Comments : Abrogation in the quran. Mesmorial vs Skynightbl

[skynightblaze]

"I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic for fear of [excessive] length.(Footnote 2)"

Footnote 2 says:

He [al-Bukhari] meant that he did not mention all the turuq [parallel chains of transmission] for each and every hadith.[7]

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html

[Gauge123]

One thing for sure, Mes and I are much more a threat to nowadays so-called 'Islam' than you'll ever be!

You have a sense of humour! That's a good start.

And you really don't know the depth of what you are saying here...hahahahahah

[The Cat]

Only Ibn Rushd supports you here but when she is questioned whether she shares the belief of yours i,e quran alone then she keeps mum.Other than that none supports you and your idiocies here. Book talker tried supporting you because he thought that you are talking about unreliability of both i.e quran and the ahadith but when he realized that was not the case he didnt bother showing up himself.

How sweet: joining an argumentum ad populum fallacy with ad Hominem and a Moving the Goalposts altogether! Yet unfounded...
And it's not me they support but my kind of scholarly approach, contrary to your elephant-in-a-glass-house attitude. Let us see:

Ibn Rushd

Great to see Ansar and Booktalker here. I appreciate Cat's doings as well. It takes a leap of faith to realize these connections that he's
making, what most of academia would never do since that takes them outside the establishment. Funding is also an issue for them.

I think this thread has degenerated beyond the initial scholarly inputs that were on the first 7 pages. Now it's a slinging match.

Guess who has shown up page 8... skynightblaze and its industrial fallacies!
And Ibn Rushd isn't debating much... especially with rude people like you.

booktalker.

Cat digs deep and brings us evidence to show, for example, that Muhammad could not have been born
when Islam says he was and may never have existed at least in the form we are told he did

Your answers to him and Ibn Rushd were another example of the fallacy of Moving the Goalposts. They rightfully abstained.

So I've answered to 'maat'

Some people here are running after me as if I was Muhammad himself, or the subject of this thread!!

Ansar al-Zindiqi

The emotional responses against what the Cat has written down have been so emotional that they actually obfuscates the points they are
trying to get across. What we have forgotten is that the Cat is exploring territory that hasn't been fully explored.... Those who dare to go
that far into uncharted territory have my respect.

maat

Cat is just about the only one that keeps this forum going in the spirit it was intended....
This forum used to be the broadest and hottest thing on the web.
Not a simplistic hate-site! For that you can join any nazi-site on offer.

This opinion is corroborated by FFI rating downfall, while many of my threads still attract unusual number of visitors.
To the Internet world we became disgusting matter so Muslims can laugh at us on their way to the mosque, no sweat.

Right now, the Quranists are the biggest threat there is to nowadays 'Islam'. Skynightblaze doesn't like it of course!
Is skynightblaze a closet Sunnite, working at our pitfall rather than that of Islam? It's becoming a wonder to me...

As a matter of fact, I do not need 'his' arguments at all, I can check Sunnite sources: they're the same anyway!

[skynightblaze]

Guess who has shown up page 8... skynightblaze and its industrial fallacies!
And Ibn Rushd isn't debating much... especially with rude people like you.

Those posts are obviously before i asked them the questions.Ansar backed off and so did booktalker. They didnt bother to reply. I was never rude to Ibn Rushd and she has replied to my posts on many counts. Ask anyone among these people whom you have mentioned whether they support your quran alone approach.They obviously dont speak because they dont want to tell you that you are stupid. Their silence is an indication but alas if you had basic common sense you wouldnt make a fool out of yourself.Lastly when Ibn Rushd said that post 8 onwards there were no scholarly replies. You also made several posts from page 8 so it would also mean you didnt add any scholarly replies.

AS far as fallacies are concerned you are a powerhouse of them. Moving the goal posts means moving the original goal and focusing on something else. In case of your responses I am adding to the goal and not moving the goal itself. What I claim is ahadith and quran both become unreliable which means I didnt move the original goal but only added to it. Now had I avoided ahadith and mentioned quran alone then it would be moving goal posts fallacy. Obviously you are incapable of understanding simple things.

[skynightblaze]

This opinion is corroborated by FFI rating downfall, while many of my threads still attract unusual number of visitors.
To the Internet world we became disgusting matter so Muslims can laugh at us on their way to the mosque, no sweat.

The last time I gave such kind of justifications of me being scholarly would be perhaps when I was 5 year old. . People view my threads and hence I am scholarly what a logic Even an attention whore attracts people but that doesnt mean she is a scholarly.

[The Cat]

I'll close my participation in this thread over abrogation. Skynightblaze, most naturally, parrots the Sunnite's position!

Quoting Muhammad Asad and yusuf ali to disprove abrogation in the quran is no proof of at all.

Well, MesMorial did a good job in exposing your Sunnite fallacy, isn't it? And there's more that he, Asad and Ali disproving it...

Muhammad Al-Ghazali's View on Abrogation in the Qur'an, by Khaleel Mohammed (emphases mine).
Opening on the 16.101/2.106 question... then digging into history.

http://www.forpeoplewhothink.org/Topics ... Quran.html

I found that the Shaykh, Jurist and Historian, al-Khidri, categorically rejected this meaning of naskh. He stated: "It does not occur except
to make specific, or limit, or explain that which is otherwise general and unconditional." Shaykh Rashid Rida reiterated the same even more
clearly, referring to the verse: "We do not abrogate (naskh) a sign or cause it to be forgotten (al-Baqara:106).....

He explained that an ayah can be in the form of religious obligations (ayat taklifiyyah) or cosmic phenomena (ayat takwiniyyah), and that
which is abrogated in Sura al-Baqara are the latter; there are no commandments abrogated by the verse. The meaning of takwiniyyah is
well known; it is those occurrences contrary to natural laws (miracles) with which the Prophets were assisted... Such phenomena are the
things that change with the passage of time. As for the verses of commandments, I studied them carefully vis a vis the verse: "And if we
substitute one sign for another -- and Allah knows best what He reveals in stages -- they say, thou art but a forger...(Q16:101)." ......

There was none from among the polytheists claiming that Muhammad was legislating edicts and then abrogating them... absolutely none
-- for there was no law in Mecca that was abrogated by a verse revealed in Mecca. Neither in the history of revelation, nor in the history
of jurisprudence is it established that any law was revealed at Mecca and then later cancelled by a verse revealed in that same city. The
Qur'an does not state this. The conjecture therefore is baseless; there are no laws that abrogate the meaning of the verse.......

There is no verse in the Qur'an which may be said to be out of commission, and is therefore now invalid; this is nonsense. Each verse is
potentially valid, but it is He, the Legislator who knows the conditions in which the verses may be applied, and it is in this manner that
the Qur'anic verses are to be considered in light of the state of human affairs -- with wisdom and exhortation. Does not the context of
the verse "We do not abrogate an ayah or cause it to be forgotten" (Q2:106) denote that the matter pertains to the abrogation of the
laws of previous religions by a new one?.....

In quoting respected Shaykhs, al-Ghazali was showing that his words had been echoed before and that he was not in fact committing that
hated sin -- innovation in Islamic thought. Never once does he refer to the writing of Muhammad Amin who, like al-Ghazali, rejected the
notion of abrogation. We surmise that this pointed lack of mention is that he did not want to identify with someone who had been
classified as a heretic by the (Sunnite) 'ulama (infra:12).

In focusing on Rashid Rida's understanding of the ayah in Q2.106, al-Ghazali brought to the fore something that had been overlooked by
scholars to a great extent -- that the Qur'anic application of some everyday words to a specific, and sometimes newer, context, effectively
obliterated the pre-Islamic understanding of those terms in many cases. As the Japanese scholar Toshihiko Isutzu has shown, one example
is the word "kafir" which in the parlance of the Muslims is taken to mean infidel, whereas the original usage of the word simply meant "a
man who does not show gratitude to his benefactor" (Isutzu 1964:52).

In addition to the problem of trying to understand the apparently contradictory verses of the Qur'an, it would seem that a misunderstanding
of the word ayah gave rise to the concept of abrogation. The word ayah "... has several meanings in the Qur'an, all of which are interrelated
through the literal meaning of 'sign,' some being at times interchangeable with others" (Mir 1987:24). Since the Qur'an is one of the "signs"
sent down by God to guide humankind to Him, it is also regarded as an ayah, and within that document itself the word is used in several
places to show that the Qur'anic verses are to be referred to by this name (e.g.Q2:252; Q16:101). Despite ayah being used in its original
lexical connotation in many verses, however, (Q2:118; Q7:73), the classical jurists seem to have understood it to mean a verse.....

Concentrated criticism of the abrogation concept only started in the latter part of the last century with Muhammad Abduh, Sir Sayyid
Ahmad Khan, and Rashid Rida in the vanguard. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan decided to read the so-called abrogation verse in relation to
the one that immediately precedes it, and to claim that what was being abrogated was the Mosaic Law. He dismissed all the ahadith
purporting to explain the reasons for revelation of the verse by stating flatly, " . . . not even a single hadith cited by them is sound."
He even further noted that " ... the whole controversy over nasikh and mansukh is nonsensical" (Hahn 1974:126).....

Conclusion....
The thrust towards a thematic understanding of the Qur'an will gain greater force among Muslims. How long it will take for the traditional
concept of naskh to be abrogated by the reading of Q2:106 as relating to historical and cosmological phenomena, however, is a question for
which it is too early to hazard a guess.

See how it's not only me, Ali or Mr. Asad, that are showing that Ayah can't be shrinked to 'verse'. Just another Sunnite Pharisaical impetus.

Quite obviously this ''will gain greater force among Muslims'' because it's the most logical outcome. Not yours, parroting the Sunnites...

http://www.questionsonislam.com/index.p ... na&id=2207

It is said that it was only Abu Muslim al-Isfahani who thought that there were not any abrogated verses in the Quran, in the past.
However, Abu Ali Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Junaid states that he denies the presence of abrogation, in his work named al-Fash ala
man Ajaza’n-Naskh. The fact that Razi reported Isfahani’s views without any comments in his book “Tafsir al-i Kabir” is thought to
mean that he supports Isfahani.

In our time, as a result of efforts to decrease the number of verses which are considered to be abrogated, the view that there are not
any abrogated verses in the Quran has started to be adopted generally and eventually the number of scholars who adopt this view has
increased. It is an accepted view by all Islamic scholars that decrees of the Quran invalidated some religious rules in the time of early
prophets. Also, there has been abrogation in Islam about some issues such as changing of qiblah....

[The Cat]

Those posts are obviously before i asked them the questions.Ansar backed off and so did booktalker. They didnt bother to reply. I was never rude to Ibn Rushd

It's for them to say. Not you by all means... You are being quite felonious on this here:
Fabricating 'testimonies' in absentia is how your 'authenticated' hadiths were forged !
You even borrowed that trait from Sunnites!

I am adding to the goal and not moving the goal itself.

Pure sophistry again, as I've said you don't even know where a fallacy begins...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence
presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded

The last time I gave such kind of justifications of me being scholarly would be perhaps when I was 5 year old.

You obviously hasn't grown up much.

[skynightblaze]

Those posts are obviously before i asked them the questions.Ansar backed off and so did booktalker. They didnt bother to reply. I was never rude to Ibn Rushd

It's for them to say. Not you by all means... You are being quite felonious on this here:
Fabricating 'testimonies' in abstencia is how your 'authenticated' hadiths were forged !
You even borrowed that trait from Sunnites!

I had challenged your supporters but they didnt come to your rescue and always kept quiet. Silence speaks louder than words sometimes.

I am adding to the goal and not moving the goal itself.

Pure sophistry again, as I've said you don't even know where a fallacy begins...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

There is no need for you to demonstrate what kind of poor thinker you are.You have demonstrated that plenty of times and now the whole forum now knows what kind of idiot you are.

Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence
presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded

Here is a classic example of what an idiot you are. Did I dismiss the claim of ahadith be false? Did I dismiss the evidence with regards to your specific claim (about ahadith being corrupted)?? I only added to your claim.

The last time I gave such kind of justifications of me being scholarly would be perhaps when I was 5 year old.

You obviously hasn't grown up much.

You are becoming a laughing stock for the forum. If ever your supporters read such kind of statements they are only going to nervous to defend you. I love this . "I am scholarly because people view my threads". As I said ,people were previously fooled into believing that you make some kind of scholarly posts but now its crystal clear to anyone who has common sense(ofcourse you are excluded ) that you are nothing but a copy pasting troll who is absolutely incapable of thinking.

I am proud that I haven't grown up to understand such a complicated concept i.e people watching my threads makes me scholarly

[The Cat]

Those posts are obviously before i asked them the questions.Ansar backed off and so did booktalker. They didnt bother to reply. I was never rude to Ibn Rushd

It's for them to say. Not you by all means... You are being quite felonious on this here:
Fabricating 'testimonies' in abstencia is how your 'authenticated' hadiths were forged !
You even borrowed that trait from Sunnites!

I had challenged your supporters but they didnt come to your rescue and always kept quiet. Silence speaks louder than words sometimes.

Thanks for admitting the felony of fabricating testimonies in absentia.

I am adding to the goal and not moving the goal itself.

Pure sophistry again, as I've said you don't even know where a fallacy begins...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence
presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded

I only added to your claim.

Thanks for admitting that you 'raised the bar', asking for 'greater evidence' as per the fallacy

You are becoming a laughing stock for the forum.

You sure are the scholar of logical fallacies over here, adding ad hominem to argumentum ad populum.

This is yet just another attempt to move the goalposts from abrogation to me, as in the other thread!
I now will disengage from this endless fallacy collector...

[The Cat]

This one last post on how fallacious is the abrogation theory is...

http://www.rim.org/muslim/clear.htm

Tabari informs in his commentary that already by his time there are disagreements on whether abrogation applies to matters of law, matters of fact, or both Abu-Muslim being the only commentator to hold that there is no abrogation in the law, but rather that abrogation refers to the earlier Scriptures. Later, we find out from Razi that the issues of contention are basically the same in his time, though Razi has acknowledged the 'lost verse' of the Qur'an. He also informs us that Abu Muslim is still alone in his view of abrogation - over three centuries later. Then, after Razi, something happens. The number of verses which are deemed abrogated begins to dwindle, and dwindle dramatically.

While the non-Muslim scholar, such as Watt, maintains that the Qur'an teaches abrogation (largely in accord with the majority of Muslim commentators on this point), the modern Muslim diverges radically from the early commentators. Shah Walli Allah (d. 1762) reduces the number of abrogated verses from an excess of 200 down to five. Yusuf Ali is more radical yet. While he holds that there may be some laws abrogated (playing down the millennia of commentators that did not doubt the fact), he informs us that most, if not all references dealing with abrogation have to do with the Bible....

Now one can grant that Yusuf Ali may be correct in this novel interpretation - but honesty requires him to tell his readers that in thirteen centuries, there has been one commentator who did not see the verse as having direct reference to the Qur'an. Here are his words:

''The word which I have translated by the word "revelations" is Ayat. See n. 15. It is not only used for verses of the Qur'an, but in a general sense for Allah's revelations, as in ii. 39 and for other Signs of Allah in history or nature, or miracles, as in 11. 61. It has even been used for human signs and tokens of wonder, as for example, monuments or landmarks built by the ancient people of 'Ad (xxvi. 128). What is the meaning here? If we take it in a general sense, it means that Allah's Message from age to age is always the same, but that its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time. That form was different as given to Moses and then to Jesus and then to Muhammad. Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat of the Qur'an. There is nothing derogatory in this if we believe in progressive revelation. In iii. 7 we are told distinctly about the Qur'an, that some of its verses are clear (and of established meaning), and others are not entirely clear, and it is mischievous to treat the verses that are not entirely clear and to follow them (literally). On the other hand, it is absurd to treat such a verse as ii. 115 as if it were abrogated by ii. 144 about the Qibla.''

Now, this goes hand and hand with the corrupted Bible Islamic version (based on 2.75; 3.70-71; 5.13; 5.44; 6.20). This question must be
seen in the light that Islam was influenced by the Samaritan teachings that ONLY the Torah is genuine, in accordance with the Koran which
never mentioned the 'Bible', but only the Torah & Psalms. Thus, it's not only the Jewish Midrash, Gemarra or Mishna that's condemned but
everything between the Torah and the Prophets (including David & Salomon)! Even Jerusalem isn't mentioned once in the Koran!

[skynightblaze]

I'll close my participation in this thread over abrogation. Skynightblaze, most naturally, parrots the Sunnite's position!

Quoting Muhammad Asad and yusuf ali to disprove abrogation in the quran is no proof of at all.

Well, MesMorial did a good job in exposing your Sunnite fallacy, isn't it? And there's more that he, Asad and Ali disproving it...

I showed Mesmorial contradictions in the quran. I showed him for e.g that 8:66 abrogates 8:65 i.e previous command for a single muslim soldier to fight 10 disbelievers was abrogated by 8:66 which instructed a single muslim to fight 2 disbeliever.HE danced around this fact to create smoke screens. HE claimed that the verse 8:66 says "AT PRESENT we have lightened the task/burden" and hence it doesn't mean abrogation but then if 8:65 was never abrogated then where is the command issued to reactivate the same???. If something is not abrogated then we should be finding a command reactivating it again or else its abrogated i.e we should be finding the reissue of the command for a single muslim to fight 10 disbelievers .

When this excuse didnt work he started claiming its talking about ability of muslims and its not a command but then I pointed out to him Why would quran say " Allah has lightened your burden/task" if the verse was merely talking about abilities and not command? Then he came up with an excuse i.e Allah lightening things/burden can mean weakening the enemy and not necessarily lightening the burden of muslims by issuing a command to fight 2 disbelievers but however that idea becomes flop because if Allah had weakened the enemy then muslims should reach full strength i.1 should kill 10 . How can the ability of muslims become less if Allah is helping them by weakening the enemy? The verse says that 1 muslim should kill 2 disbelievers so this means inspite of Allah helping the muslims the quran says that 1 muslim can fight only 2 disbelievers which means Allah ceases to be all powerful. So even this excuse doesn't work so ultimately it means that 8:66 was a command from Allah which abrogated the previous verse .SImilarly 2:284 abrogates 2:286 . His only valid point I thought was me claiming 2:234 abrogating 2:240 while rest was all nonsense.

so we have an example from the quran itself to confirm abrogation.

Muhammad Al-Ghazali's View on Abrogation in the Qur'an, by Khaleel Mohammed (emphases mine).
Opening on the 16.101/2.106 question... then digging into history.

There are thousands of opinions in support of abrogation so quoting opinions isnt going to establish anything so I am skipping an opinion that you brought.

There was none from among the polytheists claiming that Muhammad was legislating edicts and then abrogating them... absolutely none
-- for there was no law in Mecca that was abrogated by a verse revealed in Mecca. Neither in the history of revelation, nor in the history
of jurisprudence is it established that any law was revealed at Mecca and then later cancelled by a verse revealed in that same city. The
Qur'an does not state this. The conjecture therefore is baseless; there are no laws that abrogate the meaning of the verse.......

Mecca?? Mecca existed during muhammads time ?? Dude you are copy pasting without realizing the dangers associated with it.

Coming to the point, if these muslims whom you quoted seem to believe in the pagans of pre islamic arabia. Now if we read the tafsirs they mention a context where in the pagans accuse muhammad of forgery because he replaced one verse with other in the quran so there does exist proof of pagans accusing muhammad. Thirdly if they are so fond of believing in Pagans are they ready to believe that muhammad was a liar? PAgans called him a liar and a forger so now they should have no problem in believing in pagans.

There is no verse in the Qur'an which may be said to be out of commission, and is therefore now invalid; this is nonsense. Each verse is
potentially valid, but it is He, the Legislator who knows the conditions in which the verses may be applied, and it is in this manner that
the Qur'anic verses are to be considered in light of the state of human affairs -- with wisdom and exhortation.

He knows? Allah only knows the conditions in which the verses may be applied? doesnt that mean quran isnt for mankind???

Does not the context of
the verse "We do not abrogate an ayah or cause it to be forgotten" (Q2:106) denote that the matter pertains to the abrogation of the
laws of previous religions by a new one?.....

[002:105]
It is never the wish of those without Faith among the People of the Book, nor of the Pagans, that anything good should come down to you from your Lord. But God will choose for His special Mercy whom He will - for God is Lord of grace abounding.


The context also mentions name of pagans. Pagans had no holy scriptures so how can the mere mention of jews and christians in the previous verse mean that 2:106 is talking about abrogation of previous scriptures? The verse mentions pagans also and pagans had no scriptures so its clear that the verse isnt talking about previous scriptures.

Anyway I have showed verses from quran to prove abrogation and hence if anyone is talking nonsense then its your authors.

To be continued...

[skynightblaze]

Thanks for admitting that you 'raised the bar', asking for 'greater evidence' as per the fallacy

I added to the goal but I didnt dismiss the original goal and hence I didnt raise the bar. Raising the bar means dismissing the original goal and then setting up a new goal which is slightly higher than the previous one. The key point in raising the bar is the previous evidence or goal is dismissed . I said even quran becomes unreliable because of your arguments .In other words I said your arguments backfire against you. That's not called raising the bar but again as we know you and logic have absolutely no connection and hence you make a fool of yourself again. The definition of moving goal posts includes a vital point i.e.e dismissing the evidence presented in the first place. I didnt dismiss the evidence. I upheld it and said along with ahadith quran also goes down the drain. That's not dismissing the evidence presented.

[Multiple]

I thought ABROGATION was just Mohammad's and devious Muslims way of trying to cover up all the Self Contradictions, Scientific absurdity, Plagiarism, Mistakes, Stupidity and downright Nonsense in the Koran.

[The Cat]

I thought ABROGATION was just Mohammad's and devious Muslims way of trying to cover up all the Self Contradictions, Scientific absurdity, Plagiarism, Mistakes, Stupidity and downright Nonsense in the Koran.

Thus skynightblaze always parroting the Sunnite's position, like he has done about the authenticity of the hadiths is much troubling.

So I wrote:
Is skynightblaze a closet Sunnite, working at our pitfall rather than that of Islam? It's becoming a wonder to me...
As a matter of fact, I do not need 'his' arguments at all, I can check Sunnite sources: they are the same anyway!

His Mullah/Sunnite unshakable background resurfaced in all my debates with him... herein too! Thus my wonders...

[The Cat]

I added to the goal but I didnt dismiss the original goal and hence I didnt raise the bar. Raising the bar means dismissing the original goal and then setting up a new goal which is slightly higher than the previous one.... The definition of moving goal posts includes a vital point i.e.e dismissing the evidence presented in the first place. I didnt dismiss the evidence. I upheld it and said along with ahadith quran also goes down the drain. That's not dismissing the evidence presented.

I'm a goaler and you add to the dimension of my goal... so that your team can win;
you haven't dismissed that there's a goal (your sophistry) but you've raised the bar.

Many logical fallacies are inter-related. Basically what you've done is building a Strawman,
by 'Poisoning the Well' so to introduce a 'Slippery Slope', leading to an 'Ad Hoc' fallacy...

As I've said you're a fallacy collector (ad hominem, wrong premise, false dilemma, hasty generalization, etc).

Moving_the_goalposts
The term is often used in business to imply bad faith on the part of those setting goals for others to meet,
by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met.

Straw Man
Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against,
rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.

Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting
unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person.

Slippery Slope Fallacy (Camel's Nose)
The assumption that something is wrong because it is right next to something that is wrong.

Ad-hoc reasoning
The arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid.

The original strawman is your wrong premise (as always) that I'm of the 'Koraner-faith' since I do
not include the Koran when trashing the hadiths/sira and the historical Muhammad/Mecca.

Muhammad, in the Koran, is of NO historical importance and Mecca (if mentioned at all) isn't located at all.
So I simply can't mix them together, as you do, without 'dismissing the evidence'. Going your way would have
indeed shattered the credibility of my initial stand based on history, as the whole thread was intended...

For you can't say that the historical prophet or Mecca, going down the drain with the Islamic traditions (siras/hadiths),
drowns the Koran too. It was common knowledge way before the Abbasids, for we know that governor al-Hajjaj in 710,
collected the copies to add the diacritical marks and there's also the Sana'a manuscript, let alone John of Damascus...

[The Cat]

Mutwatir testimonies are reliable only in cases of quran but if we are to consider Mutawatir ahadith then they are not . Why arent the mutwatir ahadith are reliable then? .... Would the mutawatir ahadith be reliable if Abbasids fabricated everything? SOmeone who can fabricate the entire history will also fabricate the chains of narrations so how can Mutwatir ahadith or isnad of quran be reliable?.... Ahmed Bahgat also has refuted you clearly with evidence that the word mecca should exist in 48:24.

The Sunnite keeps on rolling its barrel...

1. AB never had the upper hand on me. Or else, prove it! 'Squabbling' translates way better the Classical MKK of 48.24,
according to Classical Arabic Dictionaries. More so, since the term 'makkata' is NOT found anywhere else in the Koran!

2. The mutawatir type, as I've maintained, is only a first selection. Then they have to be judged on their own merit (matn).
I've been clear on this but must repeat, again and again, for your Sunnite mind:
viewtopic.php?p=148804#p148804
viewtopic.php?p=150791#p150791
viewtopic.php?p=150810#p150810
MesMorial had such a look over them...
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=9755

3. Silly you, the Abbasids didn't write nor even collected the Koran. It was already public/common knowledge! Get it?

YOu claimed Quraish never existed.... Now you will claim that you asked for external references in otherwords non sunnite references. Its mean quran is acceptable because you yourself quote the quran to make your case .

What a contrived logic, yet again from ANOTHER wrong premise!

First, like Mecca, I never claimed they never existed but that they were different from the Islamic traditional call.
In the case of Mecca, it's all about its former location and Sura 106 does say they were caravaners, a trading unit.

And when I asked for external references, I meant that such a major trading unit should have been known externally.
How strange then that we've got NO external writings, from that time, referring to a Quraysh tribe let alone in 'Mecca'?

In the context of Quraysh meaning the inhabitants of the old al-Qura area (grosso modo nowadays Tabuk province)
Then everything becomes intelligible, including the Koranic umm al-Qura (6.92/42.7) as Mecca being al-Hijr/Hegra.

Where are the 2 testimonies for Muhammads claims about Gabriel talking to him? If the criteria to decide something as unreliable is a single testimony then quran alone becomes unreliable and not the ahadith because Bukhari didnt report in his book every single hadith that he gathered. To avoid repetition and excessive length Bukhari didnt include all the repeated reports from different narrators and thats why its said that he gathered around thousands of ahadith but only a few out of them made their way to the book of Bukhari ..... As as far as quran is concerned it doesnt have narrations as strong as the ahadith.

Ludicrous
1. The Koran, stemming right from Muhammad (and written down by scribes, thus witnesses) doesn't need a chain of narrators.
That's its strength, while being the very weakness of the 'Chinese Whispers' ahaad isnads.

2. It's not only 2.282 that is asking for two witnesses, so to guarantee a testimony against doubts, but 5.106 and 65.2.
It's still prevailing in ALL Islamic court cases, so a religious/moral Bukhari should have comply to this basic requirement.

3. This, from Bukhari, really comes down to concealing evidences. A crime committed against the Koran & scholarship.

4. He did act, out of trivial picking, without due certifications. Thus he's not reliable, let alone having any Koranic authority...
Except to hardcore Sunnites and, of course... skynightblaze!

5. From the Sunnite link you've quoted this time AGAIN:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html

Imam al-Bukhari's collection of ahadith was maintained to be authentic on account of his authority,
and it has been maintained as authentic ever since.

What was his scholarly 'authority' again? Only that of being on the Abbasids' payroll!

Ofcourse I am not selectively picking..... you quote opinions and not facts selectively from the Sunnites which support your point. In short you are a troll.

From someone who does advocate the Sunnites traditions, the irony is most enjoyable.

Now, do you realize how much this affirmation boomerang back to your own assertions?
But, hey... thanks for so limpidly admitting how much of a Sunnite troll you ever were!

[The Cat]

There are thousands of opinions in support of abrogation so quoting opinions isnt going to establish anything

That's still from your ever Sunnite blinders. The fact remains that the trend is reversing and I brought many testimonies to that.
Here's one more... from the Turkish government, actually reconsidering the hadiths:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7264903.stm

The country's powerful Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith, the second most sacred text in Islam after the Koran..... As part of its aggressive programme of renewal, Turkey has given theological training to 450 women, and appointed them as senior imams called "vaizes"..... (!!!)

Significantly, the "Ankara School" of theologians working on the new Hadith have been using Western critical techniques and philosophy. They have also taken an even bolder step - rejecting a long-established rule of Muslim scholars that later (and often more conservative) texts override earlier ones. "You have to see them as a whole," says Fadi Hakura. "You can't say, for example, that the verses of violence override the verses of peace. This is used a lot in the Middle East, this kind of ideology. "I cannot impress enough how fundamental [this change] is."

[skynightblaze]

Spoiler! :

I'm a goaler and you add to the dimension of my goal... so that your team can win;
you haven't dismissed that there's a goal (your sophistry) but you've raised the bar.

Many logical fallacies are inter-related. Basically what you've done is building a Strawman,
by 'Poisoning the Well' so to introduce a 'Slippery Slope', leading to an 'Ad Hoc' fallacy...

As I've said you're a fallacy collector (ad hominem, wrong premise, false dilemma, hasty generalization, etc).

Moving_the_goalposts
The term is often used in business to imply bad faith on the part of those setting goals for others to meet,
by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met.

Straw Man
Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against,
rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.

Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting
unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person.

Slippery Slope Fallacy (Camel's Nose)
The assumption that something is wrong because it is right next to something that is wrong.

Ad-hoc reasoning
The arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid.

Dear o Dear ! Everytime you try to act smart you only end up proving that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. YOu have done here exactly the same. In otherwords you are damaging your own credibility .

Let me show how exceptionally stupid you are. You cannot even reason out basic things. The above fallacies hold true if I present new arguments before I fulfill or satisfy the following conditions :

1) I accept your goal
2) I refute your goal.

My committment to stick to the topic that you opened is valid only till the time any of the above 2 conditions are met but not otherwise.The moment I accept your goal or the moment I refute your goal I am free to make a new assertion since the game is over and I am not longer liable to stick to the topic being raised. These fallacies hold true only when introduce something else without meeting any of the above conditions. To summarize in short, my commitment to stay on the topic stays till I meet any of the above 2 conditions.

Now the question that one may ask me is how do I know this especially when the above fallacies dont say it explicitly.? The answer is common sense. If I my commitment to stick the topic that CAT has raised is infinite then never in my life would I be able to open a new topic or a new argument .At some point I should be disengaged from the commitment to stay to the topic that CAT has raised so that I can raise new arguments.

Secondly lets see how stupid his argument is by considering an example..

Let us assume that there exist a theory "X" which has 2 conclusions namely:
Conclusion A
Conclusion B

Now say a person MR Rogers studies theory "X" and draws only the conclusion A but misses B then are we not even allowed to tell him that theory "X " has 2 conclusions and not just 1?? If telling Mr Rogers that we have 2 conclusions and not one is a fallacy then we miss a vital conclusion of theory X i.e conclusion B. So would telling Mr Rogers that theory X has 2 conclusions and not just 1 be a fallacy anytime??

Same is the case here. CAT;s arguments debunk not only ahadith but they debunk quran too and hence me telling him that your arguments debunk both is not a fallacy at all.

My argument above debunks all the fallacies of which CAt accused me of except Fallacy of Slippery slope and fallacy of poisoning the well. The fallacy of slippery slope doesnt apply to me because I aint drawing a conclusion that quran is corrupt just by assumptions. I used logic for e,g If all the ahadith are corrupted then the common elements between ahadith and quran make the quran corrupt for e,g ahadith say wife beating is allowed. If this is a corrupted fact then the same corrupted fact is found in the quran too and hence both quran and ahadith are corrupted. Now what I said follows logic and not assumption as the fallacy of slippery slope claims.

Lastly I didnt present any unfavourable information about CAT as his own post make it clear that he defends quran and doesnt consider quran to be corrupted . So my conclusion about him supporting quran alone faith is a valid conclusion and its not an unfavourable information that I have brought to discredit him.

The original strawman is your wrong premise (as always) that I'm of the 'Koraner-faith' since I do
not include the Koran when trashing the hadiths/sira and the historical Muhammad/Mecca.
Muhammad, in the Koran, is of NO historical importance and Mecca (if mentioned at all) isn't located at all. So I simply can't mix them together, as you do, without 'dismissing the evidence'. Going your way would have indeed shattered the credibility of my initial stand based on history, as the whole thread was intended...

What happens to quran if muhammad was a fraud? Would quran be classified a trustworthy book if Muhammad was proven as a fraud? If you claim that Muhammad is not of any historical importance then there should be no problem if Muhammad is a fraud. IS that the case?

For you can't say that the historical prophet or Mecca, going down the drain with the Islamic traditions (siras/hadiths),
drowns the Koran too. It was common knowledge way before the Abbasids, for we know that governor al-Hajjaj in 710,
collected the copies to add the diacritical marks and there's also the Sana'a manuscript, let alone John of Damascus...

but we dont have manuscripts for every single verse of the quran so its very much possible that Abassids fabricated quran.You would have a point if we had manuscript which existed before Abassids for every single verse of quran .

Finally why dont you honestly confess that you want to defend quran??

Rest of your gibberish will be dealt soon..

[The Cat]

Everytime you try to act smart you only end up proving that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. YOu have done here exactly the same. In otherwords you are damaging your own credibility . Let me show how exceptionally stupid you are. You cannot even reason out basic things.

Right back at Poisoning the Well! Impressive...

The moment I accept your goal or the moment I refute your goal I am free to make a new assertion since the game is over and I am not longer liable to stick to the topic being raised. These fallacies hold true only when introduce something else without meeting any of the above conditions.

How funny this really is!
For you are introducing ANOTHER... Moving the Goalpost fallacy (!!!) A topic agreed or refuted ends! That's why we have so many.

More so, you even never agreed or refuted anything from me. See my ending comment...

Lastly I didnt present any unfavourable information about CAT as his own post make it clear that he defends quran and doesnt consider quran to be corrupted . So my conclusion about him supporting quran alone faith is a valid conclusion and its not an unfavourable information that I have brought to discredit him.

Wrong premise: I said that, on matter of history, you can't twin the siras/hadiths with Koran.
False dilemma: Thus the corruption of the Koran must be evaluated independently, on its own.
Hasty generalization: Wishful desires aren't proofs... And logical fallacies aren't arguments...

its very much possible that Abassids fabricated quran.... why dont you honestly confess that you want to defend quran??

You have no ground, no proof... except bumping and bumming wild assertions. All hat, no cattle.

Can't you read? It was common knowledge way before the Abbasids, for we know that governor al-Hajjaj in 710,
collected the copies to add the diacritical marks, there's also the Sana'a manuscript, let alone John of Damascus.

I'm here to give a hand, and learn on the way from people, not to discredit FFI as your bullying does. Now...

Your thread in Resource center still shows that your 'accepting' of my arguments is but lip service.
So what is it with you? Do you agree that the siras/hadiths are falsified? ... for if so you must,
logically, erase your whole thing over there. For if you still adhere to the authenticity of the hadiths,
you're a disgusting fellow endorsing the legitimacy of Muslims to carry on stoning and female
genital mutilation and childbride marriage, still right after I've thoroughly disproven them all. And
please don't try the sophistry of pleading how you reject the content while blessing the outcome!

None of the siras/hadiths can be hold as authentic records of Muhammad.

[Gauge123]

One thing for sure, Mes and I are much more a threat to nowadays so-called 'Islam' than you'll ever be!

I may have been hasty in my judgement Cat...maybe you do know the depths of what you're saying.

Do carry on, let's see where further this goes.