Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

His life, his examples and his psychology
User avatar
kerenabiz
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Jakarta
Contact:

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by kerenabiz »

This the style of Faithfreedom forum members I had predicted at the first time I created this thread, instead of bringing the answer on the topic I bring, yet they distract the topic to another to make people forget the main issue and save Ali Sina from shame
Alhamdulillah I am a Muslim. Learn about Islam in Islam Site, Bismika Allahuma and Islamic Awareness. They will answer your queries and doubts...Insya Allah.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

kerenabiz wrote:This the style of Faithfreedom forum members I had predicted at the first time I created this thread, instead of bringing the answer on the topic I bring, yet they distract the topic to another to make people forget the main issue and save Ali Sina from shame
I already showed you that we have authentic ahadith which show muhammad supported those who criticized him so trusting what Ali sina brought from the early historians shouldnt be a problem.More ever lets for a second assume Ali Sina;s sources are faulty now would you care to answer why quran should be believed when isnad of quran are also hearsay?
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

Multiple
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 8:58 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Multiple »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
iffo wrote:
King of all evils if it says all the animals on the PLANET does not that make it million of species ?
What's the difference between all animals in the Bible and all things in the Quran?? The Quran never said "all things in a certain area". Stop lying you crooked turd. You're point is finished., When are you going to be man enough to admit you made a mistake?? And you wonder why people hate and mistrust Muslims?? Just look at your behavior. You simply cannot admit a mistake and you will lie and twist, if need be, to avoid admitting it because lying comes as second nature to Muslims. And it doesn't make you ashamed in the least. That's the difference between Muslims and the rest of the world.
Iffo the misunderstander says Since when Word 'All' means "All on the planet" dummy.?




MBL Iffo has proved to us that he just does not COMPREHEND the English language and it is from this point of ignorance that he forms his arguments. To those who understand English it is perfectly understandable that when you utter a phrase like 'Put ALL the books in the box' that you have either to qualify that ALL with something like 'that are on the floor beside you' or that this can be omitted when that is self evident in the situation. However when a GOD says ALL animals unless he specifically designates and defines a particular area from which they are to be gathered then he means ALL animals in the World, after all he created ALL the animals in the world (unless of course if you are Iffo when in his case this ALL means those animals in Pakistan only :roflmao: ). But sadly Iffo's ignorant uneducated inability to understand and comprehend the English language means that he is incapable of realising what a fool he is making of himself.
Banned.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

iffo wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
All means all unless otherwise specified, you freak. Even if it was all things in that area, that still would constitute at least 500,000 different species, you stupid freak. My God, your need to believe in Islam has simply driven you crazy. How do you manage to lie to yourself like this?? It's absolutely astounding.

No "All" does not mean "All on the planet". You are dumber than a donkey ......... "All the girls get ready" . Does not mean all the girls on the planet get ready....... what a foolish guy.
How many species were in the area of the flood?? 500,000 maybe?? You couldn't even fit two of every kind of insect on an arc, let alone other animals. What a freak you are. But you have no choice but to take it literally because the Quran is a monolithic book and claims to be the very letter for letter dictation of the creator of the universe. That was Muhammad's fatal error.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:I already showed you that we have authentic ahadith...
Where? That?
skynightblaze wrote:After looking at the following ahadith why should anyone believe that whatever Ibn Ishaq or Tabari were fabricating stories t o defame muhammad? Similar kind of stories are found in the ahadith so there should not be a problem for anyone to believe Tabari or Ishaq.
Even Muslims aren't as gullible as you are... their hadiths were so dismissed by Bukhari as unreliable. And Tabari admits it himself...

Then you are wrongly assuming that the hadiths portraying Muhammad under a bad light must therefore be true. You must first prove
-beyond doubt- that, for the companions, in their own time and particular customs, such behavior could have been wrong. Then again,
and secondly, you would be indulging into Presentism, judging the past from our present values.

And Presentism is another logical fallacy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism ... nalysis%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:care to answer why quran should be believed when isnad of quran are also hearsay?
There is no isnad for the Koran since it was common knowledge.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I already showed you that we have authentic ahadith...
Where? That?
The above muslim is a quran + hadith muslim but he rejects biographies of muhammad and hence I am using sources which he considers to be reliable to make my point.Even the ahadith make a mention of muhammad killing people for mere criticism and hence there is no reason why anyone should look at the quotes of Tabari and Ishaq with doubt when the mention the same.
skynightblaze wrote: Even Muslims aren't as gullible as you are... their hadiths were even dismissed by Bukhari as unreliable. Tabari admits it himself...
The muslim isnt a quran alone muslim. He is a quran + hadith muslims. The only gullible person is you and quran alone muslims.

I said here that muhammad was engaged in killing people who criticized him and Sahih muslim, Bukhari and Abu dawud only confirm what Ishaq and Tabari wrote.Only names have changed but the story is same i.e. Muhammad killed people who criticized him and hence there is no reason as to why anyone should discard these stories for their unreliability. As a matter of fact even quran supports that for e.g 9:12 claims that one of the conditions to fight the non muslims is if they use tongue against religion of islam.
The Cat wrote: Then you are wrongly assuming that the hadiths portraying Muhammad under a bad light must therefore be true. You must first prove
-beyond doubt- that, for the companions, in their own time and particular customs, such behavior could have been wrong. Then again,
and secondly, you would be indulging into Presentism, judging the past from our present values.

And Presentism is another logical fallacy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism ... nalysis%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We are told that quran is for entire mankind and hence I should be judging quran and the hadith by own moral values and not the values of past. Btw can you prove that looting, raping and paedophilia and other criminal acts were legal during the time of muhammad and people didnt consider it as a sin?
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:care to answer why quran should be believed when isnad of quran are also hearsay?
There is no isnad for the Koran since it was common knowledge.
EDIT

READ BELOW..
Last edited by skynightblaze on Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

Btw I would be engaged in the fallacy of presentism only if quran didnt say its for entire mankind or if didnt mention muhammad as a perfect man to walk on the face of earth to be emulated by the entire mankind and hence we are asked by quran to judge muhammad by our own standards too and hence the problem.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

The proof presented above wasnt sufficient I guess to clarify whether quran was a hearsay or not.

For more details regarding whether quran is a hearsay or not. Visit the following link. It quotes the ahadith
which clearly establish that some of the quran was produced from the memory of muhammad's companions.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch1.html#ch1-ref42" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is one of the quotes..
Sahih bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 301: wrote: So I started compiling the Quran by collecting it from the leafless stalks of the date-palm tree and from the pieces of leather and hides and from the stones, and from the chests of men (who had memorized the Quran). I found the last verses of Sirat-at-Tauba: ("Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves--' (9.128-129) ) from Khuzaima or Abi Khuzaima and I added to it the rest of the Sura. The manuscripts of the Quran remained with Abu Bakr till Allah took him unto Him. Then it remained with 'Umar till Allah took him unto Him, and then with Hafsa bint 'Umar.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:If you look at the history then quran was compiled by companions of muhammad and we had no quran until 15-20 years after muhammad. You are again relying on hearsay because quran wasnt a complete piece.
They had the Koran being revealed ayat by ayat, not as a whole, yet written down by some. See my ending observation...

skynightblaze wrote:Btw I would be engaged in the fallacy of presentism only if quran didnt say its for entire mankind or if didnt mention muhammad as a perfect man to walk on the face of earth to be emulated by the entire mankind and hence we are asked by quran to judge muhammad by our own standards too and hence the problem.
We're talking about hadiths here, those portraying Muhammad as a criminal. Don't mix around two things:
Since they exist, it underlines that this was usual back then. Prove otherwise... or you're into Presentism.

Prove that hadiths of Tabari and Ishaq, as you 1st maintained here, are trustable, since they weren't so for Bukhari.

Now, where in the Koran does it say that Muhammad is the perfect man. 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.''


Is 'looking unto Allah' means take the hadiths for guidance?

Tell me where is the Shahada so stated in their holy book?

But...
43.40: Canst thou (Muhammad) make the deaf to hear, or canst thou guide the blind or him who is in error manifest?

For if Muslims were to emulate Muhammad then, according to the very hadiths, we shouldn't have a completed Koran!

Bukhari vol. 6.509
Umar has just come to me and said, 'In the Yemama fighting death has dealt most severely with the qurra' and I fear it will deal with equal
severity with them in other theatres of war and as a result much of the Qur'an will perish. I am therefore of the opinion that you should
command that the Qur'an be collected.'" Abu Bakr added, "I said to Umar, How can we do what the Prophet never did? Umar replied that it
was nonetheless a good act. He did not cease replying to my scruples until God reconciled me to the undertaking."


Abu Bakr continued, "Zaid, you are young and intelligent and we know nothing to your discredit. You used to record the revelations for the
Prophet, so pursue the Qur'an and collect it all together." By God! had they asked me to remove a mountain it could not have been more
weighty than what they would now have me do in ordering me to collect the Qur'an. I therefore asked them how they could do what the
Prophet had not done but Abu Bakr insisted that it was permissible.
Thus, Muslims aren't commanded to follow Muhammad, except in 'looking forward unto God and remembering Him much'.

Now, I don't mind at all criticizing the Koran. I'm all ears. But it must be sound, otherwise we look silly and discarded.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:If you look at the history then quran was compiled by companions of muhammad and we had no quran until 15-20 years after muhammad. You are again relying on hearsay because quran wasnt a complete piece.
They had the Koran being revealed ayat by ayat, not as a whole. See my ending observation...
I am talking about state of quran after Muhammad's death wherein it wasn't 1 piece even it was supposed to have completed. After Muhammad's death quran was a scattered mess written on leaves ,stones etc.

You can see it in the ahadith wherein the collector of quran was required to take help of people for compiling the verses of the quran. It's perfectly natural because a single person cant remember the entire quran and to add to the dilemma quran was scattered everywhere and hence there was no way that people had access to every single word that came from muhammad's mouth and hence the need to write quran from the memory of companions is but obvious but then it becomes an hearsay and hence we need a sound isnad but we don't have any for quran.
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Btw I would be engaged in the fallacy of presentism only if quran didnt say its for entire mankind or if didnt mention muhammad as a perfect man to walk on the face of earth to be emulated by the entire mankind and hence we are asked by quran to judge muhammad by our own standards too and hence the problem.
We're talking about hadiths here, those portraying Muhammad as a criminal. Don't mix around two things:
Since they exist, it underlines that this was usual back then. Prove otherwise... or you're into Presentism.
Even the ahadith make a mention of following muhammad's Sunnah or consider him as a role model and hence its appropriate for me to judge on present day standards.

Now you claim here that it was normal back then otherwise ahadith wouldn't exist but the question that needs to be asked is "Normal for whom"??? . Its always normal for criminals but not for victims.

Hitler killed millions of jews and a historian would record it as it is but does that mean it was normal for the victims or the society 50-60 years back to kill people like that? Ofcourse not!. Its always normal for criminals and since islamic history was recorded by criminals they didn't find any problem with it.

So the bottom line is you need to prove that it was normal back then by proving that people who were victims didnt mind it .
The Cat wrote: Prove that hadiths of Tabari and Ishaq, as you maintained, are trustable, since they weren't so for Bukhari.
What I am saying is quotes from Tabari and Ishaq cannot be brushed away totally merely considering them as hearsay because similar events are also found in sahih ahadith which kerenabiz (the muslim here) considers to be authentic. It only strengthens the case for such an event to have occurred. There is a very good chance that this story to be true rather than it being false .Only the characters involved in biographies and sahih Ahadith are different but the content is same.

Now simply absence of Isnad doesn't mean that something is totally unreliable because some events are common knowledge and hence every time we don't expect the person to quote a source or multiple people to back up his claim for e.g consider the claim that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on earth. I don't need to mention a source or someone confirming every time I say this because its a common knowledge of today.In short absence of chains of narrations doesn't necessarily mean events described are lies.
The Cat wrote: Now, where in the Koran does it say that Muhammad is the perfect man. 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.''


Is 'looking unto Allah' means take the hadiths for guidance?
I didn't mean "looking unto Allah" meant taking ahadith for guidance. When someone is described as an example it becomes necessary to know that person's life thoroughly or else he cant be an example and hence the need for ahadith arises.
.
The Cat wrote: Tell me where is the Shahada so stated in their holy book?
Quran indirectly talks about the Shahada because it speaks about believing in Allah and also believing in muhammad and hence one way or the other it completes the shahada. For Shahada one needs belief in Allah and Muhammad and quran asks muslims to believe in both.
The Cat wrote: But...
43.40: Canst thou (Muhammad) make the deaf to hear, or canst thou guide the blind or him who is in error manifest?
Quran is full of internal contradictions.

Surah 2:151

A similar (favour have ye already received) in that We have sent among you an Apostle of your own, rehearsing to you Our Signs, and sanctifying you, and instructing you in Scripture and Wisdom, and in new knowledge.

Now tell me if Muhammad cant guide anyone as per the verse you quoted then how can he instruct anyone in scripture or how can he teach new things as per 2:151? .

I guess this was due to incoherency of muhammads ramblings. Muhammad sometimes wanted to give the feeling to his followers that it was Allah who was doing the talking and not him and hence we see the verse that you quoted but sometimes we see verses like 2:151 wherein he wants to give himself some power by claiming that Allah has asked his followers to follow him.
The Cat wrote: For if Muslims were to emulate Muhammad then, according to the very hadiths, we shouldn't have a completed Koran!
True but the same quran asks the muslims to follow muhammad's example and it also asks them to listen to muhammad(2:151 being one of the verses) which isn't possible without knowing details of his life so sunnis are not wrong to justify their beliefs . This incoherence or contradiction is because of the author of quran was not a bright person as far writing a clear book is concerned.

I would say that's a contradiction.

The Cat wrote: Thus, Muslims aren't commanded to follow Muhammad, except in 'looking forward unto God and remembering Him much'.
Some verses justify it and some don't and hence its quran's fault.Now here is a question to be asked. Why didnt Allah ask muslims to follow muhammad? Was Allah afraid that muhammad would act against the teachings of quran? Don't tell me Muhammad sinned sometimes because he was a human because Allah already corrected muhammad in the quran and hence people would know when to emulate muhamamd and when to not even if he sinned.
The Cat wrote: Now, I don't mind at all criticizing the Koran. I'm all ears. But it must be sound, otherwise we look silly and discarded.
That's fair.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
kerenabiz
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Jakarta
Contact:

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by kerenabiz »

skynightblaze wrote: I already showed you that we have authentic ahadith which show muhammad supported those who criticized him so trusting what Ali sina brought from the early historians shouldnt be a problem.
You don't bring the authentic sources to support Ali Sina's charge against prophet Muhammad (PBUH) regarding the killing of Abu Afak and Asma' bint Marwan, thus how can they are used to answer and appease my protest toward Ali Sina's charge?

Let's supposed Andrew is a murder, he has murdered A and B, then some people accuse he also killed C and D. But the proofs of the charge of C and D killing are not reliable and flaw. Does Andrew has to be punished for C and D death albeit there is no valid and solid proof to imprison him? This the way your logic works Skynightblaze, Andrew must be jailed because he's proven a murder of A and B!
skynightblaze wrote: More ever lets for a second assume Ali Sina;s sources are faulty now would you care to answer why quran should be believed when isnad of quran are also hearsay?
Is this your debate style? resorting to red-herring mister?
Alhamdulillah I am a Muslim. Learn about Islam in Islam Site, Bismika Allahuma and Islamic Awareness. They will answer your queries and doubts...Insya Allah.

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:there was no way that people had access to every single word that came from muhammad's mouth and hence the need to write quran from the memory of companions is but obvious but then it becomes an hearsay and hence we need a sound isnad but we dont have any for quran.
Answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Before the Qur'an was written down, speaking it from memory prevailed as the mode of teaching it to others. This fact, taken in the
context of seventh century Arabia, was not at all an extraordinary feat. People of that time had a penchant for recited poetry and
had developed their skills in memorization to a remarkable degree.....

Allusions to written portions of the Qur'an can be found in many events. Immediately before his conversion in 615, Umar ibn al-Khattab
caught his sister reading the Qur'anic text (Ta-Ha) from parchment..... At Medina, about forty companions are believed to have acted
as scribes for the Qur'an. Twenty-two such persons are mentioned by name in the Hadith. Among them were well known persons, such
as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa and Umm Salama....

On Ibn Thabit...
The task required ibn Thabit to collect written copies of the Qur'an, with each verse having validated with the oral testimony of at least
two companions
. Usually the written copies were verified by himself and Umar - both of whom had memorized portions of the Qur'an.
Thus, eventually the entire Qur'an was collected into a single copy, but it still wasn't given any particular order.
Which makes the Koran the mutawatir/tawatur (corroborated) text per excellence. No need for isnad...

This ALSO confirms (as per 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2) that TWO testimonies are required to
have -any- legal validity, at each level of the isnads. Thus, NO ahaad isnad (95%) is valid.
Down the Koranic drain goes Bukhari, Muslim and the other so-called 'authentic' hadiths!
skynightblaze wrote:So the bottom line is you need to prove that it was normal back then.
Read again:
Since they exist, it underlines that this was usual back then (up to the compilers). Prove otherwise... or you're into Presentism.
skynightblaze wrote:absence of chains of narrations doesn't necessarily mean events described are lies.
Within the hadiths recognized as 'sahih' none of them are from Ibn Ishaq and Tabari. They simply weren't trusted.

And these two are much contested within many Islamic circles, check...
http://www.answering-christian-claims.c ... Ishaq.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:When someone is described as an example it becomes necessary to know that person's life thoroughly.
There's a world of difference between the biography of an exemplary person and the sacrilegious sacredness accorded to the hadiths.
skynightblaze wrote:Quran indirectly talks about the Shahada.
Read again:
Tell me where is the Shahada -SO- stated in their holy book?

Indirectly won't do. Juxtaposing randomly ayats can't do... We could make it say whatever!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The complete Shahadah cannot be found in the Quran, but comes from hadiths.
See: http://www.submission.org/true-shahada.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How's that???? The 'first pillar of Islam' can't even be grounded in its holy book!
skynightblaze wrote:Now tell me if Muhammad cant guide anyone as per the verse you quoted then how can he instruct anyone in scripture or how can he teach new things as per 2:151?
So to instruct people about the Koran (ie. the new thing) means to know how to clean your ass maybe?

According to the testimonies of Abu Bakr and Umar (B.6.509), Muslims are asked to pray Allah and follow their conscience, not Muhammad.
That's how the Koran has been collected, although Muhammad didn't order such in his lifetime.
skynightblaze wrote:Why didnt Allah ask muslims to follow muhammad?
Because Muhammad himself was commanded to follow the rightful religion (Din/Millata) of Abraham!
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
marduk
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:39 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by marduk »

You can see it in the ahadith wherein the collector of quran was required to take help of people for compiling the verses of the quran. It's perfectly natural because a single person cant remember the entire quran and to add to the dilemma quran was scattered everywhere and hence there was no way that people had access to every single word that came from muhammad's mouth and hence the need to write quran from the memory of companions is but obvious but then it becomes an hearsay and hence we need a sound isnad but we don't have any for quran.
That's a very good reason for a god NOT choosing an illiterate nobody to get his book into the hands of mankind. How could mankind rely on a book that was not even written down as it was being dictated but much later from memory? That right there would give mankind a very good reason to completely reject Islam, like the Jews did, since they are not completely insane like the Arabs, only moderately insane. They can bring themselves to believe their own ridiculous scriptures but Muhammad's stuff was even too ridiculous for a Jew to believe, that YHWH would suddenly add a whole lot of pagan Arabian and Persian stuff to Judaism and start using non-Jews as prophets. I mean, there's crazy and then there's just plain stupid.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

marduk wrote:
You can see it in the ahadith wherein the collector of quran was required to take help of people for compiling the verses of the quran. It's perfectly natural because a single person cant remember the entire quran and to add to the dilemma quran was scattered everywhere and hence there was no way that people had access to every single word that came from muhammad's mouth and hence the need to write quran from the memory of companions is but obvious but then it becomes an hearsay and hence we need a sound isnad but we don't have any for quran.
That's a very good reason for a god NOT choosing an illiterate nobody to get his book into the hands of mankind. How could mankind rely on a book that was not even written down as it was being dictated but much later from memory? That right there would give mankind a very good reason to completely reject Islam, like the Jews did, since they are not completely insane like the Arabs, only moderately insane. They can bring themselves to believe their own ridiculous scriptures but Muhammad's stuff was even too ridiculous for a Jew to believe, that YHWH would suddenly add a whole lot of pagan Arabian and Persian stuff to Judaism and start using non-Jews as prophets. I mean, there's crazy and then there's just plain stupid.
Perfectly put! It simply is amazing that people can be so dumb . The final message for entire mankind wasnt even collected by the final prophet and such an important task was left to humans to gather from their memory to be put in a book. Is this some kind of joke? How can the God be so careless??.The entire islam is a joke. Its like totally coming out of the arse .
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

sum
Posts: 6623
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by sum »

Muhammad wasn`t interested in compiling the Koran in book form. What was the point of scribes recording the alleged revelations on bones, skins or leaves when there is no record of these being stored in order of revelation? There is no mention of any filing system. If he intended the revelations to be only memorised the scribes had wasted their time. Muhammad did not appear to show any interest in the Koran being preserved in his final days and why should he have any interest in preserving it when it had served all his lusts and desires. There was now no need for it to be preserved and that is why he showed not the slightest interest in doing so.

sum

Skenderbeg
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:45 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Skenderbeg »

The Cat wrote:

Now, I don't mind at all criticizing the Koran. I'm all ears. But it must be sound, otherwise we look silly and discarded.

Just like the Quran was collected by Mohammed's followers after his death so were hadiths that Muslims remembered about Mohammed and the things he did, which is a lot easier to remember then remembering word for word the so called Revelations which became the Quran. if Mohammed was a real person and really lived then its no surprise that his followers would write down things he said and did,

The Quran tells Mohammed he could marry as many women as he desires and women who "throw"" themselves at him, and yet only the hadiths name them, the Quran doesn't. can you tell us who Mohammed's wife's were using the Quran alone ?

Here is a example in the Quran and hadiths telling us the same thing, the Quran allows Muslim men to take female's as sex slaves and even women married could be taken as sex slaves by Muslims, now why don't you believe this hadith ? which its in perfect line with the Quran.

FROM THE QURAN - 4:24

"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you.

FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #34Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to an end).

Most hadiths are in line with the Quran and I understand why Muslims today would like to get rid of them to hide Mohammeds crimes, but that doesn't work because the same crimes we read in the hadiths are in the Quran only the hadiths give us better details ..

Multiple
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 8:58 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Multiple »

sum wrote:Muhammad wasn`t interested in compiling the Koran in book form. What was the point of scribes recording the alleged revelations on bones, skins or leaves when there is no record of these being stored in order of revelation? There is no mention of any filing system. If he intended the revelations to be only memorised the scribes had wasted their time. Muhammad did not appear to show any interest in the Koran being preserved in his final days and why should he have any interest in preserving it when it had served all his lusts and desires. There was now no need for it to be preserved and that is why he showed not the slightest interest in doing so.

sum
Yes the Koran is assembled by length of Sura not a method that ensures continuity and sense, unless of course Allah decreed take my words add lots of HEARSAY and write them on bits of hide and bones and assemble them haphazardly 20 years later :roflmao: It was also the subject of incredible amounts of HEARSAY ( come on Muslims try to PROVE that this is not so) and 'Chinese Whispers' before it was written down. Everything rests on your acceptance of the word of Mohammad who else heard Jibril no one only Mohammad who says Jibril brought the word from Allah no one only Mohammad but Mohammad was a paedophile a thief a warlord and an antisemitic misogynist and thats only what his FRIENDS saw him as . :*) In fact the Koran were it a Hadith it would be rejected outright as it has no reliable Isnad at all. Of course any book that is written in Primitive Ambiguous 7th Century Tribal Arabic cannot pass its own test and ridiculous claims for itself to be for 'ALL men for ALL time' and to be 'Clear and easily understood ' and that being so then the whole of Islam collapses like a bad joke. The Koran stands on what it is the incondite, turgid, repetitive, self contradictory, mistake laden, antisemitic, misogynistic, violent , Arab supremacist ramblings of an epileptic, paedophilic, murderer, thief and Warlord in a Cave. Once you realise this then the Koran and Old Mo can be dismissed for the evil, vicious, violent frauds they both are.
Banned.

sum
Posts: 6623
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by sum »

Bukhari:V4B54N440 “

The Prophet said, ‘Aisha, this is Gabriel. He sends his greetings and salutations to you.’ Aisha replied, ‘Salutations and greetings to him.’ Then addressing the Prophet she said, ‘You see what I don't see.’”

sum

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by yeezevee »

Fascinating to read Mr. Multiple
Multiple wrote at
I too am a former White Convert although my conversion was for a far more prosaic reason than a search for truth. In my case it was for a woman I wanted to marry and in the Country in which we were living people of different faiths were not allowed to marry . So being a generous sort of guy and completely naive regarding Islam and being a sort of non religious moonbat I went ahead and converted.
Spoiler! :
Imagine my surprise then when a work colleague , a Syrian Muslim Engineer, who was so delighted by my conversion brought me an English Translation copy of the Koran. This is when I woke up. Being an avid reader I read it, or rather attempted to read the violent, antisemitic, misogynistic, turgid , repetitive, self contradictory, Arab Supremacist nonsense that comprises the Koran. That was the end of my flirtation with Islam I woke up and smelled the coffee. It was also the end of my marriage too not because of Islam because she turned into deceitful money grabbing lying Dragon Lady she cost me a fortune .
I have now remarried , to another Muslima but one who knows my feelings about Islam and is tolerant enough to deal with it.
and multiple writes in this thread
Multiple wrote:then he means ALL animals in the World, after all he created ALL the animals in the world (unless of course if you are Iffo when in his case this ALL means those animals in Pakistan only :roflmao: ). But sadly Iffo's ignorant uneducated inability to understand and comprehend the English language
Multiple wrote:It was also the subject of incredible amounts of HEARSAY ( come on Muslims try to PROVE that this is not so)
Multiple wrote: The fact that after 1400 years the Koran does not have a universally accepted translation and interpretation completely repudiates its claims to be 'clear and easy to understand' and it being 'a book for ALL men for ALL time' and if these claims it makes for itself are so demonstrably untrue then the whole edifice of Islam is untrue and we should not be discussing the semantic nuances of a religion just the self justifications of followers of a CULT and should treat it and its adherents in an appropriate manner.
Multiple wrote:iffo the Koran praises Mohammad who marries a 6 year old girl and consummated his marriage with her when he was 50 years old and she was 9. Also Mohammedans are told to try and emulate Mohammad the 'perfect man' . So we are correct in assuming Islam supports paedophilia and Christianity does not.
Multiple wrote: . The Mohammedan God is an evil , self contradictory, illogical, violent,misogynistic, vengeful , antisemitic, Arab supremacist God (its all in the Koran) totally unlike the Christian and Jewish God.

Multiple wrote:
kerenabiz you forgot to add that Churches in Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, Algeria, Tunisia are constantly being vandalised and burnt down. So much for Islamic 'tolerance' . New Churches of course are almost impossible to build and even repairs to damaged Churches is made extremely difficult.
greetings and my good wishes to you Mr. Multiple., After reading few posts of yours in this thread I read most of your 20 pages of posts., you write so well and so well informed about Islam members like you are an asset to forums like FFI. I am not very active here but may I suggest you that the value your posts will at least 10 times higher without those RED COLORED WORDS. You know well that Islam is an ideology(religious/political/cultish..whatever) Where as Muslims are people.. Pakistanis are people.., I am sure you write in to ffi to educate the readers, Muslims and non Muslims about Islam But I wonder throwing insults at Muslims and Pakistan helps your cause.. whatever that cause may be..

with best wishes
yeezevee

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote: Answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Before the Qur'an was written down, speaking it from memory prevailed as the mode of teaching it to others. This fact, taken in the
context of seventh century Arabia, was not at all an extraordinary feat. People of that time had a penchant for recited poetry and
had developed their skills in memorization to a remarkable degree.....
Did those skills suddenly disappear when narration of ahadith started?? :lol: Same should apply to ahadith too.
The Cat wrote: On Ibn Thabit...
The task required ibn Thabit to collect written copies of the Qur'an, with each verse having validated with the oral testimony of at least
two companions
. Usually the written copies were verified by himself and Umar - both of whom had memorized portions of the Qur'an.
Thus, eventually the entire Qur'an was collected into a single copy, but it still wasn't given any particular order.
Which makes the Koran the mutawatir/tawatur (corroborated) text per excellence. No need for isnad...
The quote says that Ibn Umar and Thabit memorized portions of quran and not the complete quran and hence how would umar and Thabit guarantee accurate transmission of quotes collected from memories of other companions?They can vouch for the verses which they remembered but what about those which were not remembered?

Its also true that not every single verse of the quran was verified by 2 testimonies . The ahadith i quoted says that 9:128-129 was found with a particular companion named Khuzaima and thabit directly added 9:128-129 directly to the quran without further confirming with anyone. Now where are the 2 testimonies here for 9:128-129? Thabit obviously didn't know the verse otherwise he wouldn't ask any companion. The verse 9:128-129 made its way in the quran because of Khuzaima's testimony. Lo ! quran cannot be trusted :D

Btw are you sure that Mutawatir texts are reliable and can be trusted? I am asking you because we find mention of Mecca in the mutawatir ahadith. Isnt it ludicrous that you claim quran is trustable because its mutawatir and at the same discard mutawatir ahadith which make a mention of Mecca?

The Cat wrote: This ALSO confirms (as per 2.282; 5.106 and 65.2) that TWO testimonies are required to
have -any- legal validity, at each level of the isnads. Thus, NO ahaad isnad (95%) is valid.
Down the Koranic drain goes Bukhari, Muslim and the other so-called 'authentic' hadiths!

I have already shown you that bukhari didnt include multiple witnesses to avoid repetitiveness.Around 6 lakh ahadith were collected and only a few thousand made their way. They werent 6 lakh different ahadith but if 1 hadith was narrated by 10 people then they were considered 10 different ahadith and hence the whopping no.

Anyway even If we assume that 95% bukhari ahadith are ahaad type, we still have some ahadith which are repeated by multiple narrators in Bukhari like the following..

1)Paedophilia(aisha' s age, baby girl etc)
2) Raping prisoners of war
3) Killing of apostates
4)Stealing from non muslims
5) Killing people for criticizing muhammad
6)Genital mutilation( pics which you love to quote )

Well we don't need all the ahadith to be true. The above is just a sample. If your criteria to judge something on 2 witnesses is correct then Muhammad was a criminal and ahadith with multiple testimonies that show muhammad as a criminal can safely be taken as true. I guess my job is done! :D
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:So the bottom line is you need to prove that it was normal back then.
Read again:
Since they exist, it underlines that this was usual back then (up to the compilers). Prove otherwise... or you're into Presentism.
You didn't understand what I said previously.It might have been normal for muslims because early muslims were criminals. It wasn't normal for non muslims otherwise pagans would have killed muhammad the day he started bothering them.Muhammad could live in Mecca for years together peacefully. You have to show me that even amongst non muslims such acts were the norm of the day or else you are refuted.

I also said that Ahadith require us to take muhammad as an example even today and hence its perfectly fine if I judge muhammad by standards of today. Your attempt to whitewash muhammads crimes has failed miserably.

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:absence of chains of narrations doesn't necessarily mean events described are lies.
Within the hadiths recognized as 'sahih' none of them are from Ibn Ishaq and Tabari. They simply weren't trusted.
And these two are much contested within many Islamic circles, check...
http://www.answering-christian-claims.c ... Ishaq.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Bukhari didn't trust them but Bukhari also recorded events of similar nature i.e muhammad killing people for criticizing him so I guess we shouldn't be completely discarding Ishaq and Tabari atleast on stories of muhammad killing people for criticism.Btw some of the events of Tabari and Ishaq match with Bukhari for e.g the murder of Kab Ashraf.
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:When someone is described as an example it becomes necessary to know that person's life thoroughly.
There's a world of difference between the biography of an exemplary person and the sacrilegious sacredness accorded to the hadiths.
Charlatans lie and contradict themselves. Muhammad was certainly not of any exemplary character even though he claimed himself to be. Its even obvious from the quran.All the books that talk about muhammads life indicate that he was a third grade criminal which includes even the quran upto some extent.
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Quran indirectly talks about the Shahada.
Read again:
Tell me where is the Shahada -SO- stated in their holy book?
Indirectly won't do. Juxtaposing randomly ayats can't do... We could make it say whatever!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The complete Shahadah cannot be found in the Quran, but comes from hadiths.
See: http://www.submission.org/true-shahada.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
How's that???? The 'first pillar of Islam' can't even be grounded in its holy book!

Shahada is : "There is god but Allah and muhammad is his messenger"

Now do you really require ahadith to know that to become a muslim one has to accept muhammad as a prophet and not assign partners to Allah? The same content is also told in the quran but the words are not exact as the shahada in the hadith and hence I said quran indirectly makes a mention of Shahada.
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Now tell me if Muhammad cant guide anyone as per the verse you quoted then how can he instruct anyone in scripture or how can he teach new things as per 2:151?
So to instruct people about the Koran (ie. the new thing) means to know how to clean your ass maybe?
What is muhammad going to instruct if you claim that he wasnt able to guide people?? An Instructor should be able to guide people or else he is useless so you see there is a contradiction and the reason for contradiction is also obvious because quran was made to tailor suit muhammads requirements . Quran clearly alludes to sayings of muhammad in 2:151 because its specifically says that Muhammad is supposed to teach new things and not just the scripture.Note that it doenst say new things from the scripture but it says scripture and new things so dont try to twist here as Mesmorial tries to do .
The Cat wrote: According to the testimonies of Abu Bakr and Umar (B.6.509), Muslims are asked to pray Allah and follow their conscience, not Muhammad.
That's how the Koran has been collected, although Muhammad didn't order such in his lifetime.
Bukhari 6.509 doesnt say what you are trying to tell us. Where does it say anything about following your conscience?

Btw If you look at the ahadith then you will see plenty of occasions where word of muhammad was the authority.
skynightblaze wrote:Why didnt Allah ask muslims to follow muhammad?
Because Muhammad himself was commanded to follow the rightful religion (Din/Millata) of Abraham![/quote]

Muslims believe that Muhammad followed Abraham and he didn't act against the example of Abraham so following Muhammad would also mean following Abraham. AS a matter of fact muslims have been commanded to follow Muhammad. My question was to quran alone muslims as to why they think Muhammad shouldnt be followed if he practiced the religion of islam without himself violating it. May be I didnt use the right words.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

Post Reply