Debate challenge to Skynightblaze and/or Ozes

[MesMorial]

There are Sunna-supporters on this forum, so I would like to weed them out and see if they have substance. This will expose the technical fragility and emptiness of their viewpoints, and hopefully demonstrate the need for a more objective, intelligence-based approach to the situation.

I will accept two-on-one, or they can reject on the basis of having insufficient arguments.

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

In my viewpoint, these people inhibit the ability of people to address real problems by clouding the issue.

Cheers.

[MesMorial]

The real culprits and terrorists in Islam are these so called silent majority of educated moderate muslims, who has no guts to question their own paid servants; their Imaams.


http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op ... f+Faith%29


Now as an analogy, we cannot approach the problem with a machine gun.

Skip to 2:47-2:53 to see what targeted approach I am talking about:

[skynightblaze]

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

What are your sources of history to determine that there were no authoritative ahadith before Shafi? You are again referring to islamic history to know this so again a case of selective picking.

Neither you nor Ahmed Bahgat can understand logic. He has already been refuted plenty of times and yet he keeps parroting the same thing just like you.

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.

How do you know whether Uthaman really said so and so or not if you claim all the ahadith are abbasid forgeries?

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'.

That is not a fallacy . I agreed to debate anyone who supported you but Mesmorial spins about the verses and tried to give it an interpretation that is simply weak. I dont fancy arguing with such people.

Your Sunnite allegiances will be rocked off by MesMorial, good luck...

Typing till the end and claiming my argument is superior is not called rocking. Making sense is very important. HE did not make any sense when he debated with Darth or myself. He keeps claiming that when quran said that Muhammad came to TEACH , he claimed that it is saying Muhammad is supposed to recite the quran and do nothing. This argument is no way acceptable and it doesn't deserve a response if a person is basically changing meaning of the words.

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?

Take any source about Muhammad . All it says is that he was a criminal. Even if we consider Doctrina Jacobi she also says the same . In her quote we find that this man ,whoever, was a murderer. How is that every single source claims that Muhammad was a criminal?

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.

I have no shame correcting myself. My judgments about people were wrong. That can happen with anyone however that does not mean that whatever I have said is always wrong. You on the other hand have gone almost all the time but yet not once you had the decency or guts to admit that.

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 said if majority agrees with you then I will apologize. That has not happened even once. I never spoke about relative comparison. I never claimed that I will apologize even if a single person apologizes. I do not think you are worth apologizing. I will however apologize to 14 members who have agreed with you if I have said anything nasty about them. I do not blame people for going wrong but repeating the same thing even when you are shown as wrong is irritating.

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.

You think people voted against you because they liked me or they are a fan of me? I think people can only see what we type and hence their judgments are based on what they read and how they think . Well if they think that voting for me is a misguided move then whoever he/she is should challenge me for a debate on this subject and prove me wrong. It is that simple.

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...

Show me a single statement from me saying that ALL THE AHADITH ARE AUTHENTIC. Just find one statement . If you can then you can start a poll otherwise the poll will be based on false accusations.

[skynightblaze]

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!

Penkaye does not say saracens followed Muawiya. He clearly says that they followed Muhammad and they killed anyone who defied his laws. That is clear in agreement with the theme of ahadith and sira.

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?

Byzantine sources contradict islamic scriptures on some count while they confirm on some counts so Colin Wells statement is correct that we cannot depend upon Byzantine sources in entirety. Either islamic sources or even Byzantine sources are subject to error. In that case pinpointing any specific scripture is incorrect however we can be sure when both the things match because it eliminates the bias completely.

Anyway It is not that christians cant write a fair review. The coincidence is amazing. ! Penkaye writes about killing apostates and a monk writes about muslims taking captives and coincidentally it matches with whatever the later muslim writers came up with. This cannot be a coincidence. More ever the bias that can happen is eliminated when we have muslims themselves writing the exact same things about Muhammad. More ever how come we do not have a single source that talks good about Muhammad?

[skynightblaze]

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.

It is not we who say this. It is your quran that says that and you have already been shown that by Darth and myself. More ever credibility of quran depends on the ahadith. What if the ahadith are true? Why should anyone follow what a mentally deranged criminal has said? The entire credibility of quran depends on the character of Muhammad . If he was a fraud then nothing can defend the quran. I have proved that he was a criminal from non muslim sources. All the sources that we have muslims and non muslims tell us that he was a criminal . How is that everyone who writes about Muhammad writes negative about him unless he was really disgusting person?

[ygalg]

koran not only depends on ahadith but also on the bible. without these two sources it meaningless.

[MesMorial]

What are your sources of history to determine that there were no authoritative ahadith before Shafi? You are again referring to islamic history to know this so again a case of selective picking.

Shafi’s “Kitab Jima’al-Ilm” describes a conversation between Shafi and a “Qur’an-alone” Muslim 150-200 years A.H. You will find it on page 113:


http://depositfiles.com/files/pppyl5yod


Shafi’i provides the foundational arguments upon which he wished to “stabilise” Islam, giving equal status to Qur’an and “Sunna” (supposedly found in ahadith). This would have been an attempt to resolve disagreements concerning ahadith.

The term “Prophet’s sunna” was not being used at the advent of Islam, confirmed by the Qur’an. A few ahadith were fabricated at a much later date to place the names of the Caliphs (who did not make use of Sunna) alongside the “Sunna”.

Since Hadith as concept is quite easily shown to be separate from Islam, it follows that it had other causes. Besides entertainment and a medium by which to find permission or prohibition for everything that anyone could (some afternoon) think of, they were political tools to be used by opposing factions:


Anas reported that the Prophet ascended Uhud with Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman. It trembled with them and so he struck it with his foot and said: "Be firm, O Uhud, and verily on you there are a prophet, a truthful man and two martyrs." (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 35)

Or if you would prefer:

Zerre-b-Hubaish reported that Ali said: "By One who splits seeds and creates breath, the illiterate prophet gave me a covenant: `Nobody except a believer will love me, and nobody except a hypocrite will hate me.'" (Muslim)

Concerning the last hadith:

The hadith scholars, and authors of the Sunans have confirmed the saying of the Prophet (S.A.W.) to 'Ali: "None shall love you except a believer, and none shall hate you except a hypocrite". This has been reported by al-Tirmidhi in his Sahih, al-Nas'ai in his Sunan, the Musnad of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan, al-Tabari in "al-Dhakha'ir al-Aqba", Ibn Hajar in "Lisan al-Mizan". Al-Bukhari however, in spite of having confirmed the authenticity of this hadith, which Muslim also reported, and [despite the fact that] all the transmitters in the chain were verified as reliable, did not relate the hadith because he reflected and realised that the Muslims would perceive the hypocrisy of many companions who were close to the Prophet

http://hinduunity.yuku.com/topic/1814/S ... lam?page=2

Goldziher says:

Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a
hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever
field. What we learn about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law,
dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra'y (opinion) or hawa (personal desire), every sunna and bid`a (innovation) has sought and found expression in the hadith.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=s6s ... 0a&f=false

To keep it brief for now, I will be saying that the proof there were no authoritative ahadith is that Hadith itself is not authoritative.

Typing till the end and claiming my argument is superior is not called rocking. Making sense is very important. HE did not make any sense when he debated with Darth or myself. He keeps claiming that when quran said that Muhammad came to TEACH , he claimed that it is saying Muhammad is supposed to recite the quran and do nothing. This argument is no way acceptable and it doesn't deserve a response if a person is basically changing meaning of the words.

Your response to me is not a response. It is a failure. You have not brought a verse to support that Hadith is a part of Islam.

You see my refutations of Darth’s 33:37 theory:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10881&start=120#p167896

You see my refutation to your claim about 2:151:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10881&start=40#p167165

I remind that the verse gives the different functions of one duty. The reason it does so is to highlight the IMPORTANCE of the delivery (i.e. the different reasons why it was needed).

I said if majority agrees with you then I will apologize. That has not happened even once. I never spoke about relative comparison. I never claimed that I will apologize even if a single person apologizes. I do not think you are worth apologizing. I will however apologize to 14 members who have agreed with you if I have said anything nasty about them. I do not blame people for going wrong but repeating the same thing even when you are shown as wrong is irritating.

Is all of this relevant or are you here to preserve your status?

It is not we who say this. It is your quran that says that and you have already been shown that by Darth and myself. More ever credibility of quran depends on the ahadith. What if the ahadith are true? Why should anyone follow what a mentally deranged criminal has said? The entire credibility of quran depends on the character of Muhammad . If he was a fraud then nothing can defend the quran. I have proved that he was a criminal from non muslim sources. All the sources that we have muslims and non muslims tell us that he was a criminal . How is that everyone who writes about Muhammad writes negative about him unless he was really disgusting person?

The Qur’an nowhere mandates ahadith, nor have you proven that it does. It is logically untenable that an earlier source (Qur’an) can be dependent on and confirmed by something weaker (later ahadith).

If the ahadith are true, it is still not relevant on a religious basis so much as historical (since the Qur’an should admonish un-Qur’anic doings). The Qur’an demands that it be judged on its own terms, not by some human’s reputation. Muhammad’s bad behaviour would only be a historical contradiction, showing that one of the sources is false or out of its context.

If (supposedly) the Qur’an has not been disproved, we must not assume that ahadith can be used to disprove it.

If the Qur’an has been disproved, or you can disprove it, there is no need for this discussion.

Your reason for this argument must depend upon the Qur’an not being disproved, or else your need to link Hadith with Qur’an is a waste of our time.

In order to peddle, your arguments must always assume that the Qur’an is not disproven, thus you can never use the argument that the truth of ahadith disproves the Qur’an. If there is no certainty that the Qur’an is false, there is no certainty that the ahadith can disprove it. If there is certainty that the Qur’an is false, then you need not talk about ahadith (unless you can prove ahadith 100% true with consistent standards).

Of course one may say the Qur’an is certainly false, but this is not valid for a Muslim unless you prove so from the Qur’an, not ahadith.

If you are arguing with a Sunni (who has more faith in ahadith than Qur’an), then you can try to say the Qur'an is false because the ahadith are immoral, even though you are proving they are true (that is what you argue). However, the Sunni already accepts these ahadith as a part of the Qur’an (which is what you actually support)!

Your inevitable position is that the Qur’an is false because the ahadith are immoral, yet at the same time you argue the Qur’an asks for this immorality (which Sunnis have already accepted).

This is why I reject your approach to the issue as useless.

This leads to your entrapment in the debate of whether the Qur’an allows ahadith or not. You must first prove that it allows ahadith before we continue with the discussion. I contend that Islam (Qur’an) is separate from the ahadith, thus I am asking you to separate them and get the issue in perspective.

In order to deal with Sunnis you must take a different position, and this position is the correct one.

After that, the disproof of Islam itself comes from the Qur’an itself. It cannot logically come from Hadith.


***


My above post has focussed on taking Skynightblaze back to basic points he must answer before he can continue. I have also shown that his approach is basically useless to solving the problems of “Islam” today.

[The Cat]

Hi folks...
My appearance here in the quotes of SNB is due to the fact of that he mixed up MesMorial's challenge with a pseudo 'mine'.

So I've answered him in the concerned thread about our specific debates:
viewtopic.php?p=168324#p168324

I think that, as far as possible, this challenge should be understood, and respected, as a one-on-one debate.
I do not intent to participate, or the least of it. Thanks...

[skynightblaze]

If the Qur’an has been disproved, or you can disprove it, there is no need for this discussion.

Before I respond to you, I have to ask you one thing. You claim yourself a non muslim so its obvious that quran has been disproven and you have accepted it. Going by your own logic it doesn't make sense for you to debate with anyone because quran has already been disproven.

[MesMorial]

If the Qur’an has been disproved, or you can disprove it, there is no need for this discussion.

Before I respond to you, I have to ask you one thing. You claim yourself a non muslim so its obvious that quran has been disproven and you have accepted it. Going by your own logic it doesn't make sense for you to debate with anyone because quran has already been disproven.

You are also a non-Muslim, so it makes no sense for you to say that the Qur'an mandates ahadith.

[The Cat]

Going by your own logic it doesn't make sense for you to debate with anyone because quran has already been disproven.

Our 'epitome of logic' is stating that all non-Muslims, himself included, shouldn't debate here.
FFI is reserved for believers! Impressive 'logic' indeed...

[MesMorial]

Going by your own logic it doesn't make sense for you to debate with anyone because quran has already been disproven.

Our 'epitome of logic' is stating that all non-Muslims, himself included, shouldn't debate here.
FFI is reserved for believers! Impressive 'logic' indeed...

Well SNB was saying this was the implication of my logic, but I am not sure that it is.

I suppose there is no point in him debating me because I am comfortable with calling Muhammad false on the grounds that he disobeyed his own book (if the hadiths were true).

[MesMorial]

Skip to 6:15 (of the first). Hanafi mullah confirms "muslims" today are nothing but conjecturers and blind followers:



For 12 centuries, not 14.

[sum]

If the ahadith are to be disregarded, why are the muslims wearing beards? Does the Koran mention the protocol regarding beards?

sum

[MesMorial]

If the ahadith are to be disregarded, why are the muslims wearing beards? Does the Koran mention the protocol regarding beards?

sum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard#Islam

[sum]

Hello MesMorial

The link that you provided did not appear to quote any Koranic guidance on beards. If muslims have guidance on beards where is it stated if the ahadith etc are disregarded and the Koran is the basis of all muslim behaviour? Does the Koran tell muslims to follow Abraham regarding the wearing of beards?

sum

[marduk]

In the Islamic tradition, God commanded Abraham to keep his beard, shorten his moustache, clip his nails, shave the hair around his genitals, and pluck his armpit hair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard#Islam

Where'd they get that tradition from? Can't really see Allah discussing pubic hair and armpit hair with Abraham. Arabs are so insulting of Allah. If he was going to bring up the subject he would have done it when he told him about cutting the skin off of it. He would have said "and after cutting off the skin thou shall also trim the hair from around they nugs. Getting pretty mangy down there, Abe."

[Ozes]

Can't believe even a single person believes The Cat is a non-Muslim. I urge anyone who does so, please do not work in airport security, national security, hell, don't even set foot near a kindergarten.

I'm not really sure what you want to debate me about, Quran-Only Muslims present a smaller percentage of the Muslim population then Imam's who wear bra's and lipstick to sermons.
My issue with you is you claim to be a non-muslim while you are clearly not, have no moral issues with Islam or any of the events occuring in its name, yet you claim you want to bring about change in the Muslim world. Your also disturbing people who want to learn about Islam as its taught in the mosques, as this actually matter.

Anyways, i will pose you a question. If you play Pin The Tail, blindfolded and put the pin on any random place on a map of the world, chances are you hit up a place where Muslims have declared war against. When a war is started, what are the rules in the quran for declaring peace?

[MesMorial]

Ozes;

See 2:190-193. Declare "peace" when they do. In other words, declare "peace" when there is actually peace.

You are a funny person who has and still will lose every contention.

Cheers.

[MesMorial]

Do not forget to vote for the law that kills those who interpret the Qur'an in a peaceful and logical way.

And by that way, I might suggest you argue objectively rather than emotionally. It may make you and your cause less of a waste of time, and if you do not want to get humiliated here then you can come onto my YT.

If you have not noticed, I do not argue using emotions since people's sensitive feelings (like yours) are not actually relevant. Bear that in mind next time you squirt.

And do not think I need to be "Muslim" to make the point, although you are unable to think of me (or The Cat) as "non-Muslim". That is just your inhibition, and delusion.

In case you want to ribbit that again, this is what I follow:

http://allpoetry.com/poem/9199717-Minha ... -MesMorial