Al-Buraq

[Ghaith]

So Ghaith admits that Islam and Judaism both are corrupted forms of Hinduism.

No i dont admit that

I said Hindusim might have likly been a religion from god that has been corrupted. Evidence for this is Muhammad mentioned in the Hindu Scriptures.
We find quiet many similarties because we all comes from 1 religion. The religion of God.

Prati Sarag Parv III Khand 3 Adhay 3 Shloka 5 to 8.
"A malecha (belonging to a foreign country and speaking a foreign language) spiritual teacher will appear with his companions. His name will be Mohammad. Raja (Bhoj) after giving this Maha Dev Arab (of angelic disposition) a bath in the Panchgavya and the Ganga water (i.e. purifying him of all sins) offered him the present of his sincere devotion and showing him all reverence said, "I make obeisance to thee. O ye! The pride of mankind, the dweller in Arabia, Ye have collected a great force to kill the Devil and you yourself have been protected from the malecha opponents

This is why you find similarties between so many religions Marduk.

And there never was a people, without a warner
having lived among them (in the past).Al-Qur’an 35:24
Ram and Krishna might have been prophets but people corrupted it and started worshiping them. Just like with Jesus and Christianity

Dont misrepresent me again Marduk or il call a moderator.

[ringmaster]

.....

Ram and Krishna might have been prophets but people corrupted it and started worshiping them. Just like with Jesus and Christianity

......................

Hindus can worship who or what they damn well please. It's none of your concern. It is none of whoremaster allah's concern, and it was certainly none of manwhore muhammad's concern.

[Ghaith]

I'm having difficulty following this, Ghaith. Are you saying that it is a miracle that the Koran could know about ants talking? Because your reference says nothing whatever about ants talking - nor is any other reference likely to. So not a miracle just a mistake, taken as being factual, from a Jewish legend=fairy story.

Watch the video in my signature.

Sorry Ghaith, I can't. Your sig seems to have vanished along with most other people's. Can you post the link, please?

It was removed because mod didnt like it

Here it is

[marduk]

So Ghaith admits that Islam and Judaism both are corrupted forms of Hinduism.

No i dont admit that

I said Hindusim might have likly been a religion from god that has been corrupted. Evidence for this is Muhammad mentioned in the Hindu Scriptures.
We find quiet many similarties because we all comes from 1 religion. The religion of God.

Prati Sarag Parv III Khand 3 Adhay 3 Shloka 5 to 8.
"A malecha (belonging to a foreign country and speaking a foreign language) spiritual teacher will appear with his companions. His name will be Mohammad. Raja (Bhoj) after giving this Maha Dev Arab (of angelic disposition) a bath in the Panchgavya and the Ganga water (i.e. purifying him of all sins) offered him the present of his sincere devotion and showing him all reverence said, "I make obeisance to thee. O ye! The pride of mankind, the dweller in Arabia, Ye have collected a great force to kill the Devil and you yourself have been protected from the malecha opponents

This is why you find similarties between so many religions Marduk.

And there never was a people, without a warner
having lived among them (in the past).Al-Qur’an 35:24
Ram and Krishna might have been prophets but people corrupted it and started worshiping them. Just like with Jesus and Christianity

Dont misrepresent me again Marduk or il call a moderator.

No no, please, I beg of you, don't report me to the moderator. Here, look, I'll fix it. I meant to say "So Ghaith has NOT admitted that Allah is really Lord Vamana, but neither has he proven that he isn't. Therefore, as it stands now, there is a very good possibility that Allah is Vamana, that a Vishnu footprint was housed at Mecca and was therefore a major pilgrimage site and that said footprint is STILL in existence in Mecca and is revered by the Arabs, and that "Islam" means "submission to Lord Vamana, Supreme God of all creation, most auspicious, beneficent".

[MesMorial]

The female ant started talking at 1:44-45. You can hear the female voice.

[MesMorial]

I think there is so much smoke in the eyes. If we get rid of that we can worry about realty.




Dear Ghaith..



I once presented this to a person called Yas.. *


***


Throughout the Qur’an, Allah speaks from His perspective, not from Muhammad's.

Allah's words are his words prior to 27:91, but then it flows into another's words indicating that Allah becomes someone else and commands himself to submit.

To Muslims, the whole Qur'an is the word of Allah, since the message is not the messenger's. The messenger carries someone else's message, thus the message is not of the messenger's authorship. To Muslims, the entire Qur'an is Allah's word. Therefore there must logically be a "say:" every time the message is referring to what the messenger is supposed to utter. Otherwise the message which is Allah's will be partly someone else's message, resulting in a paradox. The trickiness is increased by the fact that 27:92-93 imply that 27:91 was a command from Allah to Muhammad to say something, but there was no command ("say:"). Every time it is not Allah's perspective, there must be a "say" or else the message comes from a variant source.

Chapters such as 112 and 114 begin with "say:", and yet the Qur'an neglected to mention it in 27:91-92.

The word of the messenger is the message which he (Muhammad) delivers from Allah. The guidance is not the word of the messenger; rather the recitation is. If Allah is speaking from his perspective (as he always does), then in the middle of a passage it cannot become Muhammad's perspective without the source changing. It is logically untenable, therefore a mistake.

Is this not logical?


My primary question is:

Can you explain how 27:91-92 is not proof that:


a) Allah's words were Muhammad's words

OR

b) The composer of the Qur'an slipped up

OR

c) The Qur'an can be tampered with and to believe in it is to believe in the infallible compiling skills of humans, even though they made a mistake?


After all, if 15:9 is false, it follows that man-made verses can compare to the Qur'an. Of course 2:23, 17:88 etc. may be false verses, but it would follow that if you cannot trust the Qur'an, you should forget ahadith.



* http://indonesian.faithfreedom.org/~fai ... 20#p171576

[Ghaith]

So Ghaith admits that Islam and Judaism both are corrupted forms of Hinduism.

No i dont admit that

I said Hindusim might have likly been a religion from god that has been corrupted. Evidence for this is Muhammad mentioned in the Hindu Scriptures.
We find quiet many similarties because we all comes from 1 religion. The religion of God.

Prati Sarag Parv III Khand 3 Adhay 3 Shloka 5 to 8.
"A malecha (belonging to a foreign country and speaking a foreign language) spiritual teacher will appear with his companions. His name will be Mohammad. Raja (Bhoj) after giving this Maha Dev Arab (of angelic disposition) a bath in the Panchgavya and the Ganga water (i.e. purifying him of all sins) offered him the present of his sincere devotion and showing him all reverence said, "I make obeisance to thee. O ye! The pride of mankind, the dweller in Arabia, Ye have collected a great force to kill the Devil and you yourself have been protected from the malecha opponents

This is why you find similarties between so many religions Marduk.

And there never was a people, without a warner
having lived among them (in the past).Al-Qur’an 35:24
Ram and Krishna might have been prophets but people corrupted it and started worshiping them. Just like with Jesus and Christianity

Dont misrepresent me again Marduk or il call a moderator.

No no, please, I beg of you, don't report me to the moderator. Here, look, I'll fix it. I meant to say "So Ghaith has NOT admitted that Allah is really Lord Vamana, but neither has he proven that he isn't. Therefore, as it stands now, there is a very good possibility that Allah is Vamana, that a Vishnu footprint was housed at Mecca and was therefore a major pilgrimage site and that said footprint is STILL in existence in Mecca and is revered by the Arabs, and that "Islam" means "submission to Lord Vamana, Supreme God of all creation, most auspicious, beneficent".

Read what i wrote earlier.

Jesus called god for Elaha. The same god as Abraham's god. Elaha=Allah





But as it appears that you have no clue what you are talking about, i wont waste more time untill you build a base on your debating and stop copy/pasting from the Internet.

[Ghaith]

Hello Mes.

2:23, 17:88 etc. may be false verses

If this is so then this challenge would have been answered before. You could try this yourself Mes? I assure you will fail.

16:44 proves one cannot reject hadiths and have to follow the Sunnah.

[MesMorial]

Hello Mes.

2:23, 17:88 etc. may be false verses

If this is so then this challenge would have been answered before. You could try this yourself Mes? I assure you will fail.

16:44 proves one cannot reject hadiths and have to follow the Sunnah.

Since there are countless verses contradicting your interpretation, a quick squiz is required:


16:44 With clear (bayyan) arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear (litubayyina) to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect.


The Qur’an is bayyan (12:1). Its content is bayyan to those who receive it (29:49). The Messenger’s duty was a bayyan (mubin) delivery (16:35), and thus he made the bayyan ayat (16:44) bayyan to the people by proclaiming it.

3:187 says that the opposite of doing so is not showing it.


***


I think that answers that.

[Ghaith]

Hello Mes.

2:23, 17:88 etc. may be false verses

If this is so then this challenge would have been answered before. You could try this yourself Mes? I assure you will fail.

16:44 proves one cannot reject hadiths and have to follow the Sunnah.

Since there are countless verses contradicting your interpretation, a quick squiz is required:


16:44 With clear (bayyan) arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear (litubayyina) to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect.


The Qur’an is bayyan (12:1). Its content is bayyan to those who receive it (29:49). The Messenger’s duty was a bayyan (mubin) delivery (16:35), and thus he made the bayyan ayat (16:44) bayyan to the people by proclaiming it.

3:187 says that the opposite of doing so is not showing it.


***


I think that answers that.

Perhaps you can explan 16:44 because giving other verses isnt going to help you go around it mes

[MesMorial]

Ghaith..


Maybe you missed the refutation which you have yet to answer.

You are welcome to continue deceiving yourself, but your point has been addressed. There is no reason why Sunnis should be taken seriously.


As for your challenge about the Qur'an, I recommend:

http://leb.net/mira/works/prophet/prophet.html

[marduk]

27:91 does say "say O Muhammad", at least in the IslamCity version.

27:91 (Asad) [SAY, O Muhammad:] “I have been bidden to worship the Sustainer of this City – [82] Him who has made it sacred, and unto whom all things belong: and I have been bidden to be of those who surrender themselves to Him,

27:92 (Asad) and to convey this Qur’an [to the world].” Whoever, therefore, chooses to follow the right path, follows it but for his own good; and if any wills to go astray, say [unto him]: “I am only a warner.

27:93 (Asad) And say: “All praise is due to God! In time He will make you see [the truth of] His messages, and then you shall know them [for what they are].” And thy Sustainer is not unmindful of whatever you all may do.

What IS weird though is that Muhammad is supposed to "convey this Quran to the world". What does the rest of the world care about Muhammad and the other Arabs' personal lives? That's what most of the Quran consists of, stories of Muhammad having problems and Allah having to continually provide material on the spot to get him out of it. Trust me, nobody who is not an Arab gives a crap about Muhammad's personal problems, like his sex life and his getting into fights with everybody. If I want to read a storybook about some Arab guy's weird personal life I'll call an Arab and ask him to write one. I don't want to waste my holy scripture reading time on non-God related subjects. I also am not interested in reading Allah's flattery of himself over and over again.

I'll wait for the condensed version of the Quran, in which Allah is the main character not Muhammad. When all that non-God related filler is removed then maybe the Quran will actually be readable instead of just a bunch of boring pointless crap about Muhammad and the Arabs' pathetic personal lives of debauchery. I'm sure the Arabs think the lives of their ancestors are interesting but to everyone else it's just a combination of funny and disgusting. When will Allah come out with a book about himself? He did a nice job of writing Muhammad's biography and the history of Arab caravan bandits but now I'd like to read a little about Allah instead, if he has any time left over for himself after all that writing about Muhammad.

[MesMorial]

Marduk;


In the Arabic version, it is missing it:

http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp? ... 7&verse=91

The Qur'an contains the message, but not all of it is. The contextual things can be seen as examples, but features like Sura 9 (and direct references to things only those people knew) are not needed. The Qur'an speaks directly to the people of the time, and these days its teaching must be siphoned off to follow. I would have expected a document to be revealed at once, and then gradual commentary revealed (for contextual sitations, clarification etc.). Verses like 4:176 are an example of clarification, revealed on whim of human enquiry. If they did not ask, it seems some laws would not have been there.

[MesMorial]

P.S. @ Ghaith;



If you want to beat Zionists, it will require individuality.

[Ghaith]

Mes i am requesting a tafsir from you on 16:44. What the context of litubayyina, what the point of 16:44?

[MesMorial]

Mes i am requesting a tafsir from you on 16:44. What the context of litubayyina, what the point of 16:44?

Tafsir Qur'an (25:33):

Why does Muhammad have to make something bayyan when that which is given to him is already bayyan (16:44)?


P.S. The onus is on you to refute my explanation, not for me to produce further evidence to say that perfect logic is logic.

[Ghaith]

Mes i am requesting a tafsir from you on 16:44. What the context of litubayyina, what the point of 16:44?

Tafsir Qur'an (25:33):

Why does Muhammad have to make something bayyan when that which is given to him is already bayyan (16:44)?


P.S. The onus is on you to refute my explanation, not for me to produce further evidence to say that perfect logic is logic.

Sunnah is linked to 16:44, if you will the quran is already clear than base from there, but you cannot say Sunnies are wrong for following the Quran 16:44 you will be Contradicting your self in this matter Mes.

4:80 commands obedience of the messenger, something quranist doesnt do, meaning they are not obeying allah. Obey the messenger not neccerly connected to the kitab(Quran). Not everything allah sent was suppose to be in the quran The rules about stoning married couples is in exampel.
Quranists like to run around and make up conspiracies about 4:59. 24:63 shows us that Quranists will have a painful punishment. Allah could have choose anybody to be the last prophet, why he choose the Trusted Ahmed of Quraysh? 5:6 shows us that we are in need of fatwas etc. 8:24 Allah commands us to the Sunnah.

[MesMorial]

Mes i am requesting a tafsir from you on 16:44. What the context of litubayyina, what the point of 16:44?

Tafsir Qur'an (25:33):

Why does Muhammad have to make something bayyan when that which is given to him is already bayyan (16:44)?


P.S. The onus is on you to refute my explanation, not for me to produce further evidence to say that perfect logic is logic.

Sunnah is linked to 16:44, if you will the quran is already clear than base from there, but you cannot say Sunnies are wrong for following the Quran 16:44 you will be Contradicting your self in this matter Mes.

4:80 commands obedience of the messenger, something quranist doesnt do, meaning they are not obeying allah. Obey the messenger not neccerly connected to the kitab(Quran). Not everything allah sent was suppose to be in the quran The rules about stoning married couples is in exampel.
Quranists like to run around and make up conspiracies about 4:59. 24:63 shows us that Quranists will have a painful punishment. Allah could have choose anybody to be the last prophet, why he choose the Trusted Ahmed of Quraysh? 5:6 shows us that we are in need of fatwas etc. 8:24 Allah commands us to the Sunnah.

I COULD blame sunnis for opting an illogical interpretation of 16:44. It does not matter, except where it justifies bad things.

4:80 is great clarification:

“Obey God and obey the Messenger" does not refer to two different sources, as we learn from 4:80. Otherwise “obey God and obey the Messenger” would actually mean “obey God and obey God”.

If stoning was a Qur'anic verse, why was it not included? The verse has nothing to do with Sunna; it is about a missing Qur'an verse.

4:59 I believe was answered by 4:80, though we can go further.

24:63 is about people not following the local Islamic authority (Muhammad) and sneaking away from meetings. This does not seem to bring "Qur'anists" to mind, but people not wanting to be part of the party.

Why did God send a Messenger? To deliver a Message (16:35, 5:99, 6:19, 42:7).

If it were sent as a book, someone would still have to advocate the Qur’anic way of life and be a “Messenger” anyway. This “Messenger” would have to study the complete Qur’an before commencing the mission. God could have revealed the entire Book to him, as He did with Moses (7:145), but in the contextual climate of the time it was God’s decree that he reveal it in portions (17:106). This was so its Message could be gradually implemented upon those who would follow. Revealing it to a Messenger was the most direct and practical means.

Obviously someone had to be chosen, so someone suited to the task of delivering Qur'an (not necessarily sunna) was selected.

I am not sure how 5:6 relates to the necessity of fatwas.

8:24 is no different to 9:3, where "Allah and His Messenger" proclaim the Qur'an. The principles of the Qur'an give life (e.g. 2:179).

The only thing that the Messenger commands believers to do (as a matter of religious law) is to take the way to God (19:36, 25:56-57, 34:46, 57:8).

The Qur'an is the way to God (6:153-155).

27:91 not only casts great doubt on the Qur'an, but debunks "sunna".


***


If you want my honest opinion on Sunnism, I find it a defenceless club of wishful thinking. You cannot blame me for suggesting that, especially when they have to delete threads to survive. I believe more people should be exposed to what we discussed here.

[marduk]

Why did Allah need Muhammad to be involved at all when Gabriel, an "angel" (meaning "messenger" in original Hebrew), had been sent to give the messages to Muhammad anyway? Gabriel could just as easily have stood outside the Kaaba and delivered the messages to EVERYBODY in town personally. There was one messenger too many in the scenario that Arabs would have us believe, in which an angel gives important messages to one guy and that guy can't read or write so he has to memorize them and hope he gets every word right. Muhammad was not known for having a photographic memory so that procedure virtually guaranteed corruption of at least some of the messages. I can see why Allah himself wouldn't appear to everybody to deliver his messages himself, because they would die if they gazed directly at him, Allah being very similar to Medusa, but there is no reason at all for him not to have sent an angel to deliver the messages directly to the people. He sent Gabriel anyway, he was right there in Arabia so he could just as easily have gone into town as gone to the meeting cave, you know, the one that nobody on earth other than Muhammad has ever found.

For what conceivable reason would Gabriel have limited himself to Muhammad and then depended on him to pass the messages on accurately to the others? Would that not be just plain stupid? Is Gabriel stupid in Muslims' opinion? How about Allah, is he stupid too, because he was the one who gave Gabriel his orders? Why should we worship or even care about this stupid god of the Arabs? If Allah couldn't figure out that the human messengers weren't working (they kept getting killed) and that angels were the obvious answer to all those problems then I lack confidence in Allah's ability to either punish me in hell or reward me in heaven. He showed himself to be weak and ineffective at even getting his messages to mankind. If he can't even do that one simple thing effectively then how great a god can he be? Here's Allah; "I have sent numerous humans to do the angels' job for them and they all failed, including the one that I personally fathered in Mary's womb. What should I try now, using angels directly instead? Naw, I'll just do the same thing again". Allah is a friggin genius.

[Ghaith]

We seem to have a problem Mes, you seem to be mistranslating verses

“Obey God and obey the Messenger"

4:80
Man yutiAAi arrasoola faqad ataAAaAllaha

A correct translation to this is Yusuf Ali's

He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah.

When The messenger differed from the Wudu in 5:6 would people come to Muhammad SAW and say No you differed from the quran we will to not do like you do
This logic doesnt add up Mes.

does not refer to two different sources

it is about a missing Qur'an verse.

There is no verse in the Quran that is missing, not all of gods message was suppose to be in the Kitab.

We are still having problem with why we should Reject Muhammads teachings Mes.