Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

[yeezevee]

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

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

I know ., Well The Cat said the same thing about me.

.........
I usually don't care much to answer you. Now you may know why...

but..but, one has to do what one has to do..

[skynightblaze]

I usually don't care much to answer you. Now you may know why...

but..but, one has to do what one has to do..
[/quote]

Tell him first to get a book on how to think logically.

[Ibn Rushd]

Hello. I have been insanely busy this week, so I didn't get back to this thread until now. I see that skynight has addressed me on page 11 regarding the authenticity of Ibn Abbas assertions. I say that Ibn Abbas is a stand-in inserted by the Abbasids in order to say "hey, we were there at the beginning, therefore everything we say is right". The extant texts are extremely late, and we don't have the original autographs or manuscripts, only supposed copies. I venture that these are genuine forgeries from the post 750AD time, rather than faithful copies. The tafsirin and other forms of commentaries match the orthodox forms of Islam as they developed post-800.

Gabriel Said Reynolds in The Qur'an and its Biblical Subtext makes this same case, and extends it to pre-Islamic poetry. The earliest examples of this poetry come from 950 and later, and don't have anything polytheistic in them, so we have no idea what Arabian polytheism looked like, or if it even existed. Also they are based entirely on Qur'anic logia, showing that the forgers had nothing else to go on. Same with hadiths and tafsir: they match the "proper" beliefs that developed after Muhammad was supposed to have lived. The first individual who we know for sure lived was Mu'awiya in the 660s, before that, Muhammad and the 4 Caliphs are not attested.

[yeezevee]

..... The first individual who we know for sure lived was Mu'awiya in the 660s, before that, Muhammad and the 4 Caliphs are not attested.

Well if you know Mu'awiya., then who is this "Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan" dear Ibn Rushd?

The moment you say "Mu'awiya was living in the 660", then Islamic history that you extract from hadith becomes more important that Quran

[skynightblaze]

Hello. I have been insanely busy this week, so I didn't get back to this thread until now. I see that skynight has addressed me on page 11 regarding the authenticity of Ibn Abbas assertions. I say that Ibn Abbas is a stand-in inserted by the Abbasids in order to say "hey, we were there at the beginning, therefore everything we say is right".

Non muslim historians also document existence of Mecca and that is even before Abbasids came into rule so how can you say that Abbasids used Ibn Abbas as merely took to confirm their corrupt assertions??

More ever the important point that you and CAT never consider is considering how feasible is this process of lying. You forget about peer pressure. IF one can corrupt thing so freely and easily then it means majority of people must be supporting this idea otherwise there is no way how they can manage to corrupt things on such a large scale. In this case if Abbasids really corrupted hadiths then how can anyone say that quran is not corrupted? A liar would always first go for the main book i.e quran and then the hadiths.

SO now please tell me do you consider quran also a product of Abbasid dynasty?

The extant texts are extremely late, and we don't have the original autographs or manuscripts, only supposed copies. I venture that these are genuine forgeries from the post 750AD time, rather than faithful copies.

How does existence of manuscripts determine whether the scripture is the truth or false?? WE have manuscripts for quran too but does that mean quran is a clean book ? does it mean its a true book?? Btw we dont have manuscript for every single verse of quran so are muslims now ready to reject quran ?? CAT is copying these arguments from Free minders and since he is incapable of having any coherent thought he doesnt realize that his arguments even destroys the credibility of quran but since he is here on FFI to promote FREE MINDERS faith i,e quran alone we cant expect anything sincere from him.

The tafsirin and other forms of commentaries match the orthodox forms of Islam as they developed post-800.

Coincidentally they also match quran quite a bit.In that case quran also becomes a corrupt book.

Gabriel Said Reynolds in The Qur'an and its Biblical Subtext makes this same case, and extends it to pre-Islamic poetry. The earliest examples of this poetry come from 950 and later, and don't have anything polytheistic in them, so we have no idea what Arabian polytheism looked like, or if it even existed.

To fabricate a lie it should serve some purpose otherwise all these arguments are mere conspiracy theories.
What benefits would anyone get by stating that a tribe of quraish existed who worshipped kaaba of mecca and worshiped multiple Gods? I dont see any purpose for lying about such things.

What benefit do you think Ibn Ishaq and other islamic historians would have got in mentioning construction of MECCA in the 4th century? A very important point is being missed here is that a liar never unconsciously lies. He lies consciously . He is full aware that he is lying. In such a case how can anyone deliberately include things construction of mecca in the 4th century by some pagan when their aim was to claim that MEcca was constructed by Abraham? None can be so stupid to fabricate such a thing. This thing can only happen when one states facts unknowingly by mistake.Such things happen when one makes mistake of saying the truth unknowingly .

Also they are based entirely on Qur'anic logia, showing that the forgers had nothing else to go on. Same with hadiths and tafsir: they match the "proper" beliefs that developed after Muhammad was supposed to have lived. The first individual who we know for sure lived was Mu'awiya in the 660s, before that, Muhammad and the 4 Caliphs are not attested.

How do you know about Mu'awiya in the 660 Ad? Whats the source?

[yeezevee]

Also they are based entirely on Qur'anic logia, showing that the forgers had nothing else to go on. Same with hadiths and tafsir: they match the "proper" beliefs that developed after Muhammad was supposed to have lived. The first individual who we know for sure lived was Mu'awiya in the 660s, before that, Muhammad and the 4 Caliphs are not attested.

How do you know about Mu'awiya in the 660 Ad? Whats the source?

there is no doubt that Early Islamic history has problem w.r.t. its accuracy., but that is true to all 1000 year old history. Leaving the doubts of EARLIEST history of Islam with-in Saudi Arabia., Islamic history could be (or could have been)well established in the surrounding countries that were quite independent during that time such as Egypt and Persia..



Leaving Yemen and Saudi Arabia alone to Muhammad's time(if he was real) The beginning of Islamic onslaught/Islamic political movements on/in Persia, Egypt and Syria should have been well established. The simple question is ., In what year did Islam enter in to countries like Persia, Egypt and Syria?? Form their you walk back ward in time to figure out where & when Islam started and whether there was any character called "Muhammad" during that time.

That Story of the Elephant or Islamic history equating to 570 AD or 550 or 590 is NOT going to stop people believing in the absence of Muhammad or creation of complete Islamic history by Abbasid dynasty which apparently started by the youngest uncle of Mr. Muhammad i.e. Mr. Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib,

‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib (c. 566 – c. 653 CE) was a paternal uncle and Sahabi (companion) of Muhammad, only a few years older than the prophet. A wealthy merchant, during the early years of Islam he protected Muhammad while he was in Mecca, but only became a convert after the Battle of Badr in 2 AH. His descendants founded the Abbassid caliphate in 750 C.E

that Islamic history preached ALL OVER THE WORLD.

off course people like "The Cat and others must have the right to question and explore other alternatives to this Islamic history.

[skynightblaze]

off course people like "The Cat and others must have the right to question and explore other alternatives to this Islamic history.

No one is saying here that CAT or anyone shouldnt question islamic history. The problem is these people are biased when they are questioning . They make a special privilege for quran without applying the same approach to quran as well and then come and state here that quran alone is a reliable book. This is dishonesty.

[yeezevee]

off course people like "The Cat and others must have the right to question and explore other alternatives to this Islamic history.

No one is saying here that CAT or anyone shouldnt question islamic history. The problem is these people are biased when they are questioning . They make a special privilege for quran without applying the same approach to quran as well and then come and state here that quran alone is a reliable book. This is dishonesty.

that is a very good point., that is the question Mr. Cat should answer., It is true that sites like http://www.free-minds.org/ or that Egyptian Biochemist Rashad Khalifa 19ers.Org do give special privilege to Quran But I am NOT VERY CERTAIN that "The Cat" or Ibn Rushd are giving special privileges to Quran and stopping any one Questioning it and its authenticity.

I have NOT read every post of The Cat., But To me what he seem to be doing is "those who question Quran is Swimming against ISLAMIC RIVER CURRENTS and hence they will never succeed" So people like "The Cat" think using Quran as an authentic Islamic manual and Question what Muslim are doing all over the world"to educate Muslims is the best approach.

This approach has been used previously by people like Such as Bahis or Ahmadis effectively becoming a different Islamic sect And then we know where they are in Islam now & what Sunnis in counties like Pakistan or Shias in Iran do to these folks. Off course now times are different. May be people like "The Cat" or that FFI good friend Mughal or that Islamic Scholar from Pakistan with whom Ali Sina had debate dr. Javed Ahmad Ghamdi may succeed in their approach to DE-FANG ORIGINAL ISLAM.

[Idesigner]

off course people like "The Cat and others must have the right to question and explore other alternatives to this Islamic history.

No one is saying here that CAT or anyone shouldnt question islamic history. The problem is these people are biased when they are questioning . They make a special privilege for quran without applying the same approach to quran as well and then come and state here that quran alone is a reliable book. This is dishonesty.

It is lot worst than you think. Koran only muslims are number one revisionists.

These revisionists want to shift all blame on brutal Islamic conquest and rape of Zorstrian Iran and Christian Egypt on Uthman, Umediyas, Muwaiyahs and others who rejected true faith, manufacture or altered pure peaceful teaching of Koran. At the best they want to muddy the water , create doubts and exonerate Mohemmed and his Koran.

They will negate everything which points to continuity of Islamic faith bewteen conquest of Sindh, Iran , Egypt and Mohemmed's migration to Medina. They are hanging by a thread and window of some 150 years which can absolve Islam of all sins. Muwaiyas did it, Abassids did it, Umayedias did it. Abu Bakri, Omar, and Ali the butcher did not exist. Ofcourse Uthman started manufacturing whole story.

[skynightblaze]

off course people like "The Cat and others must have the right to question and explore other alternatives to this Islamic history.

No one is saying here that CAT or anyone shouldnt question islamic history. The problem is these people are biased when they are questioning . They make a special privilege for quran without applying the same approach to quran as well and then come and state here that quran alone is a reliable book. This is dishonesty.

It is lot worst than you think. Koran only muslims are number one revisionists.

These revisionists want to shift all blame on brutal Islamic conquest and rape of Zorstrian Iran and Christian Egypt on Uthman, Umediyas, Muwaiyahs and others who rejected true faith, manufacture or altered pure peaceful teaching of Koran. At the best they want to muddy the water , create doubts and exonerate Mohemmed and his Koran.

They will negate everything which points to continuity of Islamic faith bewteen conquest of Sindh, Iran , Egypt and Mohemmed's migration to Medina. They are hanging by a thread and window of some 150 years which can absolve Islam of all sins. Muwaiyas did it, Abassids did it, Umayedias did it. Abu Bakri, Omar, and Ali the butcher did not exist. Ofcourse Uthman started manufacturing whole story.

These are all conspiracy theories. These people dont realize that quran also becomes unauthentic if it passed through all these corrupt men. I see according to them Abbasids, Ummayads etc etc were honest only in case of quran. They guarded it well and made sure that it wasnt corrupt while at the same time they were fabricating hadiths.

[Idesigner]

According to historians Mohemmed lived betwee 571-632. ACE Could be + or - 50 yeras.

Iranian empire was defeated at the most around 650 ACE. We have Iranian sources to confirm the conquest.

Mir Kasim started his conquest of Sindh around 710 BCE.We have outside sources mentioning the conquest.

Revisionists will have us believe as if these events happned when there was no writing records or was some 5000 years back.

Abbas Miya & Umayadd Miya had about 50 years to radically alter lots of traditions, belief system, history and create whole Mecca to Mediana mythology. Even far away places in Egypt etc also changed everything or started believing in new Mecca and new Mohemmed which was actually located way back in past, some 200 years ago or so, at some other place out side Arabian peninsula.

I know our Ibn is exmuslimmah and she had done painstaking study of Islamic history. She is discussing fine points of history and not out to defend Islam or Mohemmed. We should keep that in mind.

[skynightblaze]

I know our Ibn is exmuslimmah and she had done painstaking study of Islamic history. She is discussing fine points of history and not out to defend Islam or Mohemmed. We should keep that in mind.

I agree with the rest of your post . Now as far as this is concerned I know she is an ex muslim but I dont know whether she believes only ahadith are corrupted or both are corrupted. If she believes both are corrupted by Abbasids it make sense.

CAT I know for sure believes that quran alone is a sacred book of islam because he is here to promote their faith.

[yeezevee]

CAT I know for sure believes that quran alone is a sacred book of islam because he is here to promote their faith.

I slightly modify that., "Cat never promoted Islam and never supported 'Quran as book of Allah/God"., He criticized Islam/Quran/Muhammad INNUMERABLE TIMES in FFI., To me his intentions appears to be different.

Yes He thinks Quran alone sufficient to Muslims and Quran should be the LONELY book for Muslims., rest should be trashed. With that idea he thinks Islam can be as good as any other religion., And I do think that is possible., With Quran alone Islam is like a one SECT of Paganism from Arabia with a bit of OT & NT stories thrown in to it., Off course there is junk in it and people should have freedom to criticize it.

And some times CAT gets excited as he thinks he found some NEW history for Muslims and Islamic faith through his triangulation of old maps around Arabian peninsula .. lol

[The Cat]

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

I didn't know that Ali had the archaeological credentials & history masterings of such people as Creswell, Fehervari, Yehuda Nevo; Goldziher, Schacht, Rippin, Juynboll, Crone & Cook... all of them concurring to state that the Islamic history, the siras and the hadiths, were all fabricated... from the Abbasid era. All of them backed by archaeological & other evidences.

Have a good look again at them (links therein): viewtopic.php?p=150476#p150476
1)--The geographical implausibility of an Abraham/Ishmael foundation to such southern location.
2)--The Abraha inscription...
3)--The direction of the earliest qiblas & the testimony of Jacob of Odessa, corroborated by Baladhuri's Futuh.
4)--The silence of the Yeminite/Nabataean inscriptions over such an 'important' trading and pilgrimage center.
5)--The silence of near contemporary Greek historians and geographers.
6)--The calligraphic evidences...
7)--The Umayyad numismatic evidences, it's absence on the Dome of the Rock.
8)--Yehuda D. Nevo's researches in the Negev.
9)--The probability that the Koranic al-Masjid al-Haram means an Arabic Mt Sinai: Hala-'l Badr.

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.

From you.

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.

First this cannot be firmly established when using the Classical Arabic dictionaries. Second, the Koran doesn't provide
any location of such place, except in 22.26 where 'Makana' can be related to Makna as Abraham's ground. We are still
within the Paran/Midian area, that is where the biblical Mt Horeb and Mt Sinai (which I differentiate) are located.

I think that's Mts Horeb while Mt Sinaï (a volcano) would be Hala-'l Badr, near Al-Haram (the Koranic Masjid al-Haram)!

See:
MECCA -Myth vs Reality: In Search of Mt Sinai!
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8527

Tell him first to get a book on how to think logically.

If that means to think like you... these will suffice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Then again it was you who didn't think logically bringing up Sunnite's trollings as 'proofs'.

More ever the important point that you and CAT never consider is considering how feasible is this process of lying. You forget about peer pressure.

You really don't know what ruling power meant back then, ie. live or death, in an almost totally illiterate society.
The forgery came in chronological layers: political (Umayyad/Abbasid), juristic, religious (Mutazilite/Ulema).

What benefit do you think Ibn Ishaq and other islamic historians would have got in mentioning construction of MECCA in the 4th century?

They were all working under Abbasids' fundings, many from inside their very court... Most of them Persians (not Arabs).

How do you know about Mu'awiya in the 660 Ad? Whats the source?

Why don't you search for a change, instead of displaying your ignorance all over again...

Then, the core of it all...

CAT's historic proofs only prove that quran is a fabrication along with the hadiths and I am happy with that conclusion....

On one hand you defend the very authenticity of the hadiths, on the other one you'd readily give that up if including Koran.
That's honesty, SNB style! :

Then again the Koran can't be dealt with on the same ground as the Siras/Hadiths. The former is all religious guidances, not history.
I've proven so far that the hadiths cannot have any religious binding as per the Shariah, a term the Koran define and limit all too well:
viewtopic.php?p=132870#p132870

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

Translation: I can not provide the goddamn proofs he keeps asking me for.

Many of the threads I've started attract unusual high entries, like this one with 12,235+ hits so far.
That answers me good enough. Thanks, folks!

[yeezevee]

Many of the threads I've started attract unusual high entries, like this one with 12,235+ hits so far.
That answers me good enough. Thanks, folks!

I give that credit to SKB ragging you "The CAT" lol

but what is the bottom line??

CAT I know for sure believes that quran alone is a sacred book of islam because he is here to promote their faith.

Is that is the reason you are writing in to FFI??

[skynightblaze]

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

I didn't know that Ali had the archaeological credentials & history masterings of such people as Creswell, Fehervari, Yehuda Nevo; Goldziher, Schacht, Rippin, Juynboll, Crone & Cook... all of them concurring to state that the Islamic history, the siras and the hadiths, were all fabricated... from the Abbasid era. All of them backed by archaeological & other evidences.

Have a good look again at them (links therein): viewtopic.php?p=150476#p150476
1)--The geographical implausibility of an Abraham/Ishmael foundation to such southern location.
2)--The Abraha inscription...
3)--The direction of the earliest qiblas & the testimony of Jacob of Odessa, corroborated by Baladhuri's Futuh.
4)--The silence of the Yeminite/Nabataean inscriptions over such an 'important' trading and pilgrimage center.
5)--The silence of near contemporary Greek historians and geographers.
6)--The calligraphic evidences...
7)--The Umayyad numismatic evidences, it's absence on the Dome of the Rock.
8)--Yehuda D. Nevo's researches in the Negev.
9)--The probability that the Koranic al-Masjid al-Haram means an Arabic Mt Sinai: Hala-'l Badr.

I aint denying the archaelogical evidences. What I said is if at all you claim that hadiths are a product of Abbasid dynasty (because of your archaelogical or historical proofs) then we cant have a case for quran alone. It simply is not possible that Abbasids on one hand protected quran and on other hand fabricated the hadiths. It means that entire generation of Abbasids were corrupt so there is no stopping them from corrupting quran.

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.

First this cannot be firmly established when using the Classical Arabic dictionaries. Second, the Koran doesn't provide
any location of such place, except in 22.26 where 'Makana' can be related to Makna as Abraham's ground. We are still
within the Paran/Midian area, that is where the biblical Mt Horeb and Mt Sinai (which I differentiate) are located.
I think that's Mts Horeb while Mt Sinaï (a volcano) would be Hala-'l Badr, near Al-Haram (the Koranic Masjid al-Haram)!
See:
MECCA -Myth vs Reality: In Search of Mt Sinai!
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8527

You didnt understand the point . Your translations are flawed as Debunker pointed out. Every single arabic word has a root but its not necessary that every time the word in question gets the meaning of its root.

Tell him first to get a book on how to think logically.

If that means to think like you... these will suffice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

You seem to know only 3 fallacies and every time you try to fit what I say in the one of them. I doubt whether you even understand what those fallacies are.

Then again it was you who didn't think logically bringing up Sunnite's trollings as 'proofs'.

Logic is not sunnite. That is if you didnt know.Most of my posts are based on logic and not Sunnite arguments.

More ever the important point that you and CAT never consider is considering how feasible is this process of lying. You forget about peer pressure.

You really don't know what ruling power meant back then, ie. live or death, in an almost totally illiterate society.
The forgery came in chronological layers: political (Umayyad/Abbasid), juristic, religious (Mutazilite/Ulema).

How do you know about all this? I mean historical or archaelogical evidence doesnt tell us anything about illiterate society or corruption in political or religious layers etc.It seems that you selectively pick from those sources again. YOu have been committing this fallacy throughout our debate right from day 1. Btw You didnt understand what I am saying Ibn Rushd. Corruption isnt an easy thing unless the entire generation of muslims are corrupt and majority of people support you.

What benefit do you think Ibn Ishaq and other islamic historians would have got in mentioning construction of MECCA in the 4th century?

They were all working under Abbasids' fundings, many from inside their very court... Most of them Persians (not Arabs).

You simply didnt understand what I asked. Yes historians would fabricate because they were getting paid but my question is very specific. Getting paid would explain as to why Ibn Ishaq would fabricate things but this doesnt explain why Abbasids would want Ibn Ishaq to include facts like construction of mecca in the 4th century AD especially when their aim was to say that Mecca was built in the time of Abraham.

It simply doesnt make sense because it only exposes their false claims that mecca existed since Abrahams time. They could have inserted some other fact or they could have simply chosen not to say anything about construction of mecca in the 4th century at all.

How do you know about Mu'awiya in the 660 Ad? Whats the source?

Why don't you search for a change, instead of displaying your ignorance all over again...

Why dont you use your common sense for a change? I didnt ask her because I didnt know how to google. I asked her for proofs because I see she is using the same islamic sources which she calls unreliable just like you. Thats a fallacy called selective picking.

Then, the core of it all...

CAT's historic proofs only prove that quran is a fabrication along with the hadiths and I am happy with that conclusion....

On one hand you defend the very authenticity of the hadiths, on the other one you'd readily give that up if including Koran.
That's honesty, SNB style! :

I do this because I see the dishonesty in the first place from the quran alone muslims. They wish to re write history as Ali said. They want to whitewash the crimes of Muhammad and thats why I defend hadiths so that I can prove it to them that their prophet was indeed a criminal so when they use historic proofs to debunk hadiths I show them how it debunks quran too.You dont understand my approach . Thats called double attack I give them an option to chose and either way they chose they end up losing like....

1)If hadiths are unreliable then so is quran and hence islam is unreliable

OR

2) Hadiths are reliable and hence islam is a word of criminal and hence islam should be discarded.

Then again the Koran can't be dealt with on the same ground as the Siras/Hadiths. The former is all religious guidances, not history.I've proven so far that the hadiths cannot have any religious binding as per the Shariah, a term the Koran define and limit all too well:
viewtopic.php?p=132870#p132870

Why cant quran be dealt the same way? Just because quran is a religious guidance and not history doesnt make it corruption proof. Do you think that the same Abbasidds who corrupted hadiths to show muhammad was a paedophile,thief , a rapist etc etc would suddenly become honest when it comes to quran and preserve its truthfullness? Are you really so gullible to believe that one who is bent on hell to defame muhamamd would only corrupt hadiths instead of corrupting quran??

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

Translation: I can not provide the goddamn proofs he keeps asking me for.

The question of providing proofs arises when one doesnt have a logical argument to begin with. I have a logical argument and there is no need of any historical proof to prove my logic. What I said is if you accept hadiths then muhamamd is a criminal and hence islam is unreliable or else if you reject hadiths (on account of historical proofs proving corruption by Abbassids) then quran also becomes unreliable so chose either way and you still lose! Thats my whole argument .Now why would I require any historical proof ? My logic is implicit and self sufficient to refute quran alone muslims.

Many of the threads I've started attract unusual high entries, like this one with 12,235+ hits so far.
That answers me good enough. Thanks, folks!

I guess you forgot APPEAL TO POPULARITY FALLACY How do you know people dont enjoy seeing your stupidity? I mean sometimes I read other forums to merely see how stupid they are. It makes me laugh . Keep in mind your threads could be getting hits because you are stupid. EVen stupidity is admired by many people because they get a good laugh out of it.

[The Cat]

The question of providing proofs arises when one doesnt have a logical argument to begin with. I have a logical argument and there is no need of any historical proof to prove my logic. What I said is if you accept hadiths then muhamamd is a criminal and hence islam is unreliable or else if you reject hadiths (on account of historical proofs proving corruption by Abbassids) then quran also becomes unreliable so chose either way and you still lose! Thats my whole argument .Now why would I require any historical proof ? My logic is implicit and self sufficient to refute quran alone muslims.

Demonstrate, from historical proofs and reliable EVIDENCES, that the Koran is an Abbasid forgery from A to Z,
like I've done for the Siras/Hadiths, Muhammad/Mecca. Open a thread in the concerned main and go ahead...

Put your money where your mouth is this once. Be self-logical at least... Oh, I forgot... you don't need proofs!
Prove us then that you're not a clown! Or as they say: All hat, no cattle ! Thanks for the BIG laugh anyway...



____________
Soon I'll publish some more articles over Mecca and, later, we will explore the 'Becca' of 3.96...

[yeezevee]

Demonstrate, from historical proofs and reliable EVIDENCES, that the Koran is an Abbasid forgery from A to Z,

So who forged the present BOOKISH Quran "The Cat"?? Or you think that Quran is word of Allah and no one forged it and every word of it is perfectly preserved from the start?

You are a better Islamic historian than SKB., so you should know that. His point is simply if Hadith is forged by Abbasids then the potential of forging Quran by them can not be neglected.

And what is this A to Z forgery business? Even if Abbasid dynasty forged one sentence of Quran means, it is forged by those guys. It doesn't need to be every word is forged by Abbasid rulers.

[skynightblaze]

The question of providing proofs arises when one doesnt have a logical argument to begin with. I have a logical argument and there is no need of any historical proof to prove my logic. What I said is if you accept hadiths then muhamamd is a criminal and hence islam is unreliable or else if you reject hadiths (on account of historical proofs proving corruption by Abbassids) then quran also becomes unreliable so chose either way and you still lose! Thats my whole argument .Now why would I require any historical proof ? My logic is implicit and self sufficient to refute quran alone muslims.

Demonstrate, from historical proofs and reliable EVIDENCES, that the Koran is an Abbasid forgery from A to Z,
like I've done for the Siras/Hadiths, Muhammad/Mecca. Open a thread in the concerned main and go ahead...

You simply dont get it. Every single need not be historically proven. If you had ever passed a basic logic test you would have known this.When one can support his argument using logic is there really a need of historical proofs?

To dismiss quran we dont need it to be corrupted from A to Z. Now the simple logic which you and whom your lick arse dont understand is quran cannot be a clean book especially if the corrupt Abbasids were bent like hell to defame muhammad by making up hadiths which show muhammad as the worst person to live on this earth. CErtainly people who hate muhammad so much and who fabricate the entire hadiths as stupidly claimed by you are going to corrupt the quran in the first place. You dont need genius to understand this simple fact nor does anyone require historic proofs to understand this. That is why I repeat. There is still time. GO and grasp a book of logic.


Btw you didnt prove that Abbasids corrupted everything from A to Z. What your historic sources prove is that location of MEcca was changed which doesnt NECCESSARILY mean that A-Z hadiths are corrupt.The change of place isnt an indicator of fabrication of every single thing. This is yet another stupid conclusion because you simply are devoid of any reasoning abilities.

Put your money where your mouth is this once. Be self-logical at least... Oh, I forgot... you don't need proofs!
Prove us then that you're not a clown! Or as they say: All hat, no cattle ! Thanks for the BIG laugh anyway...

What a troll you are! You cant even understand basics of reasoning .I dont need proofs because I have the logic. There is simply no way how Abbassids are going to leave the quran alone and only focus on hadiths. I think you are a master at being stupid. Tell are you proud to be so stupid? I mean first of all you act stupid and then use those smilies which magnify your stupidity manifold.

____________
Soon I'll publish some more articles over Mecca and, later, we will explore the 'Becca' of 3.96...

Did you mean that you will again copy paste new articles from your teachers- the free minders??

[skynightblaze]

Demonstrate, from historical proofs and reliable EVIDENCES, that the Koran is an Abbasid forgery from A to Z,

So who forged the present BOOKISH Quran "The Cat"?? Or you think that Quran is word of Allah and no one forged it and every word of it is perfectly preserved from the start?

Out come the true intentions ! So basically his point is Abbasids were honest to the core when it came to quran which means he is here to tell us how quran is authentic and hadiths are not which is what Free minders say.

I think he wants to tell us that that with one hand Abbasids were writing hadiths in huge numbers by calling muhammad a paedophile, a thief, a rapist, a mass murderer etc etc and with the sword in the other hand saying " Dare anyone touch our holy book and corrupt it or defame our prophet muhammad(pbuh) " . This displays abundantly how weak this person is when it comes to using common sense.