DO you agree with The Cat?

[MesMorial]

[The Cat]

why should I pursue debates I won by landslides all over, clearly depicted above? With someone trolling industrial logical fallacies?

you claimed here that I avoid answering when cornered so your challenge did exist. I was replying to it and you were the one who brought Mesmorial's challenge when the issue was between us.

His Senility keeps on conveniently confuse everything, like what is a challenge and who's a troll.

And this post of yours stands out as proving to everyone how much of a deceiver you are...

Again, the challenge you were answering was that of MesMorial
viewtopic.php?p=167904#p167904 (''-SEE YOU THERE-'')
It was never me in the first place and even MesMorial got it from his following comment...

Throwing wild unsubstantiated claims as answers are trolling logical fallacies, apart defaming.
In fact, you rarely have any other form of 'arguments' but this kind of 'Drama Queen' attitude.

This very poll being itself a logical fallacy known as Moving the Goalpost or Raising the bar.
Show me where did I ever state that ALL hadiths are unauthentic? Quite the opposite really:
viewtopic.php?p=128620#p128620
viewtopic.php?p=164090#p164090

Now, the challenge is what you made -thrice herein- and to anyone backing me...
viewtopic.php?p=163282#p163282
viewtopic.php?p=163283#p163283
viewtopic.php?p=163333#p163333

But when came in a response, you cowardly backpedaled on your own promise and then switched the obvious context.
viewtopic.php?p=167718#p167718

Right in this very poll, although fallacious, you've lost (so far) by fourteen to zero!
viewtopic.php?p=128503#p128503

You should understand that none agrees with your crap.... If majority agrees with you on your stance on hadiths I will publicly apologize and I will accept that I was a fool and will take back what all I said.Its a promise!

By your own definition, 14 against none being a HUGE majority, logically then...

[The Cat]

After demonstrating how the prophetic siras/hadiths are too late and thus unreliable, from both external and internal evidences...
viewtopic.php?p=163733#p163733
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8185
viewtopic.php?p=153976#p153976
viewtopic.php?p=163405#p163405

Including the 'Mecca' hoax
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8527
And then debunking SNB on all grounds...
viewtopic.php?p=167775#p167775
viewtopic.php?p=168097#p168097
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10680

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad
''When using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write such a biography'' Harald Motzki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophetic_ ... usefulness

A coherent image of Muhammad cannot be formed from the literature of sīra, whose authenticity and factual value have been
questioned on a number of different grounds. ... Furthermore, the authenticity of the poetry included by Ibn Ishaq has also
been questioned by later Muslim historians, like Ibn Sallam al-Jumahi and Ibn Nadim, who both censured Ibn Ishaq for including
poetry that was either impossible to belong to ancient periods in Arab culture or has been attributed to persons not known to
have written any poetry.

So even the 'old' Arabic poetry found in Ibn Ishaq/Hisham were forged! How's that!!!

We shall now bring the topping of it all: Archaeology.

First with the Yehuda Nevo's discoveries...
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/qurarch.htm

--Nevo has found in the Arab religious texts, dating from the first century and a half of Arab rule
(seventh to eighth century A.D.), a monotheistic creed. However, he contends that this creed "is
demonstrably not Islam, but [a creed] from which Islam could have developed." (Nevo 1994:109)
**Note: the creed was rather Samaritan (see first post of the preceding page).

--Nevo also found that "in all the Arab religious institutions during the Sufyani period [661-684 A.D.]
there is a complete absence of any reference to Muhammad." (Nevo 1994:109) In fact neither the
name Muhammad itself nor any Muhammadan formulae (that he is the prophet of God) appears in any
inscription dated before the year 691 A.D.. This is true whether the main purpose of the inscription
is religious, such as in supplications, or whether it was used as a commemorative inscription, though
including a religious emphasis, such as the inscription at the dam near the town of Ta'if, built by the
Caliph Mu'awiya in the 660s A.D. (Nevo 1994:109).

--His name is only found on the Arab inscriptions after 690 A.D. (Nevo 1994:109-110).... the first dated
occurrence of the phrase Muhammad rasul Allah (Muhammad is the prophet of God) is found on an
Arab-Sassanian coin of Xalid b. Abdallah from the year 690 A.D., which was struck in Damascus (Nevo 1994:110).

--Of greater significance, the first occurrence of what Nevo calls the "Triple Confession of Faith," including
the Tawhid (that God is one), the phrase, Muhammad rasul Allah (that Muhammad is his prophet), and the
human nature of Jesus (rasul Allah wa- abduhu), is found in Abd al-Malik's inscription in the Dome of the Rock
in Jerusalem, dated 691 A.D. (Nevo 1994:110)! Before this inscription the Muslim confession of faith cannot
be attested at all.
(**Note on the Dome's data-): viewtopic.php?p=94306#p94306

--According to Nevo, the first Arabic papyrus, an Egyptian entaqion, which was a receipt for taxes paid, dated
642 A.D. and written in both Greek and Arabic is headed by the "Basmala," yet it is neither Christian nor Muslim
in character (Nevo 1994:110).
(**See the works of the late archeologist Father Michelle Picirillo on the 'bismalla' in Madaba (Ex.43.6; Ps.103.8).

--The religious content within the rock inscriptions do not become pronounced until after 661 A.D. However, though
they bear religious texts, they never mention the prophet or the Muhammadan formulae (Nevo 1994:110). "This means,"
Nevo says, "that the official Arab religious confession did not include Muhammad or Muhammadan formulae in its
repertoire of set phrases at this time," a full 30-60 years and more after the death of Muhammad (Nevo 1994:110).

--Of even greater significance, these inscriptions show that when the Muhammadan formulae is introduced, during the
Marwanid period (after 684 A.D.), it is carried out "almost overnight" (Nevo 1994:110). Suddenly it became the state's
only form of official religious declaration, and was used exclusively in formal documents and inscriptions, such as the
papyrus "protocols" (Nevo 1994:110).

--Yet even after the Muhammadan texts became official, they were not accepted by the public quite so promptly. For years
after their appearance in state declarations, people continued to include non-Muhammadan legends in personal inscriptions,
as well as routine chancery writings (Nevo 1994:114).

--In fact, according to Nevo, Muhammadan formulae only began to be used in the popular rock inscriptions of the central
Negev around 30 years (or one generation) after its introduction by Abd al-Malik, sometime during the reign of Caliph
Hisham (between 724-743 A.D.). And even these, according to Nevo, though they are Muhammadan, are not Muslim.
The Muslim texts, he believes, only begin to appear at the beginning of the ninth century (around 822 A.D.), coinciding
with the first written Qur'ans, as well as the first written traditional Muslim accounts (Nevo 1994:115).
(**The introduction of a paper mill in Baghdad around 800AD greatly helped).

--Thus, it seems from these inscriptions that it was during the later Marwanid period (after 684 A.D.), and not during the
life of Muhammad that he was elevated to the position of a universal prophet, and that even then, the Muhammadan formula
which was introduced was still not equivalent with that which we have today.
(**This period corresponds to the much intriguing 2nd civil war led by Ibn al-Zubayr, which I'm studying).

A review
http://atheism.about.com/library/books/ ... sIslam.htm

Ps. I've been through Saifullah's (of islamic-awareness) so-called 'refutations' but none of them changed anything from the fact
that we've got -no archeological remains attesting of the profound influences accorded to 'Muhammad' in the Islamic tradition-.

He certainly wasn't the Arabic potentate, ruling over all Arabia by 630 and sending foreign 'letters', as falsely described.

[skynightblaze]

...

This very poll being itself a logical fallacy known as Moving the Goalpost or Raising the bar.
Show me where did I ever state that ALL hadiths are unauthentic? Quite the opposite really:
viewtopic.php?p=128620#p128620
viewtopic.php?p=164090#p164090

Get real TROLL. Learn what a logical fallacy is. You don't even understand the words that you use. We have 14 people here who agreed with you. Right in the first page there is a fallacy in your post and none of these 14 people who agree with you could spot it and yet they agreed with you! . You claim only ahadith of Muhammad interdicting them are valid which itself is a fallacy called selective picking. Let me give you some basic course on logic .

You cannot selectively pick up and claim that ahadith about Muhammad forbidding the ahadith to be true and others are false. That is stupidity but alas I think it is inbuilt in you. If you take these ahadith into consideration then you also need to consider ahadith wherein Muhammad himself allowed writing of books other than quran.Get a life loser and learn some logic before you open your stupid mouth!

You obviously have no clue as to what logic is and neither your supporters. I did not know FFI had so many idiots in here. Even in the second link, nothing can get more stupid ! So ahadith were fabrications and yet they can be taken as basis for history? So corrupt sources tell us the correct history?? This is your logic pathetic TROLL and you claim you can write coherently?

Can you write 10 lines coherently?

Now, the challenge is what you made -thrice herein- and to anyone backing me...
viewtopic.php?p=163282#p163282
viewtopic.php?p=163283#p163283
viewtopic.php?p=163333#p163333

But when came in a response, you cowardly backpedaled on your own promise and then switched the obvious context.
viewtopic.php?p=167718#p167718

Mesmorial claims that in 2:151 teaching means reciting. Any one with common sense can see how pathetic that argument is. This repelled me to debate him but anyway since a TROLL like you would take every opportunity to attack those who expose you let me take the challenge of any of your opponent. I will start with Mesmorial first. I want you to join in there so that I can hand you your arse . The debate could 1 vs many. I am going to refute your latest arguments in the resource center thread in Mesmorial's thread.

Right in this very poll, although fallacious, you've lost (so far) by fourteen to zero!
viewtopic.php?p=128503#p128503

I did not know people can be so blinded by an absolute idiot like you. Anyway there has not been a single instance where majority have agreed with you. If we are to go on the basis of poll results you still lose and more ever there are plenty of quran alone muslims who agree with you so really there is nothing to boast about. I have shown non muslim writings which confirm the ahadith and yet if people who support believe in you then really there is none that can help them.

You should understand that none agrees with your crap.... If majority agrees with you on your stance on hadiths I will publicly apologize and I will accept that I was a fool and will take back what all I said.Its a promise!

By your own definition, 14 against none being a HUGE majority, logically then...

Again I was wrong about this and I did not know people take you so seriously.

On one hand you claim that this poll is fallacious and on the other hand you ask me to draw conclusions from this poll?

[skynightblaze]

It is time to laugh ! The troll without thinking brought some copy paste but rarely does he realize as to what an absolute idiot he is!

His article claims that there is no mention of Muhammad before 691 Ad. He forgot that he himself brought Doctrina Jacobi who wrote in 634 AD . She talks about a man who was a fake prophet and who murdered people unnecessarily . CAT claimed that it was referring to Muhammad but since this person and thinking have absolutely no connection he did not realize that whatever he said earlier contradicts what he brought now. You end up contradicting yourself when all you do is copy paste and claim yourself logical.

He also claimed earlier that Muhammad became a prophet in 641 AD as per quote of John of Damascus . John of Damascus talks about Muhammad becoming a prophet at the time of Heraclius (who died in 641 AD)
SO essentially this TROLL believed that name Muhammad turned up in 641 AD after Heraclius' died. Now he brings a quote from someone else to tell us that the name Muhammad did not exist till 691 AD

Further John Bar Penkaye himself talks about Muhammad in a quote where he speaks about killing of apostates and following tradition of Muhammad. We also have a testimony of a monk writing in 640 AD who wrote about arabs of Muhammad and how they were thugs in 637 Ad which again confirms the ahadith. Here is the writing of the monk I am talking about. The full quote can be found in my resource center thread under ARGUMENT 8.

A Record Of The Arab Conquest Of Syria, 637 CE / 15-16 AH

... and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., ̣Hiṃs)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...]

John bar Penkaye (writing 687 CE / 67-68 AH)

Having let their dispute run its course, after much fighting had taken place between them, the Westerners, whom they call the sons of ’Ammāyē, gained the victory, and one of their number, a man called M‘awyā [i.e., Mu‘awiya], became king controlling the two kingdoms, of the Persians and of the Byzantines. Justice flourished in his time, and there was great peace in the regions under his control; he allowed everyone to live as they wanted. For they held, as I have said above, an ordinance, stemming from the man who was their guide (mhaddyānā), concerning the people of the Christians and concerning the monastic station. Also as a result of this man's guidance (mhaddyānūtā) they held to the worship of One God, in accordance with the customs of ancient law. At the beginnings they kept to the traditions (mašlmānūtā) of Mụhammad, who was their instructor (tā’rā),to such an extent that they inflicted the death penalty on anyone who was seen to act brazenly against his laws [38].

So here we have John Bar Penkaye too recognizes Muhammad as a prophet . He was writing in 687 AD. He was a non muslim. More ever he also confirms the muslim accounts which prescribe death penalty for apostasy as punishment. Further it also says that early muslims followed the TRADITION OF THE PROPHET!!!!!!!! I guess this seals the case but expect not this TROLL to give up ! He will yet again come with posts after posts and yet claim that he has won the debate by land slide.

Further his article claims that Quran did not exist until 8th century So here we again have a case where this person doesnt even understand that once he spent 15 pages arguing about compilation of quran wherein he claimed quran was compiled perfectly in the 7th century! Now he shoots himself here horribly ! More ever Quran was compiled as late as 720 AD. Sanaa Manuscripts are evidence to that. So historically whatever the article says is incorrect i.e quran was written in 9th century.

[skynightblaze]

I have said enough here. I will be replying to both Mesmorial and CAT in the thread Mesmorial opened shortly. So I expect to see them in the quran and ahadith folder.

[The Cat]

You claim only ahadith of Muhammad interdicting them are valid which itself is a fallacy called selective picking. Let me give you some basic course on logic .... Muhammad himself allowed writing of books other than quran

Which is refuted by history without any authoritative hadith before Shafi'i and... AhmedBahgat exegesis:
viewtopic.php?p=167775#p167775

So ahadith were fabrications and yet they can be taken as basis for history?

They must be judged, as I've said repeatedly, on their own intrinsic value.
Uthman, for instance, has much more historical credibility than Ibn Abbas.
And he and all first caliphs them all interdicting hadiths about the prophet.

I will start with Mesmorial first. I want you to join in there so that I can hand you your arse . The debate could 1 vs many. I am going to refute your latest arguments in the resource center thread in Mesmorial's thread.

Good! So you finally acknowledged the fallacy of switching 'challenges'.
Your Sunnite allegiances will be rocked off by MesMorial, good luck...

The subject would cover the religious legitimacy of "Sunna/ahadith", as well as the best approach to dealing "with" Islam/"islam" today.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11106

MesMorial is free to use my arguments as he wishes and like you've stated yourself.

I have shown non muslim writings which confirm the ahadith

Debunked in my RC thread, herein and by the above archeology researches (more on this up there).
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10680
The question should be: Who's that 'Mhmd', allied with Jews and looting in Iraq/Syria around 634/640, are they talking about?

Again I was wrong about this and I did not know people take you so seriously. On one hand you claim that this poll is fallacious and on the other hand you ask me to draw conclusions from this poll?

You were frantically wrong from the beginning and still is, so... keep correcting yourself.

Don't mix our positions as with the challenges. Yours is stating that: 'none agrees with this crap'. Backpedaling only hurts you.
So, by your own LOGIC, a fourteen to zero huge majority compels you to withdraw all you've said (and wrote) and to apologize.

I'm quite sure that by now, except for your hard fans, a lot of people
realized that voting for you was a misguided move which they regret.

Should I start another poll, this time at least with a fair question:
Do you uphold, like skynightblaze, that all hadiths are authentic?

You'd see a quite different result, isn't it? That expose your fallacy.
The other way around...

[The Cat]

His article claims that there is no mention of Muhammad before 691 Ad. He forgot that he himself brought Doctrina Jacobi who wrote in 634 AD ..... He also claimed earlier that Muhammad became a prophet in 641 AD as per quote of John of Damascus . ... Now he brings a quote from someone else to tell us that the name Muhammad did not exist till 691 AD

The question should be: Who's that 'Mhmd', allied with Jews and looting in Iraq/Syria around 634/640, they are talking about?
Then Penkaye testifies that the Saracens followed Muawiya rather than the prophet (himself following the Bedouin's custom
anyway), while they could have easily switched to Ali at this time... In fact, the opposite happened and Ali became isolated!

Oddly enough though we seem to have external reports on Muhammad BEFORE any internal reliable accounts. Yet, you've quoted
Colin Wells as probing: ''One could hardly expect a Byzantine source from this early and turbulent period to get all the details right''.
These were writings from apocalyptic traditions, seeing the Antichrist everywhere. That's why I've stated that only the testimonies
of informed authorities, Nikephoros, John of Damascus and Theophanes (whom suddenly knows details ignored by the others
around 813) are truly accountable. Theophanes account shows that the forgeries were under way, but how could he have known this?

More ever Quran was compiled as late as 720 AD. Sanaa Manuscripts are evidence to that. So historically whatever the article says is incorrect i.e quran was written in 9th century.

That was a just a comment. Otherwise, archaeological evidences presented stand as objectively decisive.

I will be replying to both Mesmorial and CAT in the thread Mesmorial opened shortly. So I expect to see them in the quran and ahadith folder.

MesMorial is free to use my arguments as he wishes, like you've stated yourself. He certainly won't need me...
He'll bring different insights in what should be transposed into the One-on-One thread, so no one interferes.

_________________
Elsewhere (to Eagle)

Let us condemn together the fake prophet of islam.

Now, that's a wonder! He has been defending this fake prophet throughout our debates!
The fake prophet established by the siras/hadiths and now he seems backpedaling...

[darth]

14? There are 14 people that agree with cat's type of idiotic non logic? I must say, I am surprised that there are so many people with such a poor logical foundation.
For starters can any of those who accept cat's "argument" explain to me how it is logical to validate a book on its own statements? Can an accused judge himself? Can my own statement be used to validate itself.
The foundation of cat's argument itself is absurd. His (and mes's) idiotic defense rests upon accepting the unproven premise is a word of God. Only a muslim that wants to believe but is shocked by the hadiths can possibly think of cat's argument as anything but utter gibberish

[MesMorial]

14? There are 14 people that agree with cat's type of idiotic non logic? I must say, I am surprised that there are so many people with such a poor logical foundation.
For starters can any of those who accept cat's "argument" explain to me how it is logical to validate a book on its own statements? Can an accused judge himself? Can my own statement be used to validate itself.
The foundation of cat's argument itself is absurd. His (and mes's) idiotic defense rests upon accepting the unproven premise is a word of God. Only a muslim that wants to believe but is shocked by the hadiths can possibly think of cat's argument as anything but utter gibberish

The Qur'an demands that you accept it as its own judge. Thus this objection would be overruled.

A court would also dismiss the credibility of SNB and Darth since they deny the Qur'anic argument already presented (I can make it clearer if required).

[darth]

The Qur'an demands that you accept it as its own judge. Thus this objection would be overruled.

Typical example of an illogical stance.

You do not accept that someone is speaking the truth because they say so, you accept it because it is proven to be so. Quran may demand anything it wants. It is irrelevant to us. The statements must be judged objectively and independently for the argument to pass the logic test.

[MesMorial]

The Qur'an demands that you accept it as its own judge. Thus this objection would be overruled.

Typical example of an illogical stance.

You do not accept that someone is speaking the truth because they say so, you accept it because it is proven to be so. Quran may demand anything it wants. It is irrelevant to us. The statements must be judged objectively and independently for the argument to pass the logic test.

Yes, that is why people must investigate if 15:9 is actually true (the Qur'an forsees your problem). After that, a person decides if the Qur'an is good enough on its own terms.

As for rulings, sunna etc. etc., accepting that relies on accepting human opinion as God's word. It doesn't work.

[The Cat]

The foundation of cat's argument itself is absurd. His (and mes's) idiotic defense rests upon accepting the unproven premise is a word of God.

All you've got to do now is just to PROVE that this is my foundation or stand as an abject liar.

[MesMorial]

The foundation of cat's argument itself is absurd. His (and mes's) idiotic defense rests upon accepting the unproven premise is a word of God.

All you've got to do now is just to PROVE that this is my foundation or stand as an abject liar.

I will tell you what is silly. SNB's and Darth's entire argument assume that the Qur'an is dependent on the ahadith.

[yeezevee]

Good discussion by The darth & The Cat...

The foundation of cat's argument itself is absurd. His (and mes's) idiotic defense rests upon accepting the unproven premise is a word of God.

All you've got to do now is just to PROVE that this is my foundation or stand as an abject liar.

If you don't accept the assumption by describer The darth i.e

Quran is word of Allah/God

If that is not your foundation for Islam then what is your actual foundation and take home message from Quran and Muhammad as depicted in Islam The Cat? lol..

[MesMorial]

The foundation of cat's argument itself is absurd. His (and mes's) idiotic defense rests upon accepting the unproven premise is a word of God.

All you've got to do now is just to PROVE that this is my foundation or stand as an abject liar.

If you don't accept the assumption desecribee by darth i.e

Quran is word of Allah/God

If that is not your foundation for Islam then what is your actual foundation and take home message from Quran and Muhammad as depicted in Islam Mr. Cat? lol..

So what is your definition of "Islam"?

The foundation of this argument and the foundation of Islam are separate topics.

[yeezevee]

Huh?? are those questions for Me MesMorial?

So what is your definition of "Islam"?

Why would you like to have an answer from me MesMorial ?

Why? I ask you why??

Why are you troubling me?? what did I do to you??

do you want me to answer as a Muslim in Islam ?
or
do you want me to answer that question as Zebra?
or
do you want me to answer as Non-Muslim and closely related to Muslims and know/well read on what happened in the history of Islam??
or
do you want me to answer as hater of Islam and Hater of Muslims?

The foundation of this argument and the foundation of Islam are separate topics.

Really?? So the foundation of Islam started by Abraham and The foundation of this argument started by Muhammad??

by the way WHAT IS THIS ARGUMENT?? Huh! you write with full of cryptic words MesMorial...

[The Cat]

Three answers here...

If that is not your foundation for Islam then what is your actual foundation and take home message from Quran and Muhammad as depicted in Islam The Cat? lol..

Darth said that my foundation was the Koran as 'the word of God'. That's a blatant lie. First, my foundation is historical.
I just brought in many Western testimonies, articles, and archaeological proofs that the traditional prophet isn't reliable.

Still you can't dismiss the Koran's own testimonies against hadiths and the axial place it has for 1.2 billion Muslims.

The Koran itself stands against nowadays Muhammadanism. But my own position is much wider than this as is history.

I've already addressed the same kind of objection from you
viewtopic.php?p=162111#p162111
viewtopic.php?p=105100#p105100
The Koran clearly goes AGAINST the Muhammadans' religion. That's the revolving key!
All there is to do then is to insert the Koranic key into the Islamic lock and let it work!

The Koran clearly points out those sects (shiyaan, 30.30-32) pretending to be religious as disbelievers... practicing hypocrisy!
The Arabic word for religion (Muzdhab) isn't even written in the Koran, what's written is the DIN, the 'millata' of Abraham.
http://www.wakeup.org/anadolu/02/3/din_quran.html
viewtopic.php?p=143203#p143203

_________________

I will tell you what is silly. SNB's and Darth's entire argument assume that the Qur'an is dependent on the ahadith.

That's the Sunnite reading too, so I'm eager to see your arguments with SNB on this. All of them are analogically crippled by falsities.

The hadiths' goal is to uphold blind imitation yet, since it says that the prophet was illiterate, then all Muslims should emulate that!

_____________

Quran may demand anything it wants. It is irrelevant to us. The statements must be judged objectively and independently for the argument to pass the logic test.

First the Koran must be brought as a testimoner for it is a FACT and as such objectively important to related Muhammad.

It's not only relevant but axial (pro or con) and that's why, in the same manner, you use it alike.
This is only applied logic: if the Koran is irrelevant than what are you doing here? Go fishing...

[skynightblaze]

I have replied to Mesmorial and CAT here..

/viewtopic.php?f=21&p=168317#p168317

[MesMorial]

Huh?? are those questions for Me MesMorial?

So what is your definition of "Islam"?

Why would you like to have an answer from me MesMorial ?

Why? I ask you why??

Why are you troubling me?? what did I do to you??

do you want me to answer as a Muslim in Islam ?
or
do you want me to answer that question as Zebra?
or
do you want me to answer as Non-Muslim and closely related to Muslims and know/well read on what happened in the history of Islam??
or
do you want me to answer as hater of Islam and Hater of Muslims?

The foundation of this argument and the foundation of Islam are separate topics.

Really?? So the foundation of Islam started by Abraham and The foundation of this argument started by Muhammad??

by the way WHAT IS THIS ARGUMENT?? Huh! you write with full of cryptic words MesMorial...

Well that depends on your answer to my question ................... So did I trouble you? I thought I asked questions. You were the one laughing, so I questioned.

Cheers.