nor does he speak out of desire.

053.004
YUSUFALI: It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:
PICKTHAL: It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired,
SHAKIR: It is naught but revelation that is revealed,

The context necessitates the man who conveys the message to be inerrant too. Does not it? If you may read the verses carefully once again?

Regards
KF

[debunker]

It would be interesting to note Allah worked on an evolving moral framework. He did not find any problem with incest in the first place but later we see him prohibiting it.

verses please?