Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

enceladus wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
That is true and I agree with your assessment. Instead of the Muslims getting angry and annoyed, the non-Muslims go ballistic. They are an angry bunch of folks. That is the problem.


Oh, I agree that we are "angry". However, you need to understand *why*.

You Muslims come into the West, into our countries. You threaten to take over our countries (and are doing all that you can to do so). You *demand* that everything in our cities is changed to meet your "needs". Separate swimming times at our pools, separate this, separate that. You whine and moan about everything, and you get "offended" at anything at all. You are the most ungrateful, nasty people on the planet. There are many people in the world worse off than you are, who are grateful for any help received. You never are.
I had not realized that my short post would turn out to be a dose of enema. You did not have to litter the bandwidth. Now that you have opened a can of worms, this is what I have to say.

You must keep in mind that the filthy West came into the Muslim and other lands and looted most of the nations. Most of the looting in Muslim states was carried out by the British, the French, the Spanish, the Portugese and the Dutch. Others raped and looted Africa. Bishop Desmond Tutu is on record for saying, "The missionaries came with the Bible and said, 'let us pray'. We closed our eyes and prayed. When we opened our eyes, the Bible was in our hands and our land was in their hands." That was the filthy behavior of the West.

They occupied the lands by deceiving their noble and simple hosts, ruled the lands and looted them, bloody thieves. That was the behavior of the modern West, even late into fifties and sixties. Thanks to the WWI and WWII, which these 'civilized' nations fought with each other, all of them lost men and women could not run all the textile mills in Europe. They needed workers and that is how workers were imported by these filthy countries to do odd jobs and the dirty work, which the native did not want to do.

Those men are exactly like the Western/European coolies and workers, who went to America and now you have a generation that has evolved from the generation of coolies. So, you may be literate but you are not really educated. If you say that you are educated, then I will say that you are not cultured. Thus, I would rate the Western countries as upstarts, with no class and no real culture.

So, it is quite natural that the Muslims, who settled in the West are the generations of coolies like your coolies. I do not live in any of your countries.

I don't know if Muslims have demanded separate swimming pools or not. If they are doing it, then they are wrong and should not do that. As a citizen of your country, they have the right to make demands. but for imported Muslim workers and coolies, you can always deny them the pleasures. I cannot help you.

The seeds of terrorism were sown by the Western countries. They are reaping what they sowed. I am against terrorism. Please address your rant to the ragheads in Afghanistan and Iraq. The most powerful country in the world and the West invaded Iraq under lies and deceit. That is the prime example of terrorism.

If you can manage to get an independent auditor, he/she would confirm that the non-Muslim posters here are stupid, dumb and clueless. please trust me on this.

You quoted Omar Khayyam:
enceladus wrote:Let me quote Omar Khayyam -

"The Koran! well, come put me to the test—
Lovely old book in hideous error drest—
Believe me, I can quote the Koran too,
The unbeliever knows his Koran best."

"And do you think that unto such as you,
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew,
God gave the secret, and denied it me?—
Well, well, what matters it! believe that too."
- enceladus
Do you even understand Persian poetry and the rich philosophy in it? You cannot understand a simple translation of Quran and you want me to believe that you understand Omar Khayyam's poetry?

sum
Posts: 6630
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by sum »

Hello Ghalibkhastahaal

Your quote -
You must keep in mind that the filthy West came into the Muslim and other lands and looted most of the nations.

I have asked you in another thread, and I will ask you in this thread, to tell us what wealth was looted by the West from muslim lands and how this wealth was obtained in the first place by the muslims.

sum

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Yes, how was that wealth attained in the first place?? By looting by Muslims. The booty.

Yeah, Saudi Arabia is sure getting robbed. :lol: That's why they keep dumping millions if not billions in total, in building Mosques in the west. What he said is a typical, disgusting, cross eyed propaganda lie. And if they didn't sell their resources, what would they have?? Nothing, because they develop nothing. So they get to make all of this money because they happen to live on top of a ground full of oil and they couldn't even get it out of the ground and had to have the kafir do it for them and yet they keep all of the profits and turn around and sell it to the people who got it out of the ground for them. Who's robbing who? If it wasn't for the kafir getting the oil out for them and turning around and buying it from them, they would be just as poor as any typical African country. This really is indicative of the larger mental illnesses of Muslims where the reasoning is always twisted and cross eyed. They really ARE different than the rest of the world.
Last edited by Muhammad bin Lyin on Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:They needed workers and that is how workers were imported by these filthy countries to do odd jobs and the dirty work, which the native did not want to do.
Then why did they go there?? The truth of the matter, is that they still had a better life in these countries than in their country, which is why they went to the other country. This happens still, even today, and nobody is forcing these immigrants to go there and in fact, many don't want them to go there, but they go anyway.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: Those men are exactly like the Western/European coolies and workers, who went to America and now you have a generation that has evolved from the generation of coolies. So, you may be literate but you are not really educated. If you say that you are educated, then I will say that you are not cultured. Thus, I would rate the Western countries as upstarts, with no class and no real culture.
Whatever you want to say, but that culture you speak of has succeeded quite well, while, as Mushariff honestly noted, Muslims countries are the poorest and most illiterate countries in the world.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: So, it is quite natural that the Muslims, who settled in the West are the generations of coolies like your coolies. I do not live in any of your countries.
No, it's different with a Muslim. Different than any other immigrant. Muslims do not respect the Constitution of their host and feel that Shariah should replace it. That immediately makes them political opponents to the publicly agreed upon law of the land. Muslims are an opponent to any political system. This is why everywhere they go, there is always agitation and trouble, and they are never seeking to live within the laws of their host country and melt in, and instead are always seeking to carve out their own territory and eventually eat the host country from the inside out. And they like this. This isn't devious to them (although of course it is), this is Allah's work.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: I don't know if Muslims have demanded separate swimming pools or not. If they are doing it, then they are wrong and should not do that. As a citizen of your country, they have the right to make demands.
They have zero right to demand their own set of laws.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: but for imported Muslim workers and coolies, you can always deny them the pleasures. I cannot help you.
What????
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: The seeds of terrorism were sown by the Western countries. They are reaping what they sowed. I am against terrorism.
Then you would agree that the Taliban and bin Laden and Saddam have reaped what they have sown. And as far as Iraq goes, here's a little known fact for you. That war wasn't even illegal. There never was a treaty signed at the end of the gulf war, there was only a conditional cease fire and the condition was a completion of all weapons inspectors. So when Saddam kicked them out prematurely, that alone was enough reason to end the cease fire because the terms were breached. So one possibility is that some were frustrated as Clinton did nothing about it, and then, after 911, with American anger and willingness to fight, it might have been thought that this was a good time to do what they thought should have been done back in 1998. A kind of "strike while the iron is hot" idea. But then, there's even more to it than that. Tony Blair explained that all thinking had changed after 911 and that it almost created a new era. To me, he almost seemed to say that there was almost a heightened sense of paranoia, and that they just couldn't risk tolerating Saddam any more. That feeling seems to be forgotten now, but if you think back, that really was a real feeling, a heightened sense of tension about everything. Even politicians can become paranoid. and for the fact that Blair and some other countries shared this sense of fear with the US, goes against the idea that this was strictly a neo con conspiracy.

But either way, getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. Iraq is a mess because of Muslim Arabic culture itself. They were given a chance at freedom and democracy, but they can't get over their infighting about religion and their tribalism. Actually, that's not quite fair, as the real problem is only a very small but radical percentage who simply seeks to sabotage any progress in Iraq and terrorize their people until they behave they way they think they should. So why is that the fault of the US? Where's the responsibility of the actual perpetrators in all of this?? One would think it's the US itself sabotaging everything, to hear some talk. It might as well be, because they're going to get the full blame while the actual perpetrators receive no blame at all. It's insanity.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: Please address your rant to the ragheads in Afghanistan and Iraq. The most powerful country in the world and the West invaded Iraq under lies and deceit. That is the prime example of terrorism.
Actually, I'm glad you misused the word terrorist in the typical propagandist fashion. I'm tired of hearing this nonsense. Let's get a clear definition shall we? When you have war, you have collateral damage (civilian casualties). Now some would say that collateral damage is still murder whether it was intentional or not. That's true, it is still murder. But collateral damage (civilian casualties) is undesirable because it does nothing to help win the war, and can often even hurt the cause greatly. Nobody wants collateral damage, but you can't fight a war at all without it. Especially if the enemy likes to hide within the civilians, not caring about the civilian lives themselves. Muslims are well known for that. They just use the excuse of "oh well, they helped me hide, so if they get killed, Allah will reward them".

Now with terrorism, there is no such thing as collateral damage. Do you know why?? Because civilians ARE the target. You can't have collateral damage when it is the exact damage that was intended. That's not collateral damage, that''s direct and willful damage. It's designed to target civilians as to strike fear (terror) into them. "And I will strike terror into their hearts". This is why there are rarely any army or combatants or any fighting at all when these attacks take place. The army isn't the target. Innocent civilians are the target.

So when you call America a "terrorist", it invokes pictures of soldiers walking down the street when there is no fighting going on and starting to randomly shoot unarmed women and children. Or soldiers setting people's houses on fire for no reason. Or soldiers purposefully firing a rocket at a busy market just so they can scare everybody by killing innocent civilians. THAT'S terrorism. That would be the equivalent of what terrorists are doing. There's a lot of mistakes made by soldiers during the tensions and there's always the occasional loony, but it's no where nearly as bad as what I just outlined.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: If you can manage to get an independent auditor, he/she would confirm that the non-Muslim posters here are stupid, dumb and clueless. please trust me on this.
I'm curious to see if you are capable of understanding the difference between terrorism and war.
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
You quoted Omar Khayyam:
enceladus wrote:Let me quote Omar Khayyam -

"The Koran! well, come put me to the test—
Lovely old book in hideous error drest—
Believe me, I can quote the Koran too,
The unbeliever knows his Koran best."

"And do you think that unto such as you,
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew,
God gave the secret, and denied it me?—
Well, well, what matters it! believe that too."
- enceladus
Do you even understand Persian poetry and the rich philosophy in it? You cannot understand a simple translation of Quran and you want me to believe that you understand Omar Khayyam's poetry?
Why don't you just explain it??
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by piscohot »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote: Why did you find my line "All of you are doing exactly the same. What was wrong then? The difference is that he was right and all of you are wrong.", so difficult to understand?
What was he right about?
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
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

MesMorial wrote:@ MBL

Now firstly asking if he did not say he was wrong is what you call twisting the point regarding "authenticity" and "reliability". You are no better than what you claim I am, but of course you are wrong in claiming that because you can't prove your point and - I am not accusing you of lying but just of being block-headed. So shush. :lol:
Look, there is a reason why so many translators added the word may to the verses. And what he said explains why they did that perfectly. There's no twist at all.
\
MesMorial wrote: You think that if you deny and twist enough that it will make you right.
There's no twisting and when I deny, I explain precisely why. i do not just make the claim or merely deny, I point out the clear reason that anybody should deny it. And so far, all of this is because you still don't have an answer to the problem that actually works, or otherwise, you would be typing that instead of this.
MesMorial wrote: I know this game better than you
Game?? I thought we were trying to arrive at the truth?? Ahh, but you slipped, and that's OK, because i already know that Muslims don't think it's a discussion about what the truth is, but rather a little game to see who can be more clever. This is why you see them try all sorts of ideas, and when one doesn't work, they merely try another one as if the truth doesn't matter, what matters is something being effective to make the problem go away.
MesMorial wrote: but it is hard to compete with someone who according to the time he has spent talking vanities (and not actually discussing Islam) has little better to do. I have seen it before.
Every angle you have tried so far has failed and it's been explained exactly why it has failed. So the problem is still on the table right at stage one. It's still there after all of this deflection you've tried.
MesMorial wrote: Firstly it is no surprise that Allah (swt) says what He says in 9:30. We know that He has preferences just as He loves the just but not the unjust (these emotions are the best words to describe such that we can comprehend what we should do as explained to Brendalee). Hence in declaring "May I destroy them" He is simply re-emphasizing that He does not want the idolaters to triumph.
No, may involves a request of someone or something else, an optative statement. If somebody says "may I destroy them", they are wishing that God, someone else, or life's circumstances in general permit them to destroy them. Allah would not say that for that exact reason. And, it actually doesn't say "may I destroy them", it says "may Allah destroy them" which changes it from a request to one's self in the former, which is silly and I've explained why, to a request to someone or something else in the latter. which makes perfect sense.
MesMorial wrote: We know that Allah (swt) lacks no certainty and hence it is a declaration of things to come.
Yes, we know that Allah lacks no uncertainty, and therefore it wasn't him talking.
MesMorial wrote: If we interpret it your way: "Allah wishes to destroy them!", then that is no problem.
That isn't what it says. Why do you keep trying to alter it ever so slightly?? i know why. Because it's part of the game. This is a game of wits to you where honesty isn't required. You could care less about the truth, you only care about how to make it work for you. I didn't interpret it to mean "Allah wishes to destroy them" and this is yet another failed spin attempt. I interpreted it to mean Muhammad was wishing for Allah to destroy them. Spin attempt rejected once again.

MesMorial wrote: It simply means it is Allah's will to destroy them, and therefore for the hundredth time it is a declaration of things to come.
No, it is a request to Allah that Allah destroy something, and Allah does not make requests to himself. Nobody does, and the example you keep trying keep failing and I point out exactly why. Its not my problem that your spin attempts have logical problems and therefore cannot add up or work. I'm just calling them like i see them
MesMorial wrote: I explained this before but you evaded and misinterpreted and squirmed.
And I explained exactly why it is wrong, and I've done that here yet again. Just keep repeating and I'll keep repeating what is wrong with it. You're not going to get away with smoke and mirrors, and i hope you've realized that at this point.
MesMorial wrote: .. Anyway as I said the word "may" connotes the permissiveness of something we know Allah (swt) can do.
Exactly the problem. Allah is permissive to himself?? But, of course if it's Muhammad asking that Allah do something, the verse makes perfect sense.

But let's take a step back for a moment. First you attack whether that verse is truly optative or not and attack the credentials of the person on that forum and a majority of the accepted translators, then, if that doesn't work, you try to alter the meaning of the words themselves. Which is it?? Is it not an optative statement, or is it an optative statement but it still works after it is properly altered by swapping may for let among other things?? And the answer is, "whichever one will work". That's what you are doing and make no mistake that I can see it clear as day. This means you are merely inventing whatever you think could work with little regard for whether it is actually true or not. Muslims are very well known for this. When one thing doesn't work, just merely try something else. So why isn't anybody supposed to think that you are merely making up any excuse your imagination can think of with little regard for truth nor even plausibility?
MesMorial wrote: "May" can mean in this context "let" etc. "Let their be light"
But it doesn't say "let their be fight" it says "may Allah fight them. So the equivalent to your statement is "let Allah create light" or "may Allah create light", which makes no sense for Allah to be saying, while "let there be light" does make sense. Sorry, spin failed again, and for very logical and correct reasons that you simply did not consider, or were perhaps hoping that nobody else would consider.
MesMorial wrote: for instance was Allah's (swt) wish to create light. Now He was not asking anyone else to let Him create it.
Right, because Allah isn't even mentioned in "let there be light", so your analogy is incorrect and therefore fails.

It's not going to work simply because it doesn't work. "May Allah fight them" is not "Let there be a fight". One is a declaration, as you said, and the other is a request, and requests are not made to one's self, they are always made to someone else
MesMorial wrote: Peace.

P.S. Keep talking and I will explain it to you each time. :roll:
And I'll explain the clear problems with your invention every time

MesMorial wrote: In fact I will copy and paste if you keep it up.
Nope, sorry. You're not going to slip out of it. Just because you can invent an answer does not mean it is an acceptable answer. It has to be properly considered and scrutinized, and when we do that to your answers, they fail, and I explain precisely why. You seem to think that if you can create something, even if it's not correct or plausible, if it can't be proven 100% false, then people are supposed to accept it as true. Where do you get crackpot ideas like that from?? Who told you that? Every single thing you attempted had a hole in it. Every single one.
MesMorial wrote: I said that we could agree to disagree
There's nothing to disagree about. You are merely inventing things that simply are not there.
MesMorial wrote: but that does not satisfy you because it does not satisfy your mentality or give you "the hit".
It shouldn't satisfy any logic, rational, objective person. No reasonable mind would actually buy these acrobatics you are attempting as any reasonable mind can see through it right away, and in fact, I'm really not sure if you even buy it, but merely cross your fingers that we will buy it. It honestly would not surprise me if I found out that was true.

MesMorial wrote: Now you will convince yourself you are arguing for a good cause, but keep such opinions to yourself or go peddle to a hadith-follower. I know psychology too.
Arriving at the truth is not a good cause??? YOU'RE the guy who thinks this is all a little game (as you've already called it) to see who can be the more clever deceiver, but I think nothing like that. I think this is why Muslims lie so much, because they assume you are lying and therefore they need to be a more clever liar. It's really twisted
MesMorial wrote: In short: If you are serious, you will stop wasting your time. If you think you should argue this, then you are deluded. Either way is fine.
Nope. You don't think I've seen little escape excuses like this before?? Sorry, but the only way out is to give an answer that actually works and follows the language correctly, or to say that you don't know and it's a problem. For the fact that you are attempting this tells me that you actually know you don't have any good answers, so you need to discourage me from continuing the discussion. That's what you're REALLY telling us. We're not stupid here. We see through dumb little ploys such as this. Do you know how many Muslims have preceded you and tried the same exact tactic?? First it's argue about the Arabic, and when that doesn't work, argue about the clear meaning and alter it in any way they can imagine, and when that doesn't work, try to make the entire discussion pointless so that the other person will drop the issue.

The fact remains that not one single answer you have attempt has worked. Each of them had problems which were clearly and unmistakably pointed out. you're still at square one after attempting numerous angles. And why would more than one angle even be attempted?? Because you are inventing anything you think could make the problem go away with little regard for whether it's actually true or not.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:

You must keep in mind that the filthy West came into the Muslim and other lands and looted most of the nations. Most of the looting in Muslim states was carried out by the British, the French, the Spanish, the Portugese and the Dutch. Others raped and looted Africa. Bishop Desmond Tutu is on record for saying, "The missionaries came with the Bible and said, 'let us pray'. We closed our eyes and prayed. When we opened our eyes, the Bible was in our hands and our land was in their hands." That was the filthy behavior of the West. They occupied the lands by deceiving their noble and simple hosts, ruled the lands and looted them, bloody thieves. That was the behavior of the modern West, even late into fifties and sixties.
Don't worry Muhammad following Muslims have done much worse with in 100 years of Islam.. read the link watch the video Ghalib
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15311" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
enceladus wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
That is true and I agree with your assessment. Instead of the Muslims getting angry and annoyed, the non-Muslims go ballistic. They are an angry bunch of folks. That is the problem.


Oh, I agree that we are "angry". However, you need to understand *why*.

You Muslims come into the West, into our countries. You threaten to take over our countries (and are doing all that you can to do so). You *demand* that everything in our cities is changed to meet your "needs". Separate swimming times at our pools, separate this, separate that. You whine and moan about everything, and you get "offended" at anything at all. You are the most ungrateful, nasty people on the planet. There are many people in the world worse off than you are, who are grateful for any help received. You never are.
I had not realized that my short post would turn out to be a dose of enema. You did not have to litter the bandwidth. Now that you have opened a can of worms, this is what I have to say.
You asked for an honest answer and you got one. Don't ask if you're not ready for the answer. And she's right about every single thing she said. Muslims never do any significant good for any society they are in and instead seek to carve their own pieces out of the society, which makes them a cancer for any society that let's them in. And this is why everywhere around the globe that Muslims are, there is agitation, and often even fighting. Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists have all found a way to get along with each other to at least an acceptable level. They don't fight each other much, but they ALL fight with Muslims and Muslims fight with them all. Heck, even the atheist communist Chinese now have to fight Muslims because, once again, true to form, Muslims are trying to carve out a piece of China. That's the cancer that they are and that is what Muslims will always do because their religion teaches them to be that way. When there's one kid in the class who's always in a fight with someone, is it the classes' fault or that one kid's fault? It's the kid's fault as he demonstrates a consistent pattern of fighting all of the other kids.

And then you dare have the nerve to ask for your rights while you seek to dismantle the very system that kindly gives you your rights, filthy hypocrites that you sneaky liars are. And then you even go beyond that and ask for special treatment that goes against the laws and norms of the society, while non Muslims are never granted any special treatment in Muslim countries and in fact are quite oppressed and regularly treated as second class citizens, if their homes and churches don't get burned down. And God forbid somebody use their freedom of speech in a free country and draw some cartoons of Muhammad. Now, Muslims demand in a country with free speech, that they get to dictate what people can and can't say, and they even attempt to use violence, threats and intimidation to do this. And you KNOW they do this, sneaky liar. Seems as though everything makes Muslims angry, and you see them protesting everywhere about almost anything. Seems like the only thing that doesn't make Muslims angry is the death of kafirs, or the burning of churches and homes. as evidenced that we never see any loud protests when things like that happen. Answer that. Of course you won't.

Simply put, you are all hypocritical cheaters who are even all too willing to blatantly lie if you think it will work, and you are the most ignorant and worst humanity has to offer and this is why you are behind the rest of the world and you have to resort to hypocrisy, cheating and sneaky lying so often.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

MesMorial wrote:
The Cat wrote:(about 62.2) Can you show me where ''the inhabitants of Mecca'' is written?

Pickthall:
He it is Who hath sent among the unlettered ones a messenger of their own, to recite unto them His revelations and to
make them grow, and to teach them the Scripture and wisdom, though heretofore they were indeed in error manifest,

If Muhammad was sent among the unlettered ones (to make them grow in purification), that would explain why he had to 'teach' them.
I understand you are asking about that since you were discussing Makkata previously. I saw it but it was of no relevance to "teach" and "purify".

You would have to assume that Muhammad (SAW) was literate and anyway he was teaching them the book regardless of whether they were writing it down.

Well there are many things that 62.2 underlines:

First is that even Shakir committed some fallacious translations in order to please the Islamic Pharisees.

Second: YES the fact that he was sent to unlettered folks (as per Pikhtall and Ali) rather explains that purifying
or sanctifying should be understood as 'making them purer in faith through their initiation of the given revelations'...

Third, since the wording ''al-ommiyyeena'' refers to the Ummi prophet, which doesn't mean illiterate but unlettered,
ie. from the common folks, unversed in the sacred litterature, not of priestly lineage, etc. Ummi is Hebrew, not Arabic!

But that makes me think of an important thread I left over where this theme was to follow. So I'll bring it back soon...

In the meantime, please educate yourself (17.36 & 17.84)
http://www.quran.org/ap28.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.quran.org/library/articles/gatut.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

96.1-4 (the oldest surah of them all):
Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth, Createth man from a clot.
Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous, Who teacheth by the pen,
Teacheth man that which he knew not.


Fouth, the term 'makkata' in 48.24 must be questioned as meaning Mecca/Becca (3.96) like you've ascertained. Again, in the thread
ahead, you'll see that ALL the so-called proper names in the Koran must be reconsidered, including Sujud, Qibla and al-Masjid al-Haram.
There are few mentions of location in the Koran, but Yathrib (33.13), it doesn't even mention Jerusalem (Ilya) not even once.

For, historically, Mecca was unknown until around 710 and the oldest qiblas weren't pointing there but way up North.
The explanation for Mkk(t) in 48.24 as meaning 'destruction' comes from the Classical Arabic dictionaries, as per:

http://www.free-minds.org/language" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (A Koraner site)
MAKKA(T)
It is not surprising that the inscription of Abraha doesn't mention or even allude to a town called Maka(t). There is zero evidence for a town named Maka(t) prior to the revelation of the great reading and all sides of the debate on the historicity of Maka(t) agree that the name Maka(t) doesn't occur in any "pre-quranic" inscriptions. Those promoting the historicity of Makka are forced to bring the only one reference by Ptolmey to an insignificant town by the name of Macoraba and not Maka(t) for the simple reason that they know very well that there are absolutely no references to the supposedly important town of Maka(t). This despite the fact that there are many references, including the above Abraha's inscription, to far less important towns in Arabia than this alleged Makka(t).

According to classical Arabic dictionaries, the word "maka(t)" mainly means "destruction/wearing down", among other meanings. It is listed in classical Arabic dictionaries under either MKK or MK.

Al-Mohit lists it under MKK, the meaning given is destruction and wearing down which is consistent with the context of standoff in 48:24. It also lists the meaning of TMKK as an adversary's insistence on something, which is also consistent with the standoff in 48:24.

Lisan Al-Arab lists it under MK and the meaning of MK(t) is given as "destruction" and TMK as "destroy".

Al-Wasit lists it under MK, the meanings given are: sucking everything out, insisting on revenge from an adversary, and the thing, which is worn down or destroyed.

Al-Ghani lists it under MKK, the meanings given are: sucking, insisting with demands on an adversary.

Here is a translation of 48:24 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the verses to translate the common description "maka(t)":
And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst
of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.


I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "maka(t)" un-translated I didn't. As one can see, the clear classical Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in verse 48:24.

Based on the context from the great reading/"quran", linguistic evidence from Arabic dictionaries, and the lack of any evidence supporting that there was a "pre-quranic" town by the name of Maka(t), the only logical unbiased conclusion is that "maka(t)" is not the name of "pre-quranic" town but is simply a mundane common noun like thousands of others in the great reading/"quran".
Sticking to makkata as a location named Mecca is thus -chronologically- devastating for Muslims.
The proofs of its nonexistence, up to the 6th century at the very least, are simply overwhelming.
Thus the hadiths making the equation Abraham-Ishmael-Mecca (with Buraq!) are mythological !
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Hello mes

The crap you just heard from the cat was refuted 4 years ago, I will actually copy and paste it in here to shut his ignorant mouth off, u don't need to bother just leave his arse to me

Cheers

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello mes

The crap you just heard from the cat was refuted 4 years ago, I will actually copy and paste it in here to shut his ignorant mouth off, u don't need to bother just leave his arse to me
Let us say that you do, and I doubt it, then the Koran is in plain conflict with archeology, that is with duly established FACTS.

Then you'd also have to disprove ALL the Classical dictionaries referring to Mkk as meaning 'destruction'... which fits 48.24.

And then you must accept the ahadiths tribulations over the fable of Abraham/Ishmael riding over Buraq to cross the desert !

If you win, the Koran loses credibility... good luck with that ! :whistling:
Last edited by The Cat on Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by AhmedBahgat »

The Cat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello mes

The crap you just heard from the cat was refuted 4 years ago, I will actually copy and paste it in here to shut his ignorant mouth off, u don't need to bother just leave his arse to me

Cheers
Let us say that you do, and I doubt it, then the Koran is in plain conflict with archeology, that is with FACTS.
U may shove ur archeolgy crap up ur arse or up layth's or ayman's

When I go home inshaallah I will write something especially for u in which I will let the dectionries, the quran
the bible and all encycolpedias to slam dunk u and ur free mind gang in filthiest rubbish bin labelled Manipulators

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

The Cat writes:
The Cat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello mes
The crap you just heard from the cat was refuted 4 years ago, I will actually copy and paste it in here to shut his ignorant mouth off, u don't need to bother just leave his arse to me
Let us say that you do, and I doubt it, then the Koran is in plain conflict with archeology, that is with duly established FACTS.

Then you'd also have to disprove ALL the Classical dictionaries referring to Mkk as meaning 'destruction'... which fits 48.24.

And then you must accept the ahadiths tribulations over the fable of Abraham/Ishmael riding over Buraq to cross the desert !

If you win, the Koran loses credibility... good luck with that ! :whistling:
AhmedBahgat goes to Ass
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:

U may shove ur archeolgy crap up ur arse or up layth's or ayman's

When I go home inshaallah I will write something especially for u in which I will let the dectionries, the quran
the bible and all encycolpedias to slam dunk u and ur free mind gang in filthiest rubbish bin labelled Manipulators
dear The Cat you are not going to win your game with Muslims and with those who question Islam/Quran/Muhammad on the non-existence of Muhammad and Mecca. And you may be right that these things may not be present during 7th and 8th century the way it is described by the Muslim robots. But I will give you full support on the Myth of Mecca and Muhammad and the present Islam's Muhammad may be two different characters put together...

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

The Cat wrote:
MesMorial wrote:
The Cat wrote:(about 62.2) Can you show me where ''the inhabitants of Mecca'' is written?

Pickthall:
He it is Who hath sent among the unlettered ones a messenger of their own, to recite unto them His revelations and to
make them grow, and to teach them the Scripture and wisdom, though heretofore they were indeed in error manifest,

If Muhammad was sent among the unlettered ones (to make them grow in purification), that would explain why he had to 'teach' them.
I understand you are asking about that since you were discussing Makkata previously. I saw it but it was of no relevance to "teach" and "purify".

You would have to assume that Muhammad (SAW) was literate and anyway he was teaching them the book regardless of whether they were writing it down.

Well there are many things that 62.2 underlines:

First is that even Shakir committed some fallacious translations in order to please the Islamic Pharisees.
Some people misquoted Hitler as well. so who cares? I love scholarly discussions about falsities. :lol:

But it is duly noted how you give comfort and legitimacy to the false idea. And for what? To ultimately deceive it and show it to be false? :lol:
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: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello mes

The crap you just heard from the cat was refuted 4 years ago, I will actually copy and paste it in here to shut his ignorant mouth off, u don't need to bother just leave his arse to me

Cheers
Let us say that you do, and I doubt it, then the Koran is in plain conflict with archeology, that is with FACTS.
U may shove ur archeolgy crap up ur arse or up layth's or ayman's

When I go home inshaallah I will write something especially for u in which I will let the dectionries, the quran
the bible and all encycolpedias to slam dunk u and ur free mind gang in filthiest rubbish bin labelled Manipulators
Why don't you not :lol: It's just going to end up with you dismissing someone as it always does.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by MesMorial »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello mes

The crap you just heard from the cat was refuted 4 years ago, I will actually copy and paste it in here to shut his ignorant mouth off, u don't need to bother just leave his arse to me

Cheers
Yes it seems that I pressed the right button when pasted a translation mentioning Mecca (I actually thought someone would mention it). I would not respond to it unless it were relevant to the point I was addressing. It is anyway hard to imagine that Muhammad (SAW) did not learn to read and write over the 23 year period of revelation.

I am interested in the topic so if you can post it or the link that would be good. It would be good to change topics since the thread is swamped. I think the 10 questions were answered satisfactorily besides.

Peace
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

MesMorial wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello mes

The crap you just heard from the cat was refuted 4 years ago, I will actually copy and paste it in here to shut his ignorant mouth off, u don't need to bother just leave his arse to me

Cheers
Yes it seems that I pressed the right button when pasted a translation mentioning Mecca (I actually thought someone would mention it). I would not respond to it unless it were relevant to the point I was addressing. It is anyway hard to imagine that Muhammad (SAW) did not learn to read and write over the 23 year period of revelation.

I am interested in the topic so if you can post it or the link that would be good. It would be good to change topics since the thread is swamped. I think the 10 questions were answered satisfactorily besides.

Peace
:lol:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello mes

The crap you just heard from the cat was refuted 4 years ago, I will actually copy and paste it in here to shut his ignorant mouth off, u don't need to bother just leave his arse to me

Cheers
Let us say that you do, and I doubt it, then the Koran is in plain conflict with archeology, that is with FACTS.
U may shove ur archeolgy crap up ur arse or up layth's or ayman's

When I go home inshaallah I will write something especially for u in which I will let the dectionries, the quran
the bible and all encycolpedias to slam dunk u and ur free mind gang in filthiest rubbish bin labelled Manipulators
I will open a new thread about it since the matter is distinguishably important.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by yeezevee »

MesMorial wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello mes

The crap you just heard from the cat was refuted 4 years ago, I will actually copy and paste it in here to shut his ignorant mouth off, u don't need to bother just leave his arse to me

Cheers
Yes it seems that I pressed the right button when pasted a translation mentioning Mecca (I actually thought someone would mention it). I would not respond to it unless it were relevant to the point I was addressing. It is anyway hard to imagine that Muhammad (SAW) did not learn to read and write over the 23 year period of revelation.

I am interested in the topic so if you can post it or the link that would be good. It would be good to change topics since the thread is swamped. I think the 10 questions were answered satisfactorily besides.

Peace
here you go dear MesMorial., that is all from The Cat...
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5518" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
MesMorial
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy?

Post by MesMorial »

Thankyou Yeezevee. It is a big conspiracy it seems.

Peace
FEED MORE MORE - WAKE UP!
- Ryback

http://allpoetry.com/Noctifer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post Reply