Faith Freedom International

by **Muhammad bin Lyin** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:00 pm

The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:in some of your posts you give the impression that Quran is indeed original/authentic .

On the Koran's authoritativeness.
viewtopic.php?p=130980#p130980

SNB is the one endorsing the hadiths' legitimacy, acknowledging Muslims' right to:
viewtopic.php?p=130181#p130181
By using and repeating the word -authenticity- as opposed to content you have proven yourself unfit to any logical debate.
That is because you reconstruct EVERYTHING from your own fantasy world and holds it to be sacrosanct. That's DELUSION.

Your logic comes down to uphold its content as LEGITIMATE, accurate.
Then, logically, you become morally responsible for its outcome, such as:

Female circumcision

Marriage of genitally mutilated childbride

Stoning

You have disqualified yourself both ways:
Either you misconstrued your thoughts, time again, and so are unfit to debate, or not... which makes you an abjection.

Are you still a fan of such?

Who said he said he was a fan of the hadiths?? Believing in their legitimacy (i.e. saying they are truthful accounts) does not make one a fan of them. Are people not supposed to think the hadiths are truthful and legitimate merely because of their harshness?? Do we "trick" Muslims into believing they are not truthful so that Muslims stop doing stupid things?? Is that your suggestion?? I'll bet it actually is based on many cock eyed, ridiculous stories you attempt.

by **The Cat** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:30 pm

booktalker wrote:For example: CAT said:
You MUST disprove my MKK argument using Classical Arabic dictionaries

I agree and it might be more fruitful to work to the logical conclusion of one argument as far as possible before embarking on another.

He won't do that, he won't dare to... but keep on his argumentum ad populum fallacy...

skynightblaze wrote:What you brought merely proves that location of mecca during the time of your historian was not the same place that its today. IT DOESN’T PROVE THAT ABBASIDS INVENTED THE CONCEPT OF MECCA BECAUSE YOUR HISTORIAN MAKES A MENTION OF MECCA EVEN BEFORE THE ABBASIDS CAME INTO RULE! IT ONLY MEANS THEY CHANGED THE LOCATION OF MECCA FROM ITS ORIGINAL PLACE....

Now finally what if we decide to trust the testimony of Continuatio Byzantia Arabica of the Chronicle of Isidor?? It would only mean that Abbasids changed the location of MECCA but how does that translate that they were corrupt people and they corrupted the concept of mecca in itself??

See how twisted the reasoning is:
--It proves that the location of Mecca has been changed by the Abbasids
--But displacing the Muslims' holy ground isn't a corruption (!!!) :wacko:

Now, it's not just by the Continuatio that the blasphemous displacement of Mecca is inferred but also by all these archeological evidences...
viewtopic.php?p=150476#p150476

Spoiler! :

http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=3714

Geographers and historians from antiquity, note even small Arabian settlements before the Christian era that came and went within a few centuries, and while the historical accounts about, and artifacts from, ancient settlements confirm the existence of each other, there is no reference to Mecca or it's Kaaba to be found. This even though it was eventually built on one of the most established trading routes in Arabia about which historical record abounds, and in spite of the Muslim claims that Mecca was the center of the Islamic faith, for thousands of years before Mohammed. If this were the case, Mecca would certainly have been one of the most written about Arabian places, by those early geographers and historians.

There are references to lots of other temples, and even to a great temple "highly revered by all the Arabs” (Diodorus), that was likely the one of the Bythemaneas, located near Ilat in the Aqaba gulf area. Even Mohammed's own tribe, the Quraish went on Hajj or pilgrimage twice a year - one to the north - long after the Kaaba in Mecca was built, indicating that the Kaaba in Mecca was a lesser temple. One of the journeys during the summer was to the city of Taif where there was also a temple called Kaabah of Ellat, or Kaabah of the Sun. Quoting Dr. Amari "This Kaabah was more significant and much older than the Kaabah of Mecca. All Arabs, including the tribe of Quraish from which Mohammed came, venerated this Kaabah.''

by **Muhammad bin Lyin** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:27 pm

I love to see you ignore anything that actually pegs you. So what does that say about you?

by **skynightblaze** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:53 am

booktalker wrote:It seems to me that the closer this debate gets to peoples' hearts, the more high-pressure it gets... buttons get pushed. True colours emerge. Cards on the table, or held close to the chest?

It would be good to 'calm down dears' as the English Prime Minister was vilified for saying recently, and go back to establishing common ground where possible, no?

Hello Book talker I do agree that I am rough with this fellow and not using nicest of language but I dont think this fellow deserves anything other than that.The reason is this fellow thinks that he is the most intelligent person here and he mocks others because he thinks he is right but the reality he is the most stupid person on this forum. I dont recall anyone being so stupid.

He isnt a scholar by any means and thats for sure . Infact he can only copy paste and craft posts in such a way that people think he is a scholar. He is very poor at logical thinking. I have demonstrated this several times .Those who feel that he is really a scholar should give me one instance where this person hasnt copy pasted here and used his own brains to make a solid argument.

Book Talker wrote:For example: CAT said:

You MUST disprove my MKK argument using Classical Arabic dictionaries

I agree and it might be more fruitful to work to the logical conclusion of one argument as far as possible before embarking on another. Hard I know but I do think the content of this thread is of value.

Ah but mine is only a small cry in the wilderness.

Love

BT
x

You are not wrong but I really didnt bother to bring proofs. Its so obvious that every single arabic speaker translates the verse 48:24 to include mecca in it and CAT is the only one who is insisting that mecca shouldn't be there. This is how dishonest muslims attempt to protect quran by using the arabic excuse. AS I quoted Debunker who is a native arabic speaker. He told me that the translation of CAT has got to do with twisting the real meaning by considering root of the word . Now if you want proof I will ask a arabic speaker to prove this stupid troll wrong and I dont think it will be too much of a task for him.

by **skynightblaze** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:39 am

The Cat wrote:All your so-called 'arguments' are so weak that they do not deserve a lengthy response...

Let me tell you the reason as to why you are ignoring to respond to my points. Its impossible for you to respond to my arguments point by point because you are incapable to do so. I dont claim to be intelligent but I claim to be better than you atleast . What I mean is you are intellectually bankrupt to answer them and thats why this excuse.

IF what you said were true then you wouldnt have selectively picked up my arguments and replied. Just above you have quoted my post regarding change of location of MECCA and replied to it. :lol:

The CAT wrote:Your post #1
Argumentum ad populum is not a valid argument but another logical fallacy.
You MUST disprove my MKK argument using Classical Arabic dictionaries...

I didnt bother to quote proofs because I certainly know for sure that rather than trusting a stupid person who copy pastes from dishonest muslims( who absolutely have no credibility) I would trust the translators.Not a single translator has translated the way you have translated . If around 35-40 arabic speakers confirm on something in arabic something of which I have no understanding then I am not so stupid as you are to ignore that and believe in something else .As far as getting proof is concerned I have asked debunker to prove how stupid you are and I dont think it will be a problem for him . In his last reply he said its got to do with twisting the true meaning by relying on roots or something of that sort. I will clarify and refute you .

The CAT wrote:Your post #2
--Since the Abbasids changed the location of 'Mecca' than it indeed demonstrate how corrupted they were.
--The earliest Korans that we have are all dated +/- 790. But the Sana'a manuscript is much older...
--Your ''I have explained enough..... so I really didn’t even care to read your arguments...'' Is what Muslims do when defeated.

If the location of MECCA was changed then it doesnt mean the concept of MEcca , the hajj and other things have been corrupted. Assume that you have a church or temple near you which has some historical significance. Now tomorrow on account of some reasons people change the place of church or temple then does that by default mean that they have also given up the customs and traditions or rituals or practices associated with the place? I myself have seen the change of locations for many temples and yet people follow the same rituals and same practices they used to follow in the old place.

The CAT wrote:Your post #3
--You wrote: ''Muhammad is the central character in the quran''. WRONG, it's Allah by far... and then the Koran itself,
and then the prophets. You'll find that the names of Abraham, Moses and Isa are written much more times than that of Mo.

--The very chain of one to one narrator (ahaad type) is prove enough that the hadiths are backward writings.
No hadith can be said authentic (sahih) when of the Ahaad type. Only the Mutawatir/Tawatur type is reliable.

Its getting funny now. Why would someone quote a long chain of narrators to fabricate something? :lol:

Why would a liar go for mentioning details of chains of narrations when all he could have done is simply said Muhammad said so and so ??? Such kind of questions would have bugged you if you had common sense. Certainly it would be very easy for them to make them more creditable.

Btw as I said quran revolves around the character of muhammad. The other things stuffed in it are bogus to establish legitimacy of muhamad.If quran includes a mythical character and claims that he is the last prophet for entire mankind then its obvious quran is a myth.

The Cat wrote:The tafsirs (3.7), the sira (3.80) and the hadiths (31.6) go against repeated Koranic injunctions,

You assume here quran is complete and answers all the questions. You cant answer questions on the context of the quran without the hadiths so quran's claim that no other hadith should be taken other than itself is completely false. Please answer some of the questions that SAM shamoun has put forth here if you think you can understand without other books.

Secondly quran does make a mention of following muhammad and it alludes to hadiths which I have shown you plenty of times but because you are a troll you are never going to accept them.

The Cat wrote:and I should
also add that no hadith of the ahaad type (99.9%) may have any juristic value whatsoever according to 2.282:
And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women, of such as ye approve
as witnesses, so that if one erreth (though forgetfulness) the other will remember. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned.
Bukhari and al went against this clear asking of two witnesses to validate -each step- of their narrator chain!

YOu are a monument of stupidity and this quote of yours simply debunks anyone who would want to defend about your intellectual capabilities. If you had read that verse carefully you would have understood that its talking about future transactions between 2 parties so how in the world can this verse be applicable here??

I think there is only 1 conclusion that stands out . YOU ARE A TROLL!!

The Cat wrote:So all you came up with are HOT AIR balloons, like answering archaeological evidences (see below) with al-Kalbi!

Oh I was waiting for those smilies . I knew they would come some time. I guess you feel that you have done great when you use them.

by **skynightblaze** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:51 am

THE CAT wrote:WRONG. SNB has always uphold the authenticity of the hadiths, he cannot trash them anymore.

I aint going to comment here. People who read my posts would know why I am laughing.

by **skynightblaze** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:58 am

Debunker reply on translation provided by CAT wrote:
The guy is a retard. The word Mecca is ALREADY there, in the verse. But like
his stupid and deeply twisted Quranist friends, he's playing the *root*
game. EVERY name/word in Arabic, even personal names, have roots. If a name
(or word) doesn't have a root, then it's not Arabic in origin.
Now, roots do NOT necessarily impose meanings on words/names derived from
them (otherwise, we wouldn't have had a rich language, given that all words
in Arabic have roots, so it's impossible for all words/names derived from
the same root to basically have the same meaning... it's most excellent retarded!),
but Quranist, being the dishonest shit-heads they are, they insist that
roots must be relevant in explaining away any words/names they don't like!

Again, the word Mecca is ALREADY there in the verse itself, and I don't need
a fuckwit, and a friend of a Quranist, like the CAT, to tell me that it
isn't.

Oh, and you have my permission to quote me in full

by **skynightblaze** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:02 pm

yeezevee wrote:
"A hadith is said to be mutawatir if it was reported by a significant, though unspecified, number of narrators at each level in the chain of narration, thus reaching the succeeding generation through multiple chains of narration leading back to its source. This provides confirmation that the hadith is authentically attributed to its source at a level above reasonable doubt."
Don't you have problem with such hadith selection??

I guess Abbasids- the forgery mill of islam forgot to corrupt mutawatir hadiths. :roflmao:

Let me guess the problem Yeekee. This person is copy pasting from different quran only sites and since different sites end up contradicting each other he is stranded and making arguments which are contradictory to each other.

by **skynightblaze** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:06 pm

Hi Yeekee its fun time now ...CAT believes in Mutawatir hadiths!! :lol:

So lets find MAKKA in it....

A Mutawatir hadith wrote:Abu Juhaifah, may Allah be pleased with him, reported:
I came to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) in Makkah and he was (at that time) at Al-Abtah in a red leather tent. And Bilal stepped out with ablution water for him. (And what was left out of that water) some of them got it (whereas others could not get it) and (those who got it) rubbed themselves with it. Then the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stepped out with a red mantle on him and I was catching a glimpse of the whiteness of his shanks. The narrator said: He (the Holy Prophet) performed the ablution, and Bilal pronounced Adhan and I followed his mouth (as he turned) this side and that as he said on the right and the left: "Come to the Prayer, come to success". A spear was then fixed for him (on the ground). He stepped forward and performed two rak'ahs of Zhuhr, while there passed in front of him a donkey and a dog, and these were not checked. He then performed two rak'ahs of the 'Asr Prayer, and he then continued performing two rak'ahs till he came back to Madinah. (Muslim)

http://www.darultavhid.com/en/forum/ind ... pic=1248.0

So it means that CAT is contradicting himself yet one more time out of infinite times that he has done..

by **yeezevee** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:09 pm

Hi Yeekee its fun time now ...CAT believes in Mutawatir hadiths!! So lets find MAKKA in it....

yess.. Yeekee.. Yankee.. donkey..

You are NOT reading stuff SKB..

The Cat wrote:
http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=3714
Geographers and historians from antiquity, note even small Arabian settlements before the Christian era that came and went within a few centuries, and while the historical accounts about, and artifacts from, ancient settlements confirm the existence of each other, there is no reference to Mecca or it's Kaaba to be found. This even though it was eventually built on one of the most established trading routes in Arabia about which historical record abounds, and in spite of the Muslim claims that Mecca was the center of the Islamic faith, for thousands of years before Mohammed. If this were the case, Mecca would certainly have been one of the most written about Arabian places, by those early geographers and historians.

There are references to lots of other temples, and even to a great temple "highly revered by all the Arabs” (Diodorus), that was likely the one of the Bythemaneas, located near Ilat in the Aqaba gulf area. Even Mohammed's own tribe, the Quraish went on Hajj or pilgrimage twice a year - one to the north - long after the Kaaba in Mecca was built, indicating that the Kaaba in Mecca was a lesser temple. One of the journeys during the summer was to the city of Taif where there was also a temple called Kaabah of Ellat, or Kaabah of the Sun. Quoting Dr. Amari "This Kaabah was more significant and much older than the Kaabah of Mecca. All Arabs, including the tribe of Quraish from which Mohammed came, venerated this Kaabah.''

So, What is your take home message from the above stuff that is copy/pasted by "The Cat" dear SKB??

by **skynightblaze** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:52 pm

yeezevee wrote:
Hi Yeekee its fun time now ...CAT believes in Mutawatir hadiths!! So lets find MAKKA in it....
yess.. Yeekee.. Yankee.. donkey..

You are NOT reading stuff SKB..
The Cat wrote:
http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=3714
Geographers and historians from antiquity, note even small Arabian settlements before the Christian era that came and went within a few centuries, and while the historical accounts about, and artifacts from, ancient settlements confirm the existence of each other, there is no reference to Mecca or it's Kaaba to be found. This even though it was eventually built on one of the most established trading routes in Arabia about which historical record abounds, and in spite of the Muslim claims that Mecca was the center of the Islamic faith, for thousands of years before Mohammed. If this were the case, Mecca would certainly have been one of the most written about Arabian places, by those early geographers and historians.

There are references to lots of other temples, and even to a great temple "highly revered by all the Arabs” (Diodorus), that was likely the one of the Bythemaneas, located near Ilat in the Aqaba gulf area. Even Mohammed's own tribe, the Quraish went on Hajj or pilgrimage twice a year - one to the north - long after the Kaaba in Mecca was built, indicating that the Kaaba in Mecca was a lesser temple. One of the journeys during the summer was to the city of Taif where there was also a temple called Kaabah of Ellat, or Kaabah of the Sun. Quoting Dr. Amari "This Kaabah was more significant and much older than the Kaabah of Mecca. All Arabs, including the tribe of Quraish from which Mohammed came, venerated this Kaabah.''
So, What is your take home message from the above stuff that is copy/pasted by "The Cat" dear SKB??

This quote says that there were multiple Kabaas which is possible but it doesnt say anything about multiple MECCAs. The mutawatir hadith trace mecca back to muhammad 's time but according to CAT MECCA came into existence in 8th century . Now the problem is he believes that mutawatir hadith are reliable.In short his own sources contradict his other sources. In short you can see the ill effects of copy pasting.

by **skynightblaze** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:58 pm

@YEEZEVEE

I have to thank you for asking me to read this quote. I accept that I didnt read this quote properly however it even further contradicts what this fellow is saying... Focus on the enlarged sections in both the posts of CAT.

THE CAT wrote:There are references to lots of other temples, and even to a great temple "highly revered by all the Arabs” (Diodorus), that was likely the one of the Bythemaneas, located near Ilat in the Aqaba gulf area. Even Mohammed's own tribe, the Quraish went on Hajj or pilgrimage twice a year - one to the north - long after the Kaaba in Mecca was built, indicating that the Kaaba in Mecca was a lesser temple.

CAT quoted Dr Amari here who claims that Quraish went on hajj twice a year.I hope CAT believes in what he brought from Amari otherwise I dont have to say anything :lol:

. In short it means he believes that Quraish existed and now lets see what he wrote before...

THE CAT on page 11 wrote:
This is NO historian but a fabulist only relying on story-tellers, working to establish the blood-link between the Abbasid and Muhammad,
via the fictitious al-Muttalib & the Quraysh tribe. You must now confirm the very existence of this Quraysh tribe from external sources.

by **The Cat** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:45 pm

I'll first start with your last ludicrous posts:

skynightblaze wrote:CAT believes in Mutawatir hadiths!! So lets find MAKKA in it....

By now I hope our readers can see through your constant logical fallacies:
Wrong premise: CAT believes in Mutawatir hadiths!!... So it means that CAT is contradicting himself yet one more time
False dilemma: So lets find MAKKA in it....
Hasty generalization: So it means that CAT is contradicting himself yet one more time.

(1) Who said I believe in Mutawatir hadiths? It's only a first screen for justified evaluation.
viewtopic.php?p=148804#p148804
Yet the mutawatir versions of the Last Sermon must be questionned...
viewtopic.php?p=147684#p147684

According to Ibn al-Salah and al-Suyuti there are no more than a pocketful of those mutawatir hadiths.
But that's not all: the last sermon contains three different mutawatir versions.... yet contradicting each other...

1) For the Sunnites
--I leave with you Quran and Sunnah.
Muwatta (Ibn Malik), 46/3

2) For the Shiites (and Abbasid)
--I leave with you Quran and Ahl al-bayt.
Muslim 44/4, Nu2408; Ibn Hanbal 4/366; Darimi 23/1, nu 3319.

3) Yet...
--I leave for you the Quran alone you shall uphold it.
Muslim 15/19, nu 1218; Ibn Majah 25/84, Abu Dawud 11/56.

(2) You must first -scholarly prove- that your trolling are from authenticated mutawatir hadiths.

(3) Even so, it ain't talking about Mecca's (basically Abraham's place) location at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pO4COKGFs8
http://www.historyofmecca.com/index.htm
http://www.historyofmecca.com/geography_mecca.htm

skynightblaze wrote:http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?p=150748#p150748

Wrong premise: I've quoted: http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=3714
False dilemma: I've said that Dr Amari main weakness was relying on Sunnite's trash (just like you do).
Hasty generalization: So, I still maintain you must prove Quraysh from external sources.
That you won't for you can't... We have no external testimony of a Quraysh tribe at the alleged time of Muhammad (570-632)!

Who Were the Quraysh?
viewtopic.php?p=92237#p92237
Generalities over the name:
viewtopic.php?p=92599#p92599

viewtopic.php?p=150221#p150221
And al-Qura was simply the old name for the area encompassing Hala-'l Badr, Dedan/Al-Haram, Hegra/Al Hijr, Khaybar and Tabuk.
All these names are very familiar to the Muslims: the battles of Badr, Khaybar and Tabuk; Al-Hijr (sura 15) and the Hegra/Hegira.
More so I am now inclined to think that the Quraysh were simply the inhabitants of al-Qura, the Koranic Umm al-Qura (6.92/42.7) !

by **The Cat** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:14 pm

And now with your first batch of silliness...

You are not wrong (booktalker) but I really didnt bother to bring proofs.
Its so obvious that every single arabic speaker translates the verse 48:24 to include mecca in it

See booktalker how I was right SNB keeps on his argumentum ad populum fallacy.
If Mecca was mentioned several times I wouldn't bother, but ONLY in 48.24? I do...

Especially since 22.26 refers to an exact location:
22.26: And (remember)We prepared for Abraham the place (Ibrāhīma Makāna Al-Bayti) of the House.
Now this Makana has the same root as Makna... nearby Mount al-Lawz, topped with non-volcanic black stones!
AND... Makna is close to Madiana (Maghair Shoaib, n.b. Jethro=Yathrib; nowadays al-Bad), & the Hajj road...

Most probably 'Makkah' is just another wording for 'Maccam' (as Isidore's) and Maqam Ibrahim, Abraham's holy ground.
Can the patriach traveled back and forth a thousand miles south of uncharted, torching desert, except through Buraq?
http://www.brotherpete.com/hagar_ishmael.htm

Genesis 21.21: And he (Ishmael) dwelt in the wilderness of Paran...

http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/mosesinyemen.htm
Medieval Arab geographer Yaqut al-Hamawi (d. 1229).

Faaraan (Paran): An Arabicized Hebrew word. It is one of the names for Mekkah mentioned in the Torah. It has been said that it is a name for the mountains of Mekkah. Ibn Makulan Abu Bakr Nasr Ibn al-Qaasim Ibn Qudaa`ah al-Qudaa`i al-Faaraani al-Iskandari said "I have heard it is a reference to the mountains of Faaraan, that is to say, the mountains of the Hijaaz. In the Torah God came from Sinaa' [Sinai] and dawned from Saa`iir [Seir] and became known [or brought to light, revealed] from Faaraan"; they are the mountains of Filastiin [Philistine], and it is His sending down of the Injiil upon Isa, peace be upon him, and His revealing from Mount Faaraan the fact of His sending down the Qur'an upon Muhammad, peace be upon him.

--Al-Iskandari equated the mountains of Paran (The Seir Range) with the mountains of the Hijaz.
--Al-Hamawi ascertains that Paran was another name for the mountains of Mekkah.

So the former Mecca (ie. Abraham's ground) was never out of the Paran/Midian area. EVERYTHING is pointing to such former location!
http://www.answering-christianity.com/paran.htm

Then again the Koranic al-Masjid al-Haram must refers to where divine laws were provided.
According to the Islamic tradition, Muhammad made it to the al-Masjid al-Aqsa on Buraq !
http://www.historyofmecca.com/00cbc530.png

Finally, giving as much references as they can (ie copy/paste) is what scholars do. So do I.

___________________
He then goes on: ''If the location of MECCA was changed then it doesnt mean the concept of MEcca ,
the hajj and other things have been corrupted.'' Giving a church displacement as an example!

As if the two were so comparable!
Mecca could only be comparable to Jerusalem in Judeo-Christianity or to Benares (Varanasi) for the Hindus.
Yet to SNB their displacements would be nothing that unusual !!!! Go figure...

Again, his wishful thinking over my logic only to back fire at him...

____________________
Concerning my tafsirs, sira and hadiths argument, SNB states:

skynightblaze wrote:you assume here quran is complete and answers all the questions. You cant answer questions on the context of the quran without the hadiths so quran's claim that no other hadith should be taken other than itself is completely false.... Secondly quran does make a mention of following muhammad and it alludes to hadiths which I have shown you plenty of times but because you are a troll you are never going to accept them.

I don't assume that the Koran is complete, the Koran says so itself explicitly (5.3; 6. 114-115, etc)!

To simply state, as he does, that the Koran isn't complete is a Sunnite blasphemy which SNB shamelessly endorse!
This implies that he upholds the moral duty for Muslims to carry on female mutilation, childbride marriage, stoning, etc.

He doesn't dare to give references for they would show that each one of his stand were utterly refuted.
viewtopic.php?p=148804#p148804
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8185

___________________
Then he refers to A MENTION of following Muhammad (33.21):
33.21: 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.

In his crippled Sunnite mind... looking unto Allah and remembering Him much becomes:
follow the Prophet so look for... the sira, tafsirs, hadiths and his sunna! That's twisted alright.

Again, on my 2.282 argument, he states

skynightblaze wrote:If you had read that verse carefully you would have understood that its talking about future transactions between 2 parties so how in the world can this verse be applicable here??

This verse is STILL prevailing in ALL Islamic Court cases!
It applies to testimonies to have an Islamic juristic value,
so all the ahaad hadiths' Shariah crumbles down.

''That is more equitable in the sight of Allah and more sure for
testimony, and the best way of avoiding doubt between you...''

''... More sure for TESTIMONY and the best way of avoiding doubt''
Imam Bukhari, Muslim and al trespassed this formal injunction! According to the Koran itself the
ahaad type which they massively adopted, cannot be accepted in any legal Islamic jurisprudence!
If to be truthful to their holy book, Islamic societies MUST erase about 90% of all their legalistic
sanctions ever, including female mutilation and stoning. Do Muslims abide by the Koran or not?

______________
Finally answering my call for some archaeological evidences, SND construct a red herring upon smilies! :lotpot:

The only thing true he ever came out with here is:
From: viewtopic.php?p=149089#p149089
We have archaeological proofs and hence we don’t need any historian to confirm it.
Later: viewtopic.php?p=149177#p149177
There must be proof . Its only that I aint finding it.

And 6 pages later... he STILL hasn't brought any such proof, just a ton of red herring,
ad hominem, post hoc, wrong premise, false dilemma & hasty generalization fallacies.

Until he does bring forth such proof... we can sleep confidently over his case. :sleeping:

by **skynightblaze** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:14 pm

The Cat wrote:-The very chain of one to one narrator (ahaad type) is prove enough that the hadiths are backward writings.
No hadith can be said authentic (sahih) when of the Ahaad type. Only the Mutawatir/Tawatur type is reliable.

So reliable doesnt mean reliable. IT means they are just a basic classification which further needs to be examined. What a stupid troll !

by **yeezevee** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:23 pm

The Cat wrote:And now with your first batch of silliness...

You are not wrong but I really didnt bother to bring proofs. Its so obvious that every single arabic speaker translates the verse 48:24 to include mecca in it

See booktalker how I was right SNB keeps on his argumentum ad populum fallacy.
If Mecca was mentioned several times I wouldn't bother, but ONLY in 48.24? I do...

Good point The Cat., Muslims are fools.,

033.037: And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed.

1). Zaid is mentioned ONLY ONE TIME in Quran.. so it didn't happen..

111.001: Perdition overtake both hands of Abu Lahab, and he will perish.

2). Abu Lahabis mentioned ONLY ONE TIME in Quran.. so it didn't happen
3). Khadija(Ra) was never mentioned in Quran., So whatever Muslims fools told me., The mother of all believers story it is all stupid story

Yessss. we got to tell this to Muslims dear The Cat., you got everything right. We need to rewrite whole Quran and rest of junk in Islam

by **The Cat** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:27 pm

skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:-The very chain of one to one narrator (ahaad type) is prove enough that the hadiths are backward writings.
No hadith can be said authentic (sahih) when of the Ahaad type. Only the Mutawatir/Tawatur type is reliable.

So reliable doesnt mean reliable. IT means they are just a basic classification which further needs to be examined. What a stupid troll !

You need clarification don't you: They're only reliable at first examination, ie. all others MUST be dismissed at first (99.9% of them).

And I've shown that, through the last sermon, even mutawatir hadiths must be scrutinized.
Using the Occam Razor, only the simplest of them (#3) have some chances to be genuine.

Now don't forget to scholarly back up your claims about your Sunnite's trolling...
And to provide PROOFS that Mecca existed where it now stands in the 6th century.
Waiting... :sleeping:

by **skynightblaze** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:28 pm

I had enough of this troll. I am fed up after looking at his arguments.

by **yeezevee** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:35 pm

skynightblaze wrote:I had enough of this troll. I am fed up after looking at his arguments.

There lies the fundamental problem "Why ISLAM is there today the way it is".

Since 1400 years, every smart guy said same thing., "Hell with these story tellers., I don't care what they are telling"

And the end result is the present Islam..

by **skynightblaze** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:13 pm

yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I had enough of this troll. I am fed up after looking at his arguments.

There lies the fundamental problem "Why ISLAM is there today the way it is".

Since 1400 years, every smart guy said same thing., "Hell with these story tellers., I don't care what they are telling"

And the end result is the present Islam..

I am not going to reply to him anymore. I am fed up with the stupid arguments and he is not a smart person . I aint wasting my time. No wonder why none on the forum waste their time on this fellow. I am beginning to see why it makes sense not to argue with idiots like CAT. The only valid point I feel are the historic proofs which show us that mecca was shifted from its original place but I dont see why everything attached with the place becomes corrupt just because of shifting of the place. Thats a stupid conclusion. To add more pain to this troll's pain even quran mentions MECCA so CAT's historic proofs only prove that quran is a fabrication along with the hadiths and I am happy with that conclusion but again he is never going to accept so its waste debating with someone who doesnt even have the common sense to grasp the obvious.

Btw here is what Ali sina had to say regarding this mecca argument..

Ali Sina wrote:This is also a stupid argument. These people want to re-write the story and twist everything. Don't waste your time with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca#Early_history

Faith Freedom International

Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Who is online