Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

His life, his examples and his psychology
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 »

darth wrote:
The Cat wrote: And I've shown above how its collection differed from the hadiths. That's exactly why there's no isnad...
Then we have absolutely NO testimony at all that the Koran came through somebody else. Not one at all.
Neither is there any testimony that koran came from mohammad. Because there is no chain linking it back to mohammad.
The verses could have come from anybody. Can you prove that it was not written by, say, ayesha?
Wrong. ALL testimonies give it to Muhammad. Bring me a single one stating otherwise. ONE...
darth wrote:
The Cat wrote:Wrong: Presentism is a logical fallacy related to anachronistic morality and subjectivity, as opposed to absolutism/eternalism.
Rubbish. Presentism is a logical fallacy only when related to recording of history. It is not applicable when testing soundness of ideas.
Wrong. It's related to morality, not to ideas. It's not based on the history of ideas (philosophy) but the history of behaviors (sociology).
darth wrote:
The Cat wrote: Was Socratic Greece depraved because pedophilia was the norm?
Paedophilia is depraved because it is scientifically a bad idea, irrespective of the society it was a norm in.
Pedophilia isn't an idea. Get over that... No idea is physical as is pedophilia.
darth wrote:
The Cat wrote:Is Thomas Jefferson to be discredited because he bought slaves?
This aspect of Thomas Jefferson was not creditable. This does not mean that all his ideas are to be discredited.
Slavery is not an idea either. can you make an idea to clean your house forcefully?
darth wrote:
The Cat wrote: So was Muhammad, a product of its time, depicted as such in both Koran and hadiths. But the later portrays him as an all-time best
model, not so in the Koran where this leading model is rather Abraham and Jesus (3.59-60), whom Muhammad was ordered to follow.

Thus, the hadiths' very purpose is thoroughly un-Koranic, that is overwhelmingly blasphemous in intentions.
The quran tells that mohammad is an excellent pattern to follow.
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.

Does ''looking unto Allah and remembering Him much'' sounds like one must rely on the tafsirs, the siras and the hadiths to you?
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by darth »

The Cat wrote: You seem to ignore that Presentism is based on a discontinuity in moral standards. Stealing as wrong is an accepted standard, according
to the Golden Rule and timelessly recognized as such. Once again, this shows that Muhammad can't be an all-time model, and the Koran is
the first to recognized Muhammad as a deviant... When there's an updated continuity, like stealing, Presentism does not apply.
You cannot use golden rule to state that presentism applies in one case and does not apply in another case. :lol: That is not "continuity". That is hypocrisy. Golden rule is not time bound. Yes, it is a good standard to judge actions and behaviors. Finally, you are seeing some sense. By the golden rule slavery and paedophilia are both wrong (treat others how you would have them treat you. Presumably no normal person would want to be a slave or be raped in childhood)

Oh, BTW, stealing was not always considered wrong. In ancient military Sparta, boys were encouraged to steal on their expeditions. If they were caught, they were punished - not for stealing but because they were caught. So there goes your stealing was always a bad idea down the drain.
The Cat wrote: The Koran condemns the people of the book for not respecting their own covenants, its continuity, which is something that hasn't change
up to now. Thus the presentism criteria doesn't apply, like it does in the case of slavery or pedophilia. It's on these criterias that we can't
The koran condemns the people of the book of all sorts of perversions and trangressions, not only that they broke any covenants. Respecting covenants is not a "continuous" tradition because as per the quran mohammad was allowed to break his own covenants to the polytheists. Where was the "continuity" in that?
The Cat wrote: judge Muhammad, no more than let's say Socrates or Thomas Jefferson. Presentism must rely on a societal change of mentality in values.
A supposed person of God should be judged by higher standards. But we can judge them the same way if you wish -

Jefferson was a slave trader, but a visionary in terms of religious freedom, individual rights etc.
Mohammad was a slave trader, with a vision of forcing everyone around to his way of thinking

Socrates was a great philosopher who married a much younger wife (not sure how young was the wife, but if she was a child at the time of marriage that would make him a paedophile)
Mohammad was a great prophet-wanna-be who married a much younger wife when she was still playing with dolls.
The Cat wrote: When there's break with the past, it does. Muhammad was a product of its customs, you can't judge it from nowadays values. Get it?
Any idea/custom/practice can be judged by itself on logical/scientific/factual basis. Being a "product of customs" is no excuse for a bad idea.

Coming to think of that being a product of his time did not stop him from insulting other people's god which was considered wrong in the time of mohammad.
Being a product of his time did not stop him from having the hots for his adopted son's wife which was considered wrong in those times (as per the quran itself, not the hadith).

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 »

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:apostle
Only Asad turns 'rasul' (messenger) into 'apostle' which is rather a Christian term from the Greek apostolos, not the Semitic 'rasul'.
Translations of 3.32 for example: http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/32/default.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Messenger is the only correct translation for rasul according to Edward Lane's Lexicon, Vol. 3, Page 247:
"to send a messenger, bestow, let go. rasul (pl. rusul) - envoy, bearer of a message, messenger. risalat -
message, commission, mission, epistle. arsala (vb. 4) - to send. mursalat (pl. of mursalatun) - those sent forth."
Who cares?? It's basically the same thing.
The Cat wrote: But, tell me, didn't you once write that Mr. Asad was ''the most dishonest of all translators''?
http://www.forum09.faithfreedom.org/vie ... 245#p94245" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I sure did, but I was quoting Shakir the whole time in this thread. Anything else you'd like to try?? You're looking mighty incompetent at this point. Perhaps Islam has infected the brain of an otherwise intelligent person.
The Cat wrote:
Anyway, in terms of translators, Asad is the most dishonest of them all. for example, every translator that I'm aware of
agrees that 67:5 references flaming projectiles, but since this causes potential embarrassment, along comes Asad and
changes flaming projectiles into "futile guesses" and it's "Allah Kazam!!"
Another spinning of yours, if you remember the others like I do! There goes, once again, your credibility... :stretcher:
Which others?? Don't you find it funny that they are modern translators that wrote after we discovered what shooting stars actually are?? You're embarrassing yourself at this point. I'm surprised to see someone who fancies themselves as such an intellectual, do this.
The Cat wrote: 16.40: The Remembrance mentioned is not even the Koran.
So what is it?
The Cat wrote: Muhammad is to explain to the 'followers of the Remembrance' (16.39)
and certainly not from his own example to follow some still uncreated hadiths But thanks for the laugh
How is Muhammad to explain or clarify this if the hadiths are invalid and the Quran is the only thing to be trusted?? BTW, I got my long, unanswered material from a Muslim. You're nothing but a wishful charlatan and I'm sure this Muslim would agree. Is it really that important to you that an otherwise intelligent person needs to fool themselves like this? I suppose the answer is yes. When are you going to take the veil off? I know I'm not speaking to an idiot, so this fascinates me all the more. How can this possibly happen??

The Cat wrote: And 33.21 only says that he's a good example for whom who hopes and remember Allah well.
What's the goal of human existence according to the Quran?? Pretty desperate and bad.
The Cat wrote: Not to hope and remember Muhammad
His behavior is an example to follow. It's very clear. It's not my fault that you haven't read the whole of the Quran, or even worse, try to hide it.

The Cat wrote:
through the hadiths, that's silly! 68.4 only emphasizes the same thing: He stood tall in facing adversity, relying on his commitment.
1. Noon. I swear by the pen and what the angels write,
2. By the grace of your Lord you are not mad.
3. And most surely you shall have a reward never to be cut off.
4. And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.

Sublime morality means exceptional morality that is to be followed. Again, it's not my fault that you didn't read the entirety of the Quran before you invented what you need to be true.
The Cat wrote:
According to the Quran, everybody is born sinless. There is no original sin because Allah forgave Adam and Eve.
So what my old confused? It takes a will...
You said Jesus was born without sin but it's a moot point because according to Islam, nobody is born with sin. Why am I even repeating this??

The Cat wrote:
The hadiths nor the Shadaha split Islam up, an argument about who was to succeed Muhammad split it up.
You're confused as usual. Islam didn't split up in this political turmoil, it wasn't religious. They all hold to the same Koran.
They split up over a disagreement as to who should succeed Muhammad and have power. I can't believe you're even going to attempt to argue about this. It's getting pathetic. What is it that ails you where you need to hold on to these erroneous ideas so much??
The Cat wrote: Now, that Thomas Jefferson and the Socratic Greece are discredited since our morality changed is yours to uphold and prove!
Good luck with that :crazy:
Would you care to rewrite your sentence?? It didn't even make sense. You have grammar problems that make it ambiguous, mister phoney intellectual.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by darth »

The Cat wrote: Wrong. ALL testimonies give it to Muhammad. Bring me a single one stating otherwise. ONE...
What testimonies? Prove to us that the person who recorded the verse did not make it up himself
The Cat wrote:Wrong: Presentism is a logical fallacy related to anachronistic morality and subjectivity, as opposed to absolutism/eternalism.
Only relevant in recording of history. Irrelevant in testing ideas/propositions
The Cat wrote: Wrong. It's related to morality, not to ideas. It's not based on the history of ideas (philosophy) but the history of behaviors (sociology).
That is why it is irrelevant here. We are not studying history or recording history but testing ideas. We are testing if ideas are correct are wrong based on logic, facts and science. If those ideas are proven false they are false. Morals based on those ideas too must stand the test of logic, facts and science.
The Cat wrote:
Was Socratic Greece depraved because pedophilia was the norm?
Paedophilia is depraved because it is scientifically a bad idea, irrespective of the society it was a norm in.

Pedophilia isn't an idea. Get over that... No idea is physical as is pedophilia.
Paedophilia is a a word to describe an act based upon the idea that - "having sex with immature children is okay". We can show whether this idea is correct scientifically. If the idea is wrong the act based upon the idea is wrong.
The Cat wrote:Is Thomas Jefferson to be discredited because he bought slaves?
This aspect of Thomas Jefferson was not creditable. This does not mean that all his ideas are to be discredited.
Slavery is not an idea either. can you make an idea to clean your house forcefully?
Silly. Slavery is based upon the idea that human beings can be owned and sold like property. If this idea can be proven wrong, actions that follow based on the idea are wrong as well.
The Cat wrote: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.
Does ''looking unto Allah and remembering Him much'' sounds like one must rely on the tafsirs, the siras and the hadiths to you?
It is very clear to me - those who want allah and the last day , must follow muhammad's example and remember allah. And where exactly is muhammad's life recorded? This very much sounds to me that we must rely on tafsirs, sira and the hadiths.

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 »

darth wrote:Golden rule is not time bound. Yes, it is a good standard to judge actions and behaviors. By the golden rule slavery and paedophilia are both wrong.
By taking the Golden Rule to say that slavery and pedophilia are wrong you're into Presentism.
The GR wasn't in effect in the time of Muhammad's Bedouins. You keep confusing everything...
darth wrote:The koran condemns the people of the book of all sorts of perversions and trangressions, not only that they broke any covenants. Respecting covenants is not a "continuous" tradition because as per the quran mohammad was allowed to break his own covenants to the polytheists. Where was the "continuity" in that?
And all those transgressions are related to breaking the covenant, the continuous tradition set by the Torah and Gospel.
Then again, only behaviors can be pertaining to Presentism. It belongs mainly to sociology, not to philosophy. Ideas are
immaterial. Not morality which is behavioral.
darth wrote:A supposed person of God should be judged by higher standards.... Mohammad was a great prophet-wanna-be who married a much younger wife when she was still playing with dolls.
So the Koran portrays him as a deviant, time again in 33.50. But then, for the Bedouins tribes, child-bride was customary.
Until the 19th century, in the US the age of consent, often regulating marriages, was 10 years old, pushed to 18 in 1920.
darth wrote:Any idea/custom/practice can be judged by itself on logical/scientific/factual basis. Being a "product of customs" is no excuse for a bad idea.
Ideas aren't physical, they aren't persons. They have no behavior. Slavery and pedophilia were the custom, not the idea,
in the time of Muhammad and even much, much later. Thus you're indulging time and again into Presentism, and your
red herring sophistry isn't going anywhere...
darth wrote:What testimonies? Prove to us that the person who recorded the verse did not make it up himself
Thousands. Your red herring sophistry won't do

darth wrote:We are not studying history or recording history but testing ideas.
Again, ideas are immaterial. Morality isn't... behaviors aren't.
darth wrote:Paedophilia is a a word to describe an act based upon the idea that - "having sex with immature children is okay". We can show whether this idea is correct scientifically. If the idea is wrong the act based upon the idea is wrong.... Slavery is based upon the idea that human beings can be owned and sold like property. If this idea can be proven wrong, actions that follow based on the idea are wrong as well.
Cultures aren't ideas either, but collective behaviors. So for the Bedouins slavery and pedophilia were customary.
You really are indulging into red herring and... Presentism.

darth wrote:those who want allah and the last day , must follow muhammad's example and remember allah. And where exactly is muhammad's life recorded? This very much sounds to me that we must rely on tafsirs, sira and the hadiths.
Another silly Sunnite concept. Where is it so stated in the Koran, which rather says:

31.6: And of mankind is he who payeth for mere frivolous hadiths (Lahwa Al-Ĥadīthi), that
he may mislead from Allah´s way without knowledge, and maketh it the butt of mockery....
Last edited by The Cat on Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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 »

MbL wrote:You're looking mighty incompetent at this point. Perhaps Islam has infected the brain of an otherwise intelligent person.... You're nothing but a wishful charlatan..... I can't believe you're even going to attempt to argue about this. It's getting pathetic.... When are you going to take the veil off?
You sound like AB... :roflmao:

--You WROTE that Asad was the ''most dishonest of translators'' (not only Shakir). But you've quoted him on this 'apostle' thing,
while ALL the other translations say 'messenger'. An apostle and a Koranic messenger aren't the same. That's Mr. Asad mistake
and you uphold it. Do you think that Gabriel is an apostle or a messenger? A Koranic messenger is directly linked with Gabriel,
thus with God. Such aren't apostles, merely propagandists, advertisers. See? I guess you can't.


--16.43 talks about the 'followers of the Remembrance'. In the wrongly translated 21.105, 'Scripture' is the Arabic Zabur, the Psalms.
So in 16.44, Muhammad is ordered to instruct those who know what came before the Psalms (the Reminder) that good tidings are
on the way. Not, as you claimed, that they had to follow his personal example! Silly and confused as usual...


--The behavior of Muhammad is only exemplary, of a sublime morality, in that he believed in Allah. Do you mean to say
that he was exemplary in his belief of himself? That's ludicrous as you are. All messengers are to be obeyed equally so, no,
ibn Khatir isn't spot on. Show me where all the prophets are commanded to obey Muhammad? It's the other way around:
2.130; 3.59; 4.125; 42.13. 24.54: The messenger hath no other charge than to convey (the message) plainly. Get it?


--Jesus was born sinless and he remained so as a sign and a statement of truth. See?


--Memory problem? You said that the Socratic Greece and Thomas Jefferson were discredited. You wrote: Yes!
viewtopic.php?p=158608#p158608" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So I've answered: Good luck with that... :D

Now, i need a break from such industrial silliness ! No wonder FFI is deserted!
Last edited by The Cat on Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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:Now, i need a break from such industrial silliness ! No wonder FFI is deserted!
Your arguments are damn stupid to be honest. Now you are simply shifting the blame onto others for your incompetency.
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 »

Hi Darth then perhaps the PEDANTIC CAT can show PROOF that Jibril got the message from allah to give to Old Mo in his cave. The ONLY persons word we have for the existence of Jibril and of allah is Old Mo's and everyone knows how trustworthy he was. So even before Old mo started his chain of HEARSAY and CHINESE WHISPERS when the ILLITERATE Profit disseminated his FAIRY STORY the Koran it was already subject to Jibrils and Mohammad's HEARSAY and that is only if you believe the consumate liar and perverted individual Mohammad's word in the first place. So at the very least THE CAT is guilty of TRUSTING the word of the liar Mohammad.
Last edited by Multiple on Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Banned.

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:
The Cat wrote:Now, i need a break from such industrial silliness ! No wonder FFI is deserted!
Your arguments are damn stupid to be honest. Now you are simply shifting the blame onto others for your incompetency.
Well, for a start, you never disproved any. Shifting the blame on me isn't actually proving your competence.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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 »

Multiple wrote:So at the very least THE CAT is guilty of TRUSTING the word of the liar Mohammad.
Strange, darth is of the opinion that the Koran might as well be given to someone else than Muhammad.

Settle this and we might go on...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
Ansar al-Zindiqi
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:35 am
Contact:

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Ansar al-Zindiqi »

All this talk of Presentism reminds of a certain guy named phildidge. Just saying . . . .
Don't be a believer but a heretic unto yourself.

sum
Posts: 6563
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by sum »

Hello The Cat

Your quote -
The GR wasn't in effect in the time of Muhammad's Bedouins.

Please see the following -

Some "Ethic of Reciprocity" passages from the religious texts of various religions and secular beliefs:
"What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (ANCIENT GREECE - Epictetus, the Greek philosopher, about 90 CE*)

Bahá'í Faith:

"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah

"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf


Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "

Buddhism:

"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
"I will act towards others exactly as I would act towards myself." (BUDDHISM - from The Siglo-Vada Sutta, about 500 BCE)


Christianity:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.

"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).


Confucianism:

"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23

"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4


Ancient Egyptian:

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 3


Hinduism:

This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517


Humanism:

"(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."

"(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. " 4

"Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society. 3


Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 5

Jainism:

"Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.

"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33


Judaism:

"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 6


Native American Spirituality:

"Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.

"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk

"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.


Roman Pagan Religion: "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."

Shinto:

"The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"

"Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God." Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga


Sikhism:

Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib

"Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259

"No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299


Sufism: "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.

Taoism:

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.

"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49


Unitarian:
"The inherent worth and dignity of every person;"
"Justice, equity and compassion in human relations.... "
"The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;"
"We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles. 7,8

Wicca: "As it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede


Yoruba: (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."

Zoroastrianism:

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5

"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29


Did you mean that the GR was not part of just the Bedouin`s way of life or not part of humanity in general?

sum

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 »

sum wrote:Did you mean that the GR was not part of just the Bedouin`s way of life or not part of humanity in general?
The Bedouin's way of life was that of 'survival of the fittest'. The GR was reserved within the tribe, not applying outside. It's from
this nomadic mentality (Hebrew, Bedouin, etc) that we have the dreadful notion of 'outside the tribe, there's no salvation'....
This clashes with anything civilized and the GR.

You've quoted Lev.19.18 to state that the GR was in the Torah. That's a wrong understanding of the word 'neighbor' which means 'those
who think alike', ie. an extended tribe. This was corrected by Jesus, in Luke 6 and elsewhere. Lev.19.18 is far from being universal...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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 »

I wish to differentiate furthermore the distinction between the Semitic 'rasul' (messenger) and the Greek Apostolos...

The correct Greek word transcribing the Koranic messenger is PEMPEIN used in the NT to mean 'the act of sending', while Apostles
describes the people who have a commission linked to it. The Semitic 'rasul' transcribes that one becomes the living embodiment
(Moses, Elijah, Jesus, etc) of God's message, while apostles are the bearers of a message (Paul, Peter, John, etc), the disciples on
an 'apostolic' mission. In the Koran the term disciple (i.e. apostle) is very well set apart from 'messenger'....

5.111:
And when I inspired the apostles (Al-Ĥawārīyīna), (saying): Believe in Me and in My messenger (rasūlī),
they said: We believe (Āmannā). Bear witness that we have surrendered "we are muslims."

5.112: When the disciples (Al-Ĥawārīyīna) said: O Jesus, son (ibn NOT walid**) of Mary!

**Abna Maryama transcribes that Jesus wasn't the biological son (walid) of the virgin Mary.

Muhammad is never said to be the Hawariyun of Allah, but the shahaba were his apostles, so Mr. Asad is plainly wrong in his translation.
http://www.theoed.org/apostles/messages/2-1.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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:Malik Muwatta ignores Bukhari's work because Bukhari didnt include many of the Malik Muwatta's collection and the reason is explained below in the spoiler.
You miss the point -again- so I'll express it differently: We are said that the Muwatta (the well-trodden path) took 40 years to be collected,
right in the middle of Medina. So Shafi'i lauded its authenticity.
How many times should I explain you this? You obviously havent read the answering islam article. They clearly say that Bukhari included relevant and important things from Malik Muwatta but Malik Muwatta's work is a collection of legal traditions rather than historical work of Muhammad or islam and thats why Malik Muwatta missed what is in Bukhari and that's why the difference in the work. I am sure you will keep parroting the same arguments again and again.
The Cat wrote: My argument is chronological. The Muwatta preceeds Bukhari a lot, yet IGNORES most, if not all, of Bukhari's later work. That Malik simply
didn't know them, or left them over for not being sound enough... is telling us loud and clear that Bukhari forged from elsewhere than Medina.
Its stupid to compare 2 works because Malik Muwatta mainly includes legal traditions and not the sunnah of muhammad and Bukhari wanted to collect the history of Muhammad and islam .Two authors had different aims and hence the differences. Its not that Bukhari and Malik were collecting the same thing i,e history of islam.
The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
skynightblaze wrote:Raiding was never a custom (for nomads). Where is the evidence for that?
Now this is very common knowledge!!! So yes Mohammad acted according to the standards of his time. And it's still the case for the
Touaregs, for example. They STILL raid and rape, like the Toubou tribe. The Arabic Bedouins weren't in rest with these Touaregs.
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Mind_of_t ... Chapter_II" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
he is always ready to seize any chance that offers — a camel strayed from the herd provides him with a feast of meat:
a sudden dash upon a caravan or the douar (camp) of a sedentary tribe furnishes him with dates, spices and women.


http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Hist/Is ... Arabia.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tribal warfare was rather common as clans and tribes continually competed with one another for the very limited resources of the desert
lands. Water, agriculture, women, and slaves were all prized possessions of which acquisition by any means could mean the difference
between survival and death. So harsh were conditions and at times so necessary for survival was raiding for supplies (razzias) that such
extra-tribal raids (ghazwa) were viewed as a legitimate practice....

Reza Aslan: ''Crimes committed against those outside the tribe were not only unpunished, they were not really crimes. Stealing, killing,
or injuring another person was not considered a morally reprehensible act per se, and such acts were punished only if they weakened the
stability of the tribe.
'' The Bedouins became known for this rugged lifestyle of migrating, trading, and raiding.
You'll hate it but it's your turn of -proving- that razzias and ghazwas weren't by traditions, or else you're into... Presentism.
YOur own quote says AT TIMES RAIDING WAS NECESSARY! IT doesnt raiding was quite often.It says sometimes survival was very difficult.

Secondly your quote says that raiding and stealing OUTSIDE THE TRIBE was not a crime BUT NOT INSIDE IT!. Now Muhammad was a pagan and he stole the pagan wealth SO basically Muhammad looted i.e. a discontinuity and WITHING HIS OWN TRIBE and NOT OUTSIDE HIS TRIBE. Looting within the tribe was condemned even as per your own quote!!!! Lo Muhammad was a thief even by the standards of his time. More ever quran also condemns stealing and hence even as per quranic standard Muhammad was a thief. I guess you must be disheartened to know that Muhammad was a thief :D

Thirdly your rubbish quote says that taking women and slaves meant a matter of death or survival. Now please explain how in the world can not taking women or slaves mean death?

Anyway I will answer you separately on this in my next post. I will address your latest gibberish about presentism.
The Cat wrote: And I've shown you that Muhammad is not recognized as a role model but as a deviant (93.7) and that he's solely exemplary in his 'looking
forward unto Allah and remembering Him much (33.21). So it is written in the Koran to obey the messenger, never obey Muhammad...
Obey the messenger is same as saying obey muhammad. There is a limit as to what a person can bullsh!t. You seem to cross all of them. Btw if Muhammad was deviant then why in the world should anyone trust him on his claim that he was the messenger of GOd? When the messenger of God himself cannot follow what God ordered he becomes unreliable. Now how do we know whether Muhammad transmitted the message from Gabriel correctly especially when we see that he was deviant person??
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:But how do we know whether Muhamamad looked forward unto Allah? Again we need the details of his life to know how Muhammad can serve as an example in looking forward to Allah. I have also shown you 2:151 which clearly states that Muhammad is supposed to teach/instruct the scripture, the wisdom and NEW TEACHINGS. NEW TEACHINGS cannot be a part of scripture otherwise it makes no sense to mention them seperately.
We know that the Koran doesn't picture him as a role model, quite the contrary (33.37; 42.52; 66.1, 93.7).

And yes 2.151 refers to the ancient scriptures and wisdom by which Muhammad was to judged Jews and Christians accordingly.
And most obviously the 'new thing' is the Koran being still revealed at the time.
Show me where in the world does 2:151 talk about people of the book?? Even the surrounding verses dont make a mention of jews or christians. More ever "the new thing" in 2:151 is not a reference to "quran" because it says Muhammad is supposed to TEACH SCRIPTURE AND NEW THINGS. If new things meant the quran then the word SCRIPTURE would include it and there is no need to mention it separately. Note that 2:151 says "scripture" and "new things". Scripture would mean quran and new things i.e the sayings of muhammad.
The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
5:43 How come they unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment (for them) ?

5:44 Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the prophets who surrendered judged the Jews...

5:47 Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein...

5:49 So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed...

Or even as stated in Bukhari 4.56.829. So, yes, stoning is Koranic but only when... judging Jews, according to the Torah (under 18 different
accusations). Yet their judiciary way of stoning wasn't at all in throwing small rocks at someone, which was performed to expel undesirable
fellows (get out of here). It was much more expedient than that: the victim was made to fall on rocks from a high place (as in Luke 4.29).
5:43 -49 have no connection with 2:151. You are making illogical leaps just like muslims do and thats why you cannot see your own stupidity.Just because 5:43-49 says something about jews and christians it doesnt mean 2:151 is talking about the same. That's heights of stupidity!
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:What happens to all these scriptures if all these prophets were a fraud? Their character is very much important to the message to be genuine. If Muhammad is proven as a criminal then quran loses its credibility.
He was a product of his time, no more, no less. Moses was a far greater monster, or Elisha. Again, the erring character of Muhammad is
portrayed in the Koran. If a king send a sealed message to a vassal, the messenger isn't of much importance, the sealed message is.
That's a False analogy! In case of a king sending a sealed message to a vassal we know the king exist but in case of Muhammad we cant 100% be sure that Allah has sent a message with Muhammad. Now in your example what if the messenger is the only one who claims to have brought the message from the king?? What if we cant verify whether the king exist and whether he is really sent the message or not? In such a case the messenger becomes important because the validity of the message very much depends on what the character of the messenger. If he is a liar then its obvious that he isnt a messenger and no king has sent a message. You have typical muslim traits and I wont be surprised if you have accepted islam as your religion.

The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
skynightblaze wrote:After reading the quran one can easily know that he/she cannot become a muslim unless he/she accepts Allah as the only God and Muhammad as his messenger and hence content of Shahada is in line with quranic teachings.
What are the limits of your Sunnite's gullibility? It's amazing!

3.18: Allah is Witness (Shahida Allāhu) that there is no Allah save Him....

3.20: And if they argue with thee, say: I have surrendered my purpose to Allah and those who follow me.....

13:14 Unto Him is the real prayer. Those unto whom they pray beside Allah respond to them not at all...

http://tawhiyd.webs.com/tawhiyd.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Image

Which makes every single Islamic prayer a blasphemy!!!

Shirk and Idolatry in Islam (The Cat)
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1062" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You are never going to stop embarrassing yourself. This argument is absolutely poor to the core.

Can anyone become a muslim without believing muhammad as a prophet? To believe in Allah you need to believe that Muhammad was the messenger. If one doesn;t consider Muhammad to be a prophet or the messenger of Allah then how in the world can quran expect such a person to believe in itself? The credibility of quran depends on the credibility of muhammad. If Muhammad was a fraud then quran also becomes a fraud and therefore to believe In islam or Allah alone one has to believe in Muhamamad as a legitimate person who really received revelations and hence one has to consider Allah as a God and muhammad as a messenger even to believe in the quran and hence quranic teachings are in line with Shahada. I am sure you will come with some rubbish stuff. It seems that you are fan of scribbling . You think when you type it automatically means you have refuted the other party.
The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
skynightblaze wrote:We are not interested in appeasing islam by lying for it which is precisely what you are doing. We are here to expose islam for what it is . WE dont like people who want to whitewash sins of muhammad. The truth is that many of those ahadith are true and Muhammad was a criminal.
I am exposing Muhammadanism, which ain't Islam as per the Koran. And it even exposes Muhammad's sins. The Koran doesn't ever show him
as a secular role model, ordered to govern through councils (3.159; 42.38). As for Allah, he's but a repainting of the Vedic Varuna (from the Rig).

Could the Vedic Varuna Be Allah ? (The Cat)
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, the hadiths are true, you state. Here's an ahaad isnad:
1) Narrator G6 said
2) that narrator F5 held
3) from narrator E4,
4) who got it from narrator D3,
5) that narrator C2 heard it
6) from the companion B1
7) that the prophet A0 stated this: (...) !

How can anyone be convinced by such Whispers? Nothing even according to the -2- testimonies required (2.282; 5.106; 65.2)!
How can it be rightfully proven that -narrator E4- didn't distort the report of narrator D3, further corrupted by F5, given to G6?
Thats easy because had even one of them lied then we would completely get different stories. Take for e,g Murder of Kab Ashraf. Ibn Ishaq reports the same story, Bukhari does repeat the same story and Sahih Muslim repeats the same story. Now narrators of each of these stories were different. Now how in the world can the stories match if someone had lied in between? If even one of the narrator had lied then we should be getting a completely different story.

Btw same question can be asked about authenticity of quran too.How do we know that both the witnesses that you mention didn't collaboratively corrupt their testimonies ? Now Umar and Thabit didnt know the complete quran and hence they cannot be vouch for every single content.

Btw I dont say all the ahadith are true. What I am saying there are some events which become a common knowledge and they are passed down the generations below. We today can easily write a book of battles of Napolean from the available history. Even we are using the same methodology but that doesnt mean we are lying completely.

Btw quran does ask him Muhammad to be followed. We are not idiots to believe that quran never meants following the messenger when it clearly says FOLLOW THE MESSENGER AND FOLLOW THE PROPHET. People with even minor of logic can see how stupid your argument is. Even if there exist some verses which say Allah alone should be followed there are counter verses which say Muhammad should be followed and hence following Muhammad is also a part of Allah's sunnah.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:29 pm, edited 1 time 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 »

The Cat wrote:[
You seem to ignore that Presentism is based on a discontinuity in moral standards. Stealing as wrong is an accepted standard, according
to the Golden Rule and timelessly recognized as such.
Oh this is getting terrible! You have shot yourself in the foot here.If Golden rule was timelessly recognized then it was present even during Muhammads time and hence by the virtue of Golden rule Muhamamd can be condemned for stealing.

Anyway I didn't accuse muhammad of engaging in fallacy of presentism for stealing.I said quran engaged in fallacy of presentism for criticism of people of the book in various aspects.
The Cat wrote: Once again, this shows that Muhammad can't be an all-time model, and the Koran is
the first to recognized Muhammad as a deviant... When there's an updated continuity, like stealing, Presentism does not apply.
I didn't accuse quran for engaging in presentism as far as stealing is concerned. Nevertheless quran itself claims stealing is bad and hence quran by its own standards refutes the conduct of Muhammad as unacceptable.

Btw if Muhammad was deviant then there is no reason as to why anyone should believe that he didnt deviate while dictating revelations of quran. CASE closed! Lo quran is unreliable :D
The Cat wrote: The Koran condemns the people of the book for not respecting their own covenants, its continuity, which is something that hasn't change
up to now. Thus the presentism criteria doesn't apply, like it does in the case of slavery or pedophilia. It's on these criterias that we can't
judge Muhammad, no more than let's say Socrates or Thomas Jefferson. Presentism must rely on a societal change of mentality in values.
When there's break with the past, it does. Muhammad was a product of its customs, you can't judge it from nowadays values. Get it?
I have already shown that even according to the customs of his time Muhammad didn't behave correctly. Your own quote demonstrates that. Coming the point, quran criticizes people because they didn't follow a new prophet that was sent to them with a new message . Quran mocks the ways of their forefathers and hence quran essentially judged the the ways of forefathers of people to whom the new prophet was sent by the new standard each prophet was supposed to set i.e discontinuity in standards and hence quran can be accused of engaging in a fallacy of presentism.

There is 1 more post of yours that is pending and I will answer that tomorrow.
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 »

darth wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:@CAT

I will reply to your arguments point by point but let me end this presentism crap that you use to defend islam.Quran itself condemns stealing so even by quranic standards stealing was not ok. If stealing was a norm during then quran wouldnt have condemned stealing.

Now all I have to do is turn the tables and show you how rubbish argument is. Quran judges people of the book in many aspects and says that they committed so and so sin so should I now say that quran engaged in the fallacy of presentism? If quran could judge people in the past then why cant we judge Muhammad after 1400 years ??
Excellent point. :lol: :lol:

I will remember that when I am arguing with other muslims....
lol: Sure its worth using this argument. Its like a boomrang :D . These muslims throw it at the kafirs only to find it coming back and hitting them back. Most of the arguments that these ahadith deniers make create problems for the quran too. All one has to do is apply the same argument to quran and it falls flat on face. Con men like CAT should be exposed and refuted every single time they make an argument.
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
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 »

The Cat wrote:
MbL wrote:You're looking mighty incompetent at this point. Perhaps Islam has infected the brain of an otherwise intelligent person.... You're nothing but a wishful charlatan..... I can't believe you're even going to attempt to argue about this. It's getting pathetic.... When are you going to take the veil off?
You sound like AB... :roflmao:

--You WROTE that Asad was the ''most dishonest of translators'' (not only Shakir).
I never said Shakir was a dishonest translator. Why do you think i use him?"
The Cat wrote: But you've quoted him on this 'apostle' thing,
I never said Shakir was a dishonest translator. Why do you think i use him?"
The Cat wrote:
while ALL the other translations say 'messenger'.
Which verse are you talking about?? Let's take a look at the other translators.
The Cat wrote: An apostle and a Koranic messenger aren't the same. That's Mr. Asad mistake
I never quoted Asad you incompetent moron.
The Cat wrote:
and you uphold it. Do you think that Gabriel is an apostle or a messenger? A Koranic messenger is directly linked with Gabriel,
thus with God. Such aren't apostles, merely propagandists, advertisers. See? I guess you can't.
No i don't see, as your sentence made no sense. Do you drink heavily?? You said that messengers are directly linked with Gabriel and thus with God and then said that they aren't apostles, merely propagandists, advertisers. See?? You don't even know what you write. Why is anybody supposed to take your cuckoo attempts with any seriousness?? Pick your translator and let's see if they never call Muhammad an apostle. There's another challenge for you to pretend that you never heard.
The Cat wrote: --16.43 talks about the 'followers of the Remembrance'.
In the wrongly translated 21.105, 'Scripture' is the Arabic Zabur, the Psalms.
I don't even remember mentioning 21.105, so what does this have to do with anything?? Nice try at spin.
The Cat wrote:
So in 16.44, Muhammad is ordered to instruct those who know what came before the Psalms (the Reminder) that good tidings are
on the way. Not, as you claimed, that they had to follow his personal example! Silly and confused as usual...
Fine:
33:21. Certainly you have in the Apostle of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.
Where do we get Muhammad's example from?? Certainly not the Quran.
The Cat wrote: --The behavior of Muhammad is only exemplary, of a sublime morality, in that he believed in Allah. Do you mean to say
that he was exemplary in his belief of himself?
No, I mean he was an excellent example to follow. You still won't answer why all those verses don't just say to follow Allah, they say to follow Allah and Muhammad. If your silly invention was true, then Muhammad need not be mentioned, but he consistently is.
The Cat wrote: That's ludicrous as you are. All messengers are to be obeyed equally so, no,
ibn Khatir isn't spot on. Show me where all the prophets are commanded to obey Muhammad?
He said Muhammad was the last and mightiest of messengers and that Allah commanded that Muhammad be obeyed. How could the other prophets be asked to obey Muhammad when they lived before him?? Silly moron. Nice try at spin, but it failed. Honestly, how stupid do you think people are?? I don't believe that was a mistake on your part, but a willful attempt at dishonesty to hopefully save your pride.
The Cat wrote: It's the other way around:
2.130; 3.59; 4.125; 42.13. 24.54: The messenger hath no other charge than to convey (the message) plainly. Get it?
24:56. And keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and obey the Apostle, so that mercy may be shown to you.
26:215. And be kind to him who follows you of the believers.
26:216. But if they disobey you, then say: Surely I am clear of what you do.
59:7....and whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah;....
The Cat wrote: --Jesus was born sinless and he remained so as a sign and a statement of truth. See?
Where's the verse??
The Cat wrote: --Memory problem? You said that the Socratic Greece and Thomas Jefferson were discredited. You wrote: Yes!
viewtopic.php?p=158608#p158608" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So I've answered: Good luck with that... :D
What luck do I need?? I consider them discredited. Jesus, on the other hand, was not.
The Cat wrote: Now, i need a break from such industrial silliness ! No wonder FFI is deserted!
Oh, yes yes, when you paint yourself into a corner, paint it as silly. :lol: Soooo dishonest, but that's what your excessive pride forces you to do. I hate to break the news to you, but you simply are not as smart as you fancy yourself to be. When are you going to wake up to that fact??
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

darth
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:16 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by darth »

The Cat wrote: By taking the Golden Rule to say that slavery and pedophilia are wrong you're into Presentism.
The GR wasn't in effect in the time of Muhammad's Bedouins. You keep confusing everything...
You were the one that brought in the golden rule. But the golden rule was known at the time of mohammad and before. Sum has provided you with a number of quotes from books that existed before mo. So using the golden rule is a good standard to test against.
You cannot claim that the bedouins were not aware of the golden rule but still used the golden rule for intra tribe affairs. Do you realize how stupid and desperate this argument is? Bottom line, (as you yourself say) the bedouins knew the golden rule.
The Cat wrote: And all those transgressions are related to breaking the covenant, the continuous tradition set by the Torah and Gospel.
Nope. The quran does not say that. That is your assumption. Again, it is making an accusation of people that lived in the past without any knowledge of the conditions causing the behavior. A clear case of your "presentism"
The Cat wrote: Then again, only behaviors can be pertaining to Presentism. It belongs mainly to sociology, not to philosophy. Ideas are
immaterial. Not morality which is behavioral.
We are testing the ideas - "it is okay to have sex with immature children", " it is good to own and sell people". Most actions are based on some idea or thought. Without an idea/thought to guide our actions, we would be only animals. We don't even need to go to the morality of the question, simply test if these ideas are medically, scientifically, factually, logically correct. And on these grounds these ideas can be proven false.
But, if you were to consider morality , slavery was not considered a noble thing even in mohammad's time. That is why the quran itself allowed for a slave to be freed as a atonement/punishment akin to a good deed. (if quran thought slavery was a noble thing then it would have told a man to buy more slaves in atonment or something :sly: )
The Cat wrote:
darth wrote:A supposed person of God should be judged by higher standards.... Mohammad was a great prophet-wanna-be who married a much younger wife when she was still playing with dolls.
So the Koran portrays him as a deviant, time again in 33.50. But then, for the Bedouins tribes, child-bride was customary.
Prove that. Show that it was the norm in bedouin tribes for 53 year old men to marry 6 year olds (not for 2 children to marry because that usually was the norm - getting two children married when they were young and then physically letting them live together after the girl was about 13/14/15). I have asked this of many muslims and muslim apologists. I have not got any answers on this. The best they can do is point to some english king that lived in the 12th or 13 century.
The Cat wrote: Until the 19th century, in the US the age of consent, often regulating marriages, was 10 years old, pushed to 18 in 1920.
Irrelevant. I hold that law was medically wrong. You see, I am not using your silly "presentism" to excuse this.
The Cat wrote: Ideas aren't physical, they aren't persons. They have no behavior. Slavery and pedophilia were the custom, not the idea, in the time of Muhammad and even much, much later. Thus you're indulging time and again into Presentism, and your
red herring sophistry isn't going anywhere...
Rubbish. I do not recognize presentism as valid except in recording history (which we are not doing). But all ideas are subject to tests of logic and science. Behaviors that rise out of ideas can also be studied. Who told you "customs" are sacrosanct?
As an example, just because racial prejudice was the norm in the time of Hitler does not mean that we should never say anything against Hitler's racial hatred (which is the manifestation of the original idea that some races are superior to others)
The Cat wrote:
darth wrote:What testimonies? Prove to us that the person who recorded the verse did not make it up himself
Thousands. Your red herring sophistry won't do
Does that answer show that you cannot prove it? Is there is nothing to prove that the quran is any more reliable than the hadiths? Do you agree that the quranic verses could be as much of made up nonsense as the hadiths.
The Cat wrote: Strange, darth is of the opinion that the Koran might as well be given to someone else than Muhammad.
I do not know if there was a mohammad. I do not know who made up the quranic verses - mo or anyone else. All that I know, is that it was definitely the hodge podge work of one or more than one humans. To attribute such a nonsensical piece of tripe to God is a blasphemy.
The Cat wrote:
darth wrote:We are not studying history or recording history but testing ideas.
Again, ideas are immaterial. Morality isn't... behaviors aren't.
If an idea is proven wrong, the act and behavior based on the idea is wrong.
Hitler's action against the jews was based on his idea of racial superiority. That idea was wrong, subsequently the actions based on that idea turned out to be wrong.
The Cat wrote:
darth wrote:those who want allah and the last day , must follow muhammad's example and remember allah. And where exactly is muhammad's life recorded? This very much sounds to me that we must rely on tafsirs, sira and the hadiths.
Another silly Sunnite concept. Where is it so stated in the Koran, which rather says:
31.6: And of mankind is he who payeth for mere frivolous hadiths (Lahwa Al-Ĥadīthi), that
he may mislead from Allah´s way without knowledge, and maketh it the butt of mockery....
Ah, but the recordings of mo's life (the example to be followed) are not mere frivolous hadiths, get it?

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

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Multiple »

skynightblaze wrote:
darth wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:@CAT

I will reply to your arguments point by point but let me end this presentism crap that you use to defend islam.Quran itself condemns stealing so even by quranic standards stealing was not ok. If stealing was a norm during then quran wouldnt have condemned stealing.

Now all I have to do is turn the tables and show you how rubbish argument is. Quran judges people of the book in many aspects and says that they committed so and so sin so should I now say that quran engaged in the fallacy of presentism? If quran could judge people in the past then why cant we judge Muhammad after 1400 years ??
Excellent point. :lol: :lol:

I will remember that when I am arguing with other muslims....
lol: Sure its worth using this argument. Its like a boomrang :D . These muslims throw it at the kafirs only to find it coming back and hitting them back. Most of the arguments that these ahadith deniers make create problems for the quran too. All one has to do is apply the same argument to quran and it falls flat on face. Con men like CAT should be exposed and refuted every single time they make an argument.
Quite true when reading the CAT's supposed rebuttals I am reminded of the way Mohammedans argue . For me there is very little difference between a PEDANTIC Mohammedan and a PEDANTIC CAT. I notice the CAT never raises any doubts that the Koran is from God or on the HEARSAY that must obviously exist if that were so between allah and Jibril and Jibril and Mohammad not to mention the unimaginable amounts of HEARSAY that clearly exists when ILLITERATE Mohammad disseminated HIS Koran by HEARSAY and CHINESE WHISPER, far more HEARSAY than ANY aHADITH. In my opinion the Hadith's are FAR more trustworthy than the HEARSAY Koran. He accepts Mohammad's word too that that is where he got it from but Old Mo had NO WITNESSES at all to verify HIS account of the HEARSAY dissemination from allah VIA Jibril. Another point of great issue is why didn't allah speak DIRECTLY to Old Mo after all he did to ALL the other Prophets.
Banned.

Post Reply