truthseeker2 wrote: |
Allah's day is equal to how many human years?
In Sura 22:47 and 32:5 Allah's day is equal to 1,000 human years. or is it in fact In Sura 70:4, Allah's day is equal to 50,000 human years. |
truthseeker2 wrote: |
How many garden's are there in paradise?
In Sura 41:30 and 57:21 there is said to be only one garden in Paradise. or is it in fact In Sura 18:31, 22:23, 25:33, and 78:32 there are many gardens in Paradise. |
truthseeker2 wrote: |
or is it in fact
In Sura 18:31, 22:23, 25:33, and 78:32 there are many gardens in Paradise. |
truthseeker2 wrote: |
How many wings do angels have?
Sura 35:1 Angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings what about old Gabby, he is an angel. The angel Gabriel had 600 wings. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455) |
truthseeker2 wrote: |
What about, How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad?
Sura 54:19 - One day but we now have Sura 41:16 & 69:6,7 - several days |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
truthseeker2 wrote: |
How many groups will there be at the last judgement?
Sura 56:7 says there will be three distinct groups of people at the Last Judgment. or is it , Sura 90:18-19 and 99:6-8 say there will be two distinct groups at the Last Judgment. |
truthseeker2 wrote: |
Who brings the revelation from Allah to Muhammad?
Sura 2:97 - The Angel Gabriel or was it Sura 16:102 - The Holy Spirit |
truthseeker2 wrote: |
The Golden Calf
Surah 20:90-100 says a Samaritan helped the Israelites build the golden calf, and it mooed after coming out of the fire. But & this is real good & I look forward to the explanation. Samaritans did not exist as a people until at least 1000 years after the time of Moses and the Israelite exodus from Egypt. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
truthseeker2 wrote: |
The Golden Calf
Surah 20:90-100 says a Samaritan helped the Israelites build the golden calf, and it mooed after coming out of the fire. But & this is real good & I look forward to the explanation. |
truthseeker2 wrote: |
Musa and the Injil
Jesus was born more than 1,000 years after Musa, but in Sura 7:157 Allah speaks to Musa about what is written in the Injil (the book given to Jesus) |
Windsor wrote: |
Nice Work brother.
But I think you skipped few charges by the arrogant Christian. |
truthseeker2 wrote: |
Does Allah forgive shirk?
Sura 4:48, 116, No then we get Sura 4:153, 25:68-71, Yes |
truthseeker2 wrote: |
Alexander the Great
Surah 18:89-98 says Alexander the Great was a devout Muslim and lived to a ripe old age. But? Historical records show that Alexander the Great died young at 33 years of age. He believed he was divine and forced others to recognize him as such. In India on the Hyphasis River Alexander erected twelve altars to twelve Olympian gods. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Let me educate Ugly by giving him a Quran lesson:
Let's have a look at the following verse: |
charleslemartel wrote: |
How does that even attempt to answer the question IAT raised? You are certainly not that dumb, AB.
You have to answer two questions actually: |
charleslemartel wrote: |
1. Why does Allah put a seal on the heart of a kafir at all? |
charleslemartel wrote: |
2. Why should a sealed heart be punished by Allah for not returning to the true path? Isn't Allah responsible for that kafir not returning to the true path because of that seal he put? |
Quote: |
This whole seal on the heart thing has to make any thinking mind wonder why God would block someone from returning to the true path. One might say that God already knows that one will never return to the true path and therefore applies the seal, but if that's the case, then why even bother to apply the seal? Why take even the smallest extra step if it is completely unnecessary? See how goofy this entire concept is? |
Quote: |
I think Muhammad made it up to explain to the converted pagans why they were converting, but the Christian and Jews, who's religion Muhammad supposedly came to complete, were not converting. |
Quote: |
So Muhammad had to make up the seal on the heart excuse and it was a really stupid goof on his part. He just didn't think this one through very well, |
Quote: |
He just didn't think this one through very well, just like BagHat never thinks things through very well, just like the majority of Muslims don't think things through very well. |
Quote: |
Seems like logic and reasoning to Muslims is like garlic is to a vampire. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Why Zul-Qarnain of the Quran is not Alexander the great # 12 |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Hello Ahmed. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
I agree with you in that Zul-Qarnain is not the historical Alexander the Great. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
But who was Zul-Qarnain? |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
How about the mythical Alexander the Great? |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
We who do not believe in the Qur'an look for an explanation. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
There has to be a source for the Zul-Qarnain of the Quran story. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
The story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an (Sura The Cave 18:83-98 ) matches the Gog and Magog episode in the Alexander Romance written by an unknown author called Pseudo-Callisthenes. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
There has been some controversy among Islamic scholars. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Alexander was identified in Persian and Arabic-language sources as "Dh????????????????????????????»-'l Qarnayn", |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Arabic for the "Two Horned One", likely a reference to the ram horns Alexander wears on coins minted during his rule to indicate his descent from the Egyptian god Amun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Romance The source of the Qur'anic story of Dhu-Qarnain seems to be from a Syriac version of the legend of Alexander, originaly in Greek. There is also an Armenian version. The Muslim Arabs have their version in the Qur'an. Th writer of the Qur'an didn't know that he was retelling a ficticious story. Stories were told and audiences listened for entertainment. The original story can be found in the book "A Christian Legend Concerning Alexander", In The History of Alexander the Great Being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes. Translated by E.A. W. Budge, 1889, pages 145-148 |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
I would like very much to see you Slam Dunk this one. Please answer this one question. Why did the writer of the Qur'an retell a ficticious story? |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
I am waiting. |
charleslemartel wrote: | ||
LOL. You talk as if Quran is a perfectly logical book like a mathematics book. Would you accept similar logic also for other verses of Quran? Or would you talk of context and multiple meanings and metaphors in order to obfuscate the contradictions in Quran? |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Thanks for getting me off the life dismissal list; I am feeling quite happy :*). |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Here I go, one at a time: |
charleslemartel wrote: |
30:26 :
Yusuf Ali: To Him belongs every being that is in the heavens and on earth: all are devoutly obedient to Him. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
2:34
Yusuf Ali: And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
So, the logical conclusion:
1. Allah says all are obedient to him. 2. He also says Iblis refused him. 3. One of the statements above is false, hence Allah contradicts himself and makes false statements too. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Hello Again Ahmed |
Ahmed Bahgat wrote: |
So, why you are wasting my time and yours if you agree that Zul Qarnain is not Alexander the queer? |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
I am not wasting anyone's time. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
If Zul Qarnain is such an import historical person then who was he? |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
How do you prove that the Qur'anic Zul Qarnain narrative is truly historic? |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Alexander the queer was a historical person. I say that the Qur'anic Zul Qarnain narrative is fiction. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
After all only a fictional character would have found the sun setting in murky water. Look in Al Khaf 18:86. How can the creator expect anyone to believe such stupidity? |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Dismissing what you can't answer proves that you don't have an answer. Allah will be very unhappy with you and you will find out on the day of judgement. You will be accused of helping the kufar in ridiculing Allah's Book because you chose not to answer but to dismiss. By debating with the kufar you are setting up Allah's Book to be ridiculed. |
Ahmed Bahgat wrote: | ||
So what? |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
The Greek version can be dated back to centuries before the supposed revelation of the Qur'an. It was fiction. It was entertainment. The writer of the Alexander Romance knew it was fiction. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
The writer of the Qur'an believed it. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Your Qur'an is stupid. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Great, and I decided to be nice with you too, so I won?????????????????????¢??t call you mental unless you said something that earned you the call, it?????????????????????¢??s your happy day |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Thank you. And I will reciprocate the good will by not calling you Ahmak unless you dismissed my argument when not able to counter it. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
-> You are picking on the bolded words: all are to Him obedient., and for you, ?????????????????????¢??ALL?????????????????????¢?? should cover the jinn and the humans, which I totally agree with you |
charleslemartel wrote: |
"All" of course means "All"; thanks for agreeing with me here. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
let me explain:
Kafirs can not pick a couple of verses from the Quran as a possible contradiction while TOTALLY IGNORING what the Quran also said regarding many related matters, in fact the Quran had given us the answer in the same verse 2:34, Iblis refused BECAUSE he was one from among the disbelievers while acting arrogantly at the same time, |
charleslemartel wrote: |
See, I have presented my argument in a logical manner. "All" includes Iblis as well as jinns, humans, angels, whatever or whoever. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
I am not bothered about "Why" of the Iblis's disobedience. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
The fact of the matter is that Iblis is included in the word "All" who are supposed to be obedient to Allah, |
charleslemartel wrote: |
and he disobeyed. Period. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Whys and Hows and Wheres and Whats and Whos only obfuscate the issue. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
i.e. Iblis had a choice to act arrogant and disbelieve, this must raise another logical and related question, why Iblis had a choice?, |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Irrelevant question; is it called red herring? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
and the most important question is this: Does it mean that if I have full power over another person, then give such person a bit of choice while informing him that if he screws, I will burn him, that such person is not obedient to me?, I say absolutely not, because ultimately he will be obedient to me when I force him to burn in the fire that I promised him with, he will be forced in such obedience with no way out but myself if I change my mind. From this logical and valid way of thinking, everything is obedient to Allah, |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Absolutely wrong. It will only prove your power over the person and not his obedience. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
History is replete with persons who have revolted against the powers that be and had to pay the price for their disobedience or revolt in form of torture, death or incarceration. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
What you are claiming here, I am sorry to say, is totally illogical. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
in fact if you look at the words again: كُلٌّ لَهُ قَانِتُونَ , Kul Lahu Qanitoon, i.e. with the exact word order,: All are to Him obedient, the word Lahu, which means to Him perfectly qualify what I said in the previous paragraph, imagine the words been said without to Him, i.e. All are obedient, can you sense the difference?, clearly in the first one with the words to Him imply both current and future event, while the second without the words to Him implies only present. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Irrelevant again. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Let me now go back to my first note (your infection and what you have missed that is related to such matter one way or another), I am not going to overwhelm with verse, I will just tell you what the Quran said which destroys your argument and will constitute slam dunk # 15 |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Let us see. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
1) Allah flagged two creatures that they will have a bit of choice while at the end if the screw, they will be burnt in the fire
2) The two creatures are the Jinn and the Humans 3) Iblis was one of the Jinn 4) When Iblis used his bit of free choice that was given to him, to disbelieve and disobey, he was cursed and the punishment was due but Allah chose to delay it so He test the humans using Iblis, at the end though he must and whoever follows him from among the jinn and the humans earn under the laws of Allah, obedience to be burnt in the fire without any possible way out except if Allah desires 5) there is no escape from the laws of Allah |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Only goes to prove the power of Allah over humans and jinns. An obedient creature does not refuse to obey; the moment he does so, he is no longer obedient irrespective of the punishment inflicted upon him later on. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
It is like our laws exactly, a murderer has a choice to kill but he will never have a choice to dodge the electric chair if he gets caught, in this life some may escape such law, but with Allah, there is no escape from His laws, i.e. ultimately we are and everything for that matter is obedient to Him at the end. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Only shows his power, nothing else. Still does not prove that Iblis was obedient to him. |
Quote: |
Had the Quran not stated the above points 1 to 5, then you may have had a point, but because the Quran said so (all the above points) as well, my very strong argument of the word Lahu, to Him that was included in 30:26 all are to Him obedient, |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Pat your back as much as you can, but I have proven that the claim of Allah that all are obedient to him has been refuted by Allah himself when he narrated the story of disobedience of Iblis. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I have no option but conclude my refute with this:
No animation as it seems that there are some technical issues linking back to my offline site: # 15 |
charleslemartel wrote: |
LOL. I am sorry, Ahmed. This slam dunk of yours has boomeranged on you. You have been slam dunked soundly and could not do anything to prevent it. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Your Qur'an is stupid. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
How come a book that you call boldy stupid , has such masses of followers over 1400?, certainly it can not be a stupid book, have you ever considered that you may be the one who is stupid?, you know, another possibility in the odds, you will be stupid to discount that you may be stupid, work this out, pal |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
I call Al Qur'an stupid because it is stupid. Al Qur'an is stupid compared to modern day science. According to the Qur'an the earth is flat and the sun sets in murky water. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
The Qur'an is a product of backward, tribal, and insane minds. It contains the worst ethics. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
The majority of Muslims don't even know Qur'an. They are blind followers. |
Quote: |
The story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an (Sura The Cave 18:83-98 ) matches the Gog and Magog episode in the Alexander Romance written by an unknown author called Pseudo-Callisthenes. |
Quote: |
There has been some controversy among Islamic scholars. |
Quote: |
Alexander was identified in Persian and Arabic-language sources as "Dh????????????????????????????»-'l Qarnayn", |
Quote: |
Arabic for the "Two Horned One", likely a reference to the ram horns Alexander wears on coins minted during his rule to indicate his descent from the Egyptian god Amun. |
Quote: |
I would like very much to see you Slam Dunk this one. Please answer this one question. Why did the writer of the Qur'an retell a ficticious story? |
Quote: |
If Zul Qarnain is such an import historical person then who was he? |
Quote: |
How do you prove that the Qur'anic Zul Qarnain narrative is truly historic? |
Quote: |
Alexander the queer was a historical person. I say that the Qur'anic Zul Qarnain narrative is fiction. |
Quote: |
After all only a fictional character would have found the sun setting in murky water. Look in Al Khaf 18:86. How can the creator expect anyone to believe such stupidity? |
Quote: |
Dismissing what you can't answer proves that you don't have an answer. Allah will be very unhappy with you and you will find out on the day of judgement. You will be accused of helping the kufar in ridiculing Allah's Book because you chose not to answer but to dismiss. By debating with the kufar you are setting up Allah's Book to be ridiculed. |
Quote: |
The Greek version can be dated back to centuries before the supposed revelation of the Qur'an. It was fiction. It was entertainment. The writer of the Alexander Romance knew it was fiction. |
Quote: |
The writer of the Qur'an believed it. |
Quote: |
Your Qur'an is stupid.
|
Quote: |
I call Al Qur'an stupid because it is stupid. Al Qur'an is stupid compared to modern day science. According to the Qur'an the earth is flat and the sun sets in murky water. |
Quote: |
The Qur'an is a product of backward, tribal, and insane minds. It contains the worst ethics. |
Quote: |
The majority of Muslims don't even know Qur'an. They are blind followers. |
Quote: |
Thank you brother Windsor for you input, I will copy your reply to their web site inshaallah: |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Hello Ahmed
I want you to slam dunk this one. You may have missed it earlier. ٨٦... حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ Hatta itha balagha maghriba alshshamsi wajadaha taghrubu fee AAaynin hami-atin Hatta = Until itha = when balagha = he reached maghriba = setting place, also west alshshamsi = of the sun wajadaha = he found it taghrubu = setting fee = in AAaynin = spring or well hami-atin = containing hama, which is pitch black and warm clay 018.086 Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it set in a pitch black/hot well /spring Where is the setting place of the sun? According to the Qur'an it is a pitch black and warm well or spring. Zul Qarnain didn't only see te setting place of the sun but he FOUND the sun setting or well of pitch black and waem mud. This would hardly be the sun setting behind the horizon of the sea. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
I am showing everyone that I'm not the only one to translate the following verse 18:86
٨٦... حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ as Until when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a pitch black/hot well/spring. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Quote: |
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.
|
piss the life dissmisal of FFI wrote: |
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People
|
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
I wonder what happened to his lie, whoops, I mean "excuse" that the verse was telling us Qarnain's perspective when there's no reason for us to think that? |
Ahmed Bahgat wrote: |
And finally, do not forget all, that the sun never sets nor rises, while all of us refer to it as such, because this is is how we see it from our perspective, yet the fact can not be denied, that what we say about sunrise and sunset is 100% flawed. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
[I agree but the writer of Al Qur'an didn't know that the sun never sets nor rises. Also what Qur'an says about the sunrise and sunset is 100% flawed. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
You wrote that you interpret Al Qur'an using only Al Qur'an. No you don't. You redefine Al Qur'an according to what is scientifically accepted in our day. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
BTW you never explained how the sun sets in a muddy spring or well as it is written in Al Qur'an. |
Quote: |
Now those who had been dismissed by him knows that he cannot answer their posts so they remained: dismissed!! |
Windsor wrote: |
Brother AhmedBahgat you are doing a good job.
Regarding Thul Qarnayn. What was in the well was not the sun, but Thul Qarnayn himself. حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ Until, when he reached sunset, وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ He found it going away فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ in a spring of murky water It's not the sun that is in the murky water. It is Thul Qarnayn and from there he sees the sun going away. To clarify my point even more, here is an equal restructuring of the verse; حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ Until, when he reached sunset, فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ at a spring of murky water وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ He found it going away What the verse means is that when Thul Qarnayn reached at a well of murky water at sunset, he saw the sun going away. What supports my stance even more is the verses that follow it which illustrate Thul Qarnayn's journey even more. Thul Qarnayn could not have continued his journey and found other peoples if the sun was "setting on earth" like those hateful ignorant scum want us to believe. It must have burnt them. |
Quote: |
Now those who had been dismissed by him knows that he cannot answer their posts so they remained: dismissed!! |
Windsor wrote: |
Is this true brother AhmedBahgat? |
Windsor wrote: |
I know that those hateful ignorants lie through their teeth, but is this true? |
Windsor wrote: |
And what arguments is that arrogant scumbag referring to? |
Quote: |
Sorry mate, i did not see your comment, I was actually made aware of your question by the goons on FFI web site, |
Quote: |
You should know me better mate, of course it is in no where near the truth, those who have been dismissed, have been so based on strong merit yet I am reserving my right to reply to them any time I wish, indeed I did in this show by replying to the life dismissal piss, these people are like our seceterian brothers, they will attack you personally when you corner them and they end up having nothing to say but defame you, I see it all the times, that is why I have created the dismissing rules to control such freaks who keep on harassing me trying hard to distort what I am saying |
Quote: |
Of course not |
Quote: |
I really do not know man, here is a link to the thread and see for yourself, they suppose to have replied to you too btw, in page 8 or 9
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=58930&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 Salam |
Windsor wrote: |
I am sorry brother AhmedBahgat but I do not visit hate sites. So if you would please copy and paste their "replies" to me here it would be very kind of you and I would very much appreciate it.
Also please keep us updated with their "replies" as well so we can keep up with refuting them point by point. Peace. |
Windsor wrote: |
Brother AhmedBahgat you are doing a good job.
Regarding Thul Qarnayn. What was in the well was not the sun, but Thul Qarnayn himself. حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ Until, when he reached sunset, وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ He found it going away فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ in a spring of murky water It's not the sun that is in the murky water. It is Thul Qarnayn and from there he sees the sun going away. To clarify my point even more, here is an equal restructuring of the verse; حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ Until, when he reached sunset, فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ at a spring of murky water وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ He found it going away What the verse means is that when Thul Qarnayn reached at a well of murky water at sunset, he saw the sun going away. What supports my stance even more is the verses that follow it which illustrate Thul Qarnayn's journey even more. Thul Qarnayn could not have continued his journey and found other peoples if the sun was "setting on earth" like those hateful ignorant scum want us to believe. It must have burnt them. |
Ahmed Bahgat wrote: |
Salam mate
Very good point that you have raised, in fact the Quran is full of such technique where some words come after other words while it is also ok that the words come first before these words, however what you said at the last paragraph: What supports my stance even more is the verses that follow it which illustrate Thul Qarnayn's journey even more. Thul Qarnayn could not have continued his journey and found other peoples if the sun was "setting on earth" like those hateful ignorant scum want us to believe. It must have burnt them. That is a killer of a refute, dear brother, thank you Cheers |
Quote: |
I do understand mate, in fact what you are doing by avoiding such web sites is not bad at all, i wish I can do the same, however I decided to go down to their level and yet I still beat them hard at such |
Quote: |
I will copy of their commenst to you mate, they actually invited you to come and join them, but I support you in your decision not to visit such web sites
Take care |
Quote: |
Notice what Windsor wrote. He wrote that "What was in the well was not the sun, but Thul Qarnayn himself". When did Zul Qarnain stand in the well? At sunset? |
Quote: |
If he was standing in the well at sunset and looking up would he see the sun?
|
Quote: |
Now who is changing Allah's word to get out of an absurdity? We who are the kuffar or this Muslim named Windsor? |
Quote: |
Notice how Ahmed pats his little buddy Windsor on the back.
|
Quote: |
Muslims believe that the fictional story of Zul Qarnain in the Qur'an is historically true. How sad for them. Is this a killer of a refute from Ahmed and company? |
Quote: |
Now to get back to my question: If Zul Qarnain was standinding in a well at sunset and looking up would he see the sun? I'm not going to answer the question because I want eveyone to watch the following video.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0JHEqBLG650 |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Ok. Now for the next slam dunk. |
Zorasta Russ wrote: |
الارض ليست كروية في القرآن، هي مسطحة |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Translation: The earth is not spherical in the Qur'an, it is flat.
Prove Zorasta Russ wrong. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
what the hell was that?
are you confused, drunk and manipukated (Not a typo)? which verse no is that? |
Zorasta Russ wrote: |
According to the Qur'an the earth is flat |
In response to the quote above Windsor wrote: |
The Holy Quran never said the earth is flat. There are clear verses in the Holy Quran saying that the earth is a sphere. |
Zorasta Russ wrote: |
Then show us the clear verses in the Holy Quran saying that the earth is a sphere.
I'll be waiting. I have to go to work. When I return I will show flat earth Qur'anic verses. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Zorasta Russ wrote: |
الارض ليست كروية في القرآن، هي مسطحة |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
This is how Ahmed Bahgat translated the following Qur'anic verse. |
Quote: |
خَلَقَ السَّمَوَتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بِالْحَقِّ يُكَوِّرُ اليْلَ عَلَى النَّهَارِ وَيُكَوِّرُ النَّهَارَ عَلَى اليْلِ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى أَلَا هُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْغَفَّرُ |
Quote: |
[39:5] He has created the heavens and the earth with the truth; He wraps around the night over the day and wraps around the day over the night, and He has subjected the sun and the moon; each one runs to an appointed term. Unquestionably, He is the Mighty, the Forgiver.
|
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Since when does wrapping night and day on eachother show that the earth is spherical? |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
There is no mention of the earth rotating in any Qur'anic verse. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Secondly night is not an object |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
that can be wrapped over day |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
and day is not an object |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
that can be wrapped over the night. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Night is a result of the absence of sunlight on the side of the rotating earth facing away from the sun and day is the result of sunlight on the side of the rotating earth facing the sun. |
Quote: |
on the side of the rotating earth facing away from the sun and day is the result of sunlight on the side of the rotating earth facing the sun. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Another way to examine meaning of words in an Arabic Qur'an is to find another verse with another derivative of the root of that word. Another word close to "kurah" in Al Qur'an is كُوِّرَتْ kuwwarat, translated as covered up, folded up, overthrown. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
إِذَا الشَّمْسُ كُوِّرَتْ
[Shakir 81:1] When the sun is covered, [Yusufali 81:1] When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up; [Pickthal 81:1] When the sun is overthrown, |
sun wrote: |
What did the Quran says about the possibility of having a son without a consort ? |
Quote: |
6:101 Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth;
How can He have a son when He has no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things. |
sun wrote: |
Here Allah says in the Quran, its NOT POSSIBLE to have a son without a consort, but ............
Allah contradict himself in his Quran by back tracking in Sura 19, when Mary asked how she could have a son without a consort ? |
Quote: |
He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. Sura 19:19-21 Pickthall |
sun wrote: |
In other words, Mary asks: How can I have a son when I had no consort? Her question, "How can this be?", receives Allah's answer: This is EASY for me! (19:21) |
sun wrote: |
On on hand Allah say it is not possible (6:101), but at the same time he says it is easy (19:21). |
skynightblaze wrote: |
piscohot wrote: |
That's a good one, sun. Now we have to wait for Ahmed to come and make up a story of why the words in arabic would mean that Allah was right on both accounts. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
, On a serious note, this raises another interesting question:
Is Allah really the almighty if he cannot have a son without a consort? Seems like Christian God is far more powerful |
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
This is clearly Muhammad's own sense of reasoning at work. To him, it made no sense to be able to have a son without a consort and in the verse he asks the same question that he asked himself when Christians taught him the Gospels. I always found it odd that Muhammad decided to call a Jesus a mere man and yet did not decide to reject the virgin birth of this mere man. It seems to me like it's got to be one or the other. Either Jesus was a mere man or he was born of a virgin birth. I don't see how one can call someone born of a virgin birth to be a regular human being like you and me and Muhammad. And then, of course, Muhammad does contradict himself later. Mary can have a son without a consort, but Allah cannot. So something that is not possible for Allah is possible for Mary. Perhaps Muhammad didn't or couldn't remember everything he said, so occasionally, he would accidentally contradict himself like he did here. |
sum wrote: |
Hello IAT
I have to hand it to you - you always seem to hit the nail on the head. sum |
chingachgook wrote: |
There is one other thing that Allah cannot do, inspite of his powers and abilities, and that is to be "3-in-1" and "1-in-3"
Allah also need angels to record the goods and bads of human probably because he has poor memories to memorize the goods and bads of billions of people. ) |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Excellent pick by sun. Thank you dear. I always encourage all to read Quran again and again so that more of its flaws will be revealed on course.
Allah can not have a son because he hasn't got a cohort, but Mariam can without cohort. Clearly Allah shot on his own foot here asking "How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort" A quality addition to Quran's inconsistencies and Allah's failings; I would request to all keep working on Quran so that more will be unearthed. |
Windsor wrote: |
Peace brother AhmedBahgat
Here is a video that clearly explains how the Quran says the earth is a sphere. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc1MMw6zgro |
Windsor wrote: |
I will get back to that God Maryam argument tomorrow as I have to leave the library now. Again those retards in that hate site prove their stupidity and ignorance. |
charleslemartel wrote: | ||
OK, so here it is for you to read:
|
Ahmed wrote: |
But are they the same? |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Whoever said that apples and oranges are same? Or that Allah and Mary are the same? |
Quote: |
Mary did not have the miraculous child on her own, you stupid, it was Allah Who sent a messenger to her in the shape of a human to make her pregnant |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Surely you do not mean to say that the messenger had a sexual intercourse with Mary? |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Allah has clearly said that he cannot have a son without a female companion. This raises serious question about the so called almighty. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
[What do you mean? |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
You have a very good arguement as to why Allah does not have a son. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I still do not understand !!
I never said that Allah cannot have a son, I only showed that Allah said that He should have no child WALAD means Child, btw Walad can not mean Son explicitly Ibn means Son Bent means Daughter Walad, means Child who can be a son or a daughter |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Well said.
قُلْ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ ٱللَّهُ ٱلصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَّهُ كُفُواً أَحَدٌ There can be no likeness of Allah created or begotten. Allah is truly unique. He is one and only one. |
Aksel, Ankersen wrote: |
Hello Ahmed
What problem does your friend Windsor have with Zoroastrians? Just reading the commentary from free-islam.com and it sounds like he is the hater. Can you ask him please? |
Windsor wrote: |
This is rich coming from a Zoroastrian retard . Has this arrogant retard ever opened one page of his stupid scripture? |
Quote: |
Great mate, please add as much valid info as you can, |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
We in FFI have a schema and to accomplish it, I can?????????????????????¢??t let your arguments win. |
iamcp wrote: |
quran 3:53 - Wamakaroo wamakara Allahu waAllahu khayru almakireena
What is the literal meaning of eachand every word in this verse. I dont know arabic, thats why I need help on this. Please, any arabic speakers help me out. |
Quote: |
On on hand Allah say it is not possible (6:101), but at the same time he says it is easy (19:21). |
Quote: |
Why would anyone have to restructure a verse? We who are the kuffar don't have to restructure any verse. |
Quote: |
Quote: |
That's a good one, sun. Now we have to wait for Ahmed to come and make up a story of why the words in arabic would mean that Allah was right on both accounts. |
Quote: |
, On a serious note, |
Quote: |
, On a serious note, this raises another interesting question:
Is Allah really the almighty if he cannot have a son without a consort? Seems like Christian God is far more powerful |
Quote: |
This is clearly Muhammad's own sense of reasoning at work. To him, it made no sense to be able to have a son without a consort and in the verse he asks the same question that he asked himself |
Quote: |
when Christians taught him the Gospels. |
Quote: |
I always found it odd that Muhammad decided to call a Jesus a mere man and yet did not decide to reject the virgin birth of this mere man. It seems to me like it's got to be one or the other. Either Jesus was a mere man or he was born of a virgin birth. I don't see how one can call someone born of a virgin birth to be a regular human being like you and me and Muhammad. |
Quote: |
And then, of course, Muhammad does contradict himself later. Mary can have a son without a consort, but Allah cannot. So something that is not possible for Allah is possible for Mary. |
Quote: |
Perhaps Muhammad didn't or couldn't remember everything he said, so occasionally, he would accidentally contradict himself like he did here. |
Quote: |
Hello IAT
I have to hand it to you - you always seem to hit the nail on the head. sum |
Quote: |
There is one other thing that Allah cannot do, inspite of his powers and abilities, and that is to be "3-in-1" and "1-in-3" |
Quote: |
Allah also need angels to record the goods and bads of human probably because he has poor memories to memorize the goods and bads of billions of people. ) |
Quote: |
Excellent pick by sun. Thank you dear. I always encourage all to read Quran again and again so that more of its flaws will be revealed on course.
Allah can not have a son because he hasn't got a cohort, but Mariam can without cohort. Clearly Allah shot on his own foot here asking "How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort" A quality addition to Quran's inconsistencies and Allah's failings; I would request to all keep working on Quran so that more will be unearthed. |
Aksel, Ankersen wrote: |
Sorry to interrupt Ahmed, just one thing. |
Aksel, Ankersen wrote: |
What about Makr in Koran 17:38? |
Sura al-Isra 36-38 wrote: |
ولاتقف ماليس لك به علم ان السمع والبصر والفؤاد كل اولئك كان عنه مسؤولا
ولاتمش في الارض مرحا انك لن تخرق الارض ولن تبلغ الجبال طولا كل ذلك كان سيئه عند ربك مكروها |
Aksel, Ankersen wrote: |
And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.
And do not go about in the land exultingly, for you cannot cut through the earth nor reach the mountains in height. All this-- the evil of it-- is hateful in the sight of your Lord. |
Aksel, Ankersen wrote: |
Those things are denounced Makr in the sight of your Rabb, |
Aksel, Ankersen wrote: |
seems like they are a cheat or dishonesty ( وها is just a plural morpheme, I think). |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Hey, don't take the statements in Quran seriously. Quran also claimed to be clear and easy to understand book. What a joke!! |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I believe this is my second time to ask you, where exactly the Quran claimed to be clear and easy to understand book? I think after you reply, we will start the third dozens of slams
Waiting for a reply....... |
charleslemartel wrote: |
It is rare to find a person who is intelligent, but stubbornly insists on being a retard. You are one such person. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Dismissed |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Quran also claimed to be clear and easy to understand book. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
YUSUFALI: Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
PICKTHAL: Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
SHAKIR: Shall I then seek a judge other than Allah? And He it is Who has revealed to you the Book (which is) made plain; and those whom We have given the Book know that it is revealed by your Lord with truth, therefore you should not be of the disputers. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
YUSUFALI: O people of the Book! There hath come to you our messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, ?????????????????????¢?? |
charleslemartel wrote: |
PICKTHAL: O People of the Scripture! Now hath Our messenger come unto you, expounding unto you much of that which ye used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. now hath come unto you light from Allah and plain Scripture, |
charleslemartel wrote: |
SHAKIR: O followers of the Book! indeed Our Messenger has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah; |
charleslemartel wrote: |
044.002
YUSUFALI: By the Book that makes things clear;- PICKTHAL: By the Scripture that maketh plain SHAKIR: I swear by the Book that makes manifest (the truth). |
charleslemartel wrote: |
044.058
YUSUFALI: Verily, We have made this (Qur'an) easy, in thy tongue, in order that they may give heed[/b]. PICKTHAL: And We have made (this Scripture) easy in thy language only that they may heed. SHAKIR: So have We made it easy in your tongue that they may be mindful |
Quote: |
Hello my fellow freak, AhmedBahgat
Koran 6:101 suggests that Allah functions just the same as man. |
Quote: |
What would Allah do to, or with, a consort in order to have a son? Does it imply that Allah would need a female with whom to have sexual intercourse? Would the son be born, as we understand birth, up in the seventh heaven and somehow be brought down by bouraq and deposited on earth? Would Allah`s son need a human female to care for him? Can you picture this event? |
Quote: |
The whole thing is laughable yet muslims accept all this nonsense. What has happened to them? |
Quote: |
Does Allah function like a human being? What makes Allah a male?
sum |
Quote: |
Furthermore, even otherwise your argument is wrong. Can you deny that Allah is supposed to be far more powerful than Mary? |
Quote: |
All the impossibles for Mary should be possibles for Allah. |
Quote: |
And of course, whatever Mary was capable of, Allah has to be more than capable of doing that. Quran itself is the testimony for the fact that Mary was capable of doing something (having a son without a sexual partner) which was impossible for Allah.
You slam dunks boomerang unfailingly . |
Quote: |
Surely you do not mean to say that the messenger had a sexual intercourse with Mary? |
Quote: |
Allah has clearly said that he cannot have a son without a female companion. This raises serious question about the so called almighty. |
Quote: |
Hey bro Windsor
This is a question for you by an FFI member whom I think is very decent: |
Quote: |
Hello Ahmed
What problem does your friend Windsor have with Zoroastrians? Just reading the commentary from free-islam.com and it sounds like he is the hater. |
Quote: |
The FFI goon is named Haik Monsieur, he claims to be an ex Muslims (which I believe is a lie), |
Quote: |
Thenk you brother Windsor, I hope you have answered Aksel, Ankersen question directed to you, |
Windsor wrote: | ||
I have just done so. Please keep us updated with their responses. |
Disguised wrote: |
When We look at Islam ,We find that Liquors are banned and prohibited, Even Harsh Punishment awaits those who drink.However, When you ponder on Islam and Investigate it from its core, you will find the un-expected. We shall prove that the Quran doesnt prohibit Liquor and that Muhammad did Drink Liquor.
Refuting the Ban of Alcohol in the Quran Let Us first examine the Quranic verses that are supposed to ban Alcoholic Drinks , and We shall refute them: Quran 2:219 ''They ask you concerning alcoholic drinks and Games of Chance, Say:In them are harm and goods for men,but their harm exceeds their good effects.'' It only says that there is harm in alcoholic drinks, and if you drink too much ,I agree that it will harm you, but it doesnt prohibit it here. |
misan wrote: | ||||
Thank you very much for a very scholarly reply. Very good reasoning, I must say. I did not know that Koran has spoken on this. By the way, I do not drink too much and will cut it down after reading what you wrote above. Thanks and I am impressed. |
openurmind wrote: |
Hi Ahmed,
how are you bro? need to talk to you. Skype: openurfmind |
Ahmed Bahgat wrote: |
They ask you regarding the alcohol and the gambling; say: In both there is a great sin and means of profit for the people, and its sin is greater than its profit. And they ask you regarding what they should spend; say: Pardon others. Thus does Allah explain to you the signs that you may ponder-
[Al Quran ; 2:219] |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
I underlined the word alcohol because the Arabic word used in the Qur'an is khamr. Al khamr is any fermented fruit juice or drink that is an inebriant or intoxicant. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
There has to be enough alcohol in a beverage before it can be an inebriant or intoxicant. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
The word for alcohol in Arabic is kohoul or al kohoul with the definite article "al". |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Another Arabic word for alcohol is : الغول, "al-ghoul", found in Sura 37:47 as غول ghoul. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Alcohol was not discovered until it could be distilled out of fermented beverages. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Now for something I have noticed regarding wine or intoxicants in Al Qur'an. Wine was considered good and it was a provision from Allah before it was prohibited. |
Quote: |
And from the fruits of date-palms and grapes, you derive strong drink and a goodly provision. Verily, therein is indeed a sign for people who have wisdom.
وَمِن ثَمَرَاتِ ٱلنَّخِيلِ وَٱلأَعْنَابِ تَتَّخِذُونَ مِنْهُ سَكَراً وَرِزْقاً حَسَناً إِنَّ فِي ذٰلِكَ لآيَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ An-Nahl 16:67 |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Then intoxicating drinks were forbidden and considered as an abomiation of Shaitan. |
Quote: |
O you who believe! Intoxicants (wine), gambling, Al????????????????????????????Ans????????????????????????????¢b, and Al????????????????????????????Azl????????????????????????????¢m (arrows for seeking luck or decision) are an abomination of Shait????????????????????????????¢n's (Satan) handiwork. So avoid (strictly all) that (abomination) in order that you may be successful. Shait????????????????????????????¢n (Satan) wants only to excite enmity and hatred between you with intoxicants (alcoholic drinks) and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of All????????????????????????????¢h and from As-Sal????????????????????????????¢t (the prayer). So, will you not then abstain?
5:90 يَٰأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِنَّمَا ٱلْخَمْرُ وَٱلْمَيْسِرُ وَٱلأَنصَابُ وَٱلأَزْلاَمُ رِجْسٌ مِّنْ عَمَلِ ٱلشَّيْطَانِ فَٱجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ 5:91 إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ ٱلشَّيْطَانُ أَن يُوقِعَ بَيْنَكُمُ ٱلْعَدَاوَةَ وَٱلْبَغْضَآءَ فِي ٱلْخَمْرِ وَٱلْمَيْسِرِ وَيَصُدَّكُمْ عَن ذِكْرِ ٱللَّهِ وَعَنِ ٱلصَّلاَةِ فَهَلْ أَنْتُمْ مُّنتَهُونَ Al-Ma'idah 5:90-91 |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
Finally faithful followers will enjoy rivers of pure sealed wine in Paradise. |
Quote: |
Verily, Al-Abr????????????????????????????¢r (the pious who fear All????????????????????????????¢h and avoid evil) will be in delight (Paradise). On thrones, looking (at all things). You will recognise in their faces the brightness of delight. They will be given to drink pure sealed wine. The last thereof (that wine) will be the smell of musk, and for this let (all) those strive who want to strive (i.e. hasten earnestly to the obedience of All????????????????????????????¢h). It (that wine) will be mixed with Tasn????????????????????????????®m. A spring whereof drink those nearest to All????????????????????????????¢h. Al-Mutaffif????????????????????????????®n 83:22-28 |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
In conclusion, the Qur'an states that wine is a provision from Allah |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
and then states that it is an abomination of Shaitan. |
Zorasta_Russ wrote: |
This is a contradiction for rational thinkers. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
In Quran, Muslims?????????????????????¢?? holy book, |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
we see Allah often depicted as the creator and sustainer of this universe. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
But more importantly, it is said; he has a throne and he is firmly seated on it. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Let us just have a look on this glorious throne in which the creator and sustainer of this universe is seated. |
Haik Monsieur should have said it like this wrote: |
Let us just have a look on this glorious throne in which the creator and sustainer of this universe MAY BE SEATED ON A CHAIR WITHIN HIS THRONE. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
In Quran Chapter Hud: I will paste the verses in Arabic here though I had stopped this practice. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Plight necessitates it so please pardon this inaptness. The transliteration and translation will follow Arabic verses: |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
وَهُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ وَكَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ
(Wa hua?????????????????????¢??alltzee khalaqa al-samawati wa al-ardha fee sittati ayyamin wakana arshahu ala al-mae) |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
He it is who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was over the waters [Quran 11:7] |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
I would urge readers to take particular care on the word Arsh which is bolded in Arabic and the transliteration because it is going to be important here. This thread is about the throne of Allah so the word ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? should be noted. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
We know from Quran Allah?????????????????????¢??s throne was over the waters. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
It is somewhere in heavens where rivers flow and Allah?????????????????????¢??s throne happened to be over the water= means it should necessarily be in any of the rivers. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Allah does not stop by simply stating his throne was over waters, but he continues in his glorious book: Chapter Al-Radd: |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
اللّهُ الَّذِي رَفَعَ السَّمَاوَاتِ بِغَيْرِ عَمَدٍ تَرَوْنَهَا ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى عَلَى الْعَرْشِ |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
(Allahullatzee rafa?????????????????????¢??a al samawati bighyri amadin tarounaha thummastawa ala al Arsh) |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Allah is He who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; is firmly established on the throne [Quran.13:2] |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
So we have seen how Allah is established (?) on his throne after raising heavens without pillars..! |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Now, about throne, the word in Quran is Arsh, |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
which is sometimes manipulated by Muslims to translate as ?????????????????????¢??Dominion?????????????????????¢??????????????????????. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Muslims are embarrassed on the apparent ridicule of their god seating on a throne |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
which is over the waters in somewhere in heaven. God; the creator and sustainer of this universe is seated on a throne in heavens? Where can it be? NASA couldn?????????????????????¢??t yet locate it. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Now: Those Muslims who wants to argue ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? does not mean a throne-chair |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
just have a look at the following verses of your Quran: Before going to the verses, I want to explain the context. In Quran there is a chapter named Joseph. It is the story of Joseph a Biblical prophet. As the story moves on, Joseph who was put in jail once but later became on the level of a ruler of Egypt, summoned up his parents when his luck began to shine. See in Quran how he treated his parents:
وَرَفَعَ أَبَوَيْهِ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ وَخَرُّواْ لَهُ سُجَّدًا وَقَالَ يَا أَبَتِ هَـذَا تَأْوِيلُ رُؤْيَايَ مِن قَبْلُ قَدْ جَعَلَهَا رَبِّي حَقًّا (Wa Rafa?????????????????????¢??a Abawaihi ala Al-Arshi Wa kharroo lahu Sujjadan Waqala ya Abati haza taeweelu ru?????????????????????¢??yaya min qablu qad ja?????????????????????¢??alaha rabbee haqan) Bolded red in Arabic, it reads ?????????????????????¢??al-Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
And he placed his parents on the throne and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my father! This is the interpretation of my dream of old which my Sustainer has made come true..[Quran. 12:100] |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Here in this verse you can see the same word that is used to denote where Allah is seated in heaven. ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? This is Quran and no Muslim can escape. Joseph placed his parents on ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? = ?????????????????????¢??Throne, Chair?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Bottom line: Islam?????????????????????¢??s god is seated on a throne that is situated over waters in heaven. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Muslims try to conciliate to this obvious mockery by retranslating Quranic phrase ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? as ?????????????????????¢??dominion?????????????????????¢??????????????????????. But their own Quran testifies ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? simply means a material ?????????????????????¢??Throne or Chair?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
PS: I did not use any hadiths in this post because I want our slam dunker Quran expert to come up and refute this post if he can. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Ahmed,
I do not want any share from your slime dunk. So, I post my rebuttal in here where it would be more appropriate. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Hello HM
It is my pleasure HM to come and slam dunk you, I actually read every word in your comment and discovered at least 5 flaws but if you make 10 you will make it to my Slam Dunk Show, but as I read and especially when I reached the Nasa bit (hahaha), I said to myself, what a jerk you are, this thread must be dismissed and not replied to, however when I reached the end and read your desire to be slam dunked by me, I decided to grant you your wish. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Well Ahmed Bahgat, I know you are too much into my posts because I enthral you a lot. :p You are not the sole soul, but in fact I have many real fans here in FFI and other various web Forums plus in my real life too. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
So, there is nothing of earthquaking importance when you say you read every bit of my posts. There is nothing wrong in pursuing me posts after posts too because as a professional, I can assure you; obsession is beyond your restraint. However you try to suppress it, you will fail and it would be obsession that wins always. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Do you feel like I am buffing up myself? |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Feel free to feel so. Sometimes self-flattery too is needed to counter guys like you.. :dork: |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
In Quran, Muslims?????????????????????¢?? holy book, |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Hmmm, are you that dumb bum?
Every one knows that the Quran is the Muslims?????????????????????¢?? holy book, what is new? The way you write your words indicates that you have no intellect whosoever, possibly you just wanted to make your comment a bit bigger, you know, you like it big, I guess. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Here you go...,
I think Mr. Bahgat, you should leave English for native speakers. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Once you asked me of my profession and I didn?????????????????????¢??t answer you at that time. It was not because of any pique towards you, but as one who is doing a lot of jobs at the same time, I can?????????????????????¢??t precisely tell you what exactly my profession is. I am an all-rounder if you want to know and journalism is one of the many fields I excel. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
So, it is a journalistic approach. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
First to begin with stating what is generally known. I just adopted that mode of writing and there is nothing for you to make fun of. Poor humour is nauseating and when it comes from a man who does not have the sense of wittiness, it becomes worse. So, keep restraint from commenting on something you aren?????????????????????¢??t accustomed to. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Well, I will agree with the first part, that He has a throne, however I totally disagree with the second part, I believe the Quran never said that Allah is firmly seated on His throne, for many reasons:
1) The word Istawa in Arabic, does not mean ?????????????????????¢??firmly seated?????????????????????¢??, rather (direct an attention to) 2) The throne is not a chair only, rather a chair and many other things in its vicinity, i.e. Allah may not sit on the throne, rather Allah may sit on the chair that is part of His throne. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
I think Ahmed; you haven?????????????????????¢??t got my argument at all. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
I am not interested in this acrobatics with ?????????????????????¢??Istawa?????????????????????¢??????????????????????. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
My purpose is to demolish the Muslim claim ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? means dominion |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
and I did it in my post. If ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? as we found in Quran is a throne ?????????????????????¢?? chair, |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
then the phrase ?????????????????????¢??Istawa?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? can by all means be translated as seated. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
After all, even if your argument is right, |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
it tells me Allah attended to his throne = seated on it. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Sorry man. I can?????????????????????¢??t bear your stupidity at all. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
What does it mean chair within his throne? |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Do you know what are you talking about? |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Check any dictionary and get the meaning of throne. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
It is synonymous with chair |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
and when you say ?????????????????????¢??seated in a chair within a throne?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? that triggers laughs because what you effectively state is ?????????????????????¢??seated in a chair within a chair?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Do you think it makes a lot of sense? |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
First of all Ahmed, mind your language. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
You have very very very bitter experience from me in the past and quite recently I did shut you up with your own medicine. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
I have more than enough in my armoury to do it again, |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
so keep the phrases like ?????????????????????¢??licking arses?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? for yourself and don?????????????????????¢??t use them against me again. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
You will get bloody beaten with your own medicine again. Take my words for it. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Secondly, this is an English forum and I don?????????????????????¢??t think it is apposite to paste Arabic in here. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
If you need Arabic, you can directly go to websites which offer you Arabic. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
I am posting in this forum to alert infidels of the dangers of Islam and not for what you think like to get a response from Muslim. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
I have tired of Muslims because you guys are stuck in a specific backdrop of history without evolving. Consequently, you people can never offer any coherent arguments so I have stopped targeting you folks. My target audience is infidels who are surfing this forum to know of the real Islam. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
We in FFI have a schema and to accomplish it, I can?????????????????????¢??t let your arguments win. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
After all, have you had a serene moment in your recent life to think what is FFI aiming for?Idiot; we never concealed our aim. Our aim is to destroy Islam. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
So, I will chop off those unnecessary particles of your post and will not quote them. Only relevant parts will be quoted. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
This is how I will take only take it, there is a WAW at the beginning of the verse, i.e. the verse must start with AND:
And it is He Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and His throne is over the water, This is your stupidity # 2 |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Again sorry Ahmed, it is not stupidity. If you paid attention, you can see I haven?????????????????????¢??t even quoted verses in full. So, I should not necessarily translate it in its literal sense. All I had to do was to convey the message it carries. And I did it. Stop blabbering. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Hahahaha, funny indeed, stop wishful thinking your jerk
The Quran never said that the throne of Allah is over rivers, it only said the throne is OVER WATER, you manipulator OVER WATER may mean any of the followings: 1) Over a lake 2) Over a sea 3) Over an ocean 4) Over a river 5) Over a canal 6) Over something that is made of water that we yet do not know what it is. Therefore when you said: water= means it should necessarily be in any of the rivers., it means nothing but you are a dumb bum. This is your stupidity # 3 |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
Again; vain acrobatics..! Mr. Bahgat, Quran says Allah?????????????????????¢??s throne is over the water = Mae. And the same Quran says there are rivers floating over the heavens. In many places we see these rivers ?????????????????????¢??Anhar?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? in Quran and they float over the heavens. So, it is not at all inapt to conclude when it says Allah?????????????????????¢??s throne is over the water, it should necessarily be in any of these rivers. It is really funny indeed and I agree with you. Funny part is the creator and sustainer of this universe is having a throne in somewhere in heavens over waters..! |
kereng wrote: |
I think the "arsh over the waters" is not over the rivers in heaven. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
And the same Quran says there are rivers floating over the heavens. In many places we see these rivers ?????????????????????¢??Anhar?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? in Quran and they float over the heavens. |
Haik Monsieur wrote: | ||||||||||||||||||
Answered and it is your turn now. Tell us whether there are ?????????????????????¢??Anhar?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? = Rivers float in heavens.
Again, I will chop off irrelevant particles from your post. (I say this repeatedly because I don?????????????????????¢??t want to get blamed for not quoting you properly)
Ah?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦ your stupidity in stating chair within a chair is dealt above. If ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? is ?????????????????????¢??throne?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? it can also mean ?????????????????????¢??chair?????????????????????¢??????????????????????. Ask any native English speakers of this and confirm it yourself. I see Cassandra offering you a simple lesson. She is a native speaker btw. So, if Allah has a chair over waters, he can sit on it and verses should necessarily mean it too. Otherwise I don?????????????????????¢??t think a chair is for simply viewing. Do you?
I think we have no disagreements here except you stupidly argue ?????????????????????¢??chair is part of a throne?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? what the hell does it mean? It goes like ?????????????????????¢??Cake is the part of a cake?????????????????????¢??????????????????????
Again the same baloney. Sorry Ahmed?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦ you are sometimes entertaining too. I have to take back my previous statement about you.
No Ahmed, this can be a contradiction then within Quran. Because if Allah?????????????????????¢??s throne is bigger than heaven and earth, you will have to argue the waters in which his throne is located is even bigger than it. Can you be more stupid than this? You mean the whole of universe is water? Where? We only know earth-our planet consists ????????????????????????????¾ of water and not heavens. In fact it is yet to discover water anywhere in other planets let alone in the whole of universe. Why do your arguments always backfire Ahmed? Did you ever think of it? If not, get it right now. You are defending the indefensible. That?????????????????????¢??s all.
Irrelevant; totally irrelevant because throne ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? is found in Quran to denote a chair too. Well, I am coming unto it.
What da ya mean Ahmed?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦? You mean Joseph?????????????????????¢??s parents were climbing to heavens? NO man.., it merely states ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? can mean a material as a chair. Joseph placed his parents on Arsh means they seated on chair. Is it hard to understand?
It seems like your stupidity has no limits. Joseph was not raising his parents above something supernatural.., not at all. He was merely letting them seated on throne. It can be a kingly throne since he was then a ruler there in Egypt. If you want to say Joseph raised his parents to a throne level, you bear the burden of telling us what does it mean raising to throne level; come on and don?????????????????????¢??t become an embarrassment for yourself.
Sorry Ahmed, all these are effectively rebutted already. If Allah has a throne, he making (?????????????????????¢??Sawwa?????????????????????¢??????????????????????) should necessarily mean he is seating on it. And we saw throne does mean a chair. Again, I chop off the rest of your post because they are the repetitions of the same nonsense you introduced already. I am not liable to answer them again and again and again. I had to prove ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? mean a material = ?????????????????????¢??Throne, Chair?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? and I did it. Now, if you have more arguments on it, come on pal?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦ but I think you have to reboot now before attempting for a second round with me?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦ Reboot Ahmed?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦, |
Nosubmission wrote: |
Well, the weird thing is that the same Arabic word ISTAWA is used in the following verses to denote the state of being SEATED:
[Surah 23.28] And when you are firmly seated, you and those with you, in the ark, say: All praise is due to Allah who delivered us from the unjust people. [Surah 43.13] That you may firmly sit on their backs, then remember the favor of your Lord when you are firmly seated thereon, and say: Glory be to Him Who made this subservient to us and we were not able to do it. |
Quote: |
Thanks for conveying message Ahmed, your friend should really join the forum.
|
Quote: |
Zoroastrianism is not racist |
Quote: |
yes I would be happy to see the majority of Iranians return to Zoroastrianism, it is the homeland of our Prophet after all,
|
Quote: |
but I don't resent Iranian Bahais or Jews...
|
Quote: |
in fact I empathize with them, especially the Bahais, as all are living together under the restrictions of Sharia law.
|
Quote: |
I'm not really sure what he wants me to say here as he's only given examples of his personal experience with Zoroastrians. He is talking about a religion of ~2,700,000 souls (an upper estimate) and he is very unlikely to have met and talked with a representative sample of us in his lifetime. |
Quote: |
Anyway, Zoroastriansism does care for non-Aryans, in fact for the world and all its people. |
Quote: |
Windsor made reference to our "stupid scripture", so I'd appreciate a textual reference from him.
|
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
Like I always say, nobody lies and cheats more than Muslims. Nobody. They are the most dishonest people on the planet. |
Quote: |
Like I always say, nobody lies and cheats more than Muslims. Nobody. They are the most dishonest people on the planet. |
sam06usa wrote: |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6htjDd5ZgcU&feature=related |
AA wrote: |
Zoroastrianism is not racist |
Windsor wrote: |
I said it thrives on Nazi ideologies (A unique religion for a unique race/ethnicity), which is certainly true. |
AA wrote: |
yes I would be happy to see the majority of Iranians return to Zoroastrianism, it is the homeland of our Prophet after all,
|
Windsor wrote: |
See? This is exactly what I am talking about. Zoroastrians believe in Zoroastriansim mainly because it's the "Persian" religion. It's the religion of our ancient forefathers and the rest of that crap argument. You do not follow Zoroastrianism because it is the true religion, but because you believe it is the "Persian" religion, that all Persians must be Zoroastrians or they would not really be Persians, that they would lose their identity. Most Zoroastrians make religion an ideology and mix religion with race in a disgusting way.
If Zoroaster was not Persian, you would not have believed in such a primitive religion for one second. Rational people follow the true religion, not the primitive religions of their ancient forefathers. |
Windsor, a few pages back wrote: |
And I thought Christians were the dumbest among the religious adherents! |
Zoroaster, Yasna 46:13 wrote: |
He who shall please Spitama Zarathushtra, by his noble actions, He indeed is worthy himself to proclaim the doctrines of Thy Faith, O Ahura! |
Windsor wrote: |
Does he want a reference to what i consider stupid in their scriptures or just any reference?
Anyway I think the whole idea of asha and druj to be laughable really. |
Nosubmission wrote: |
Dear Ahmad, you are full of gas tonight. |
Nosubmission wrote: |
Your pagan prophet's drunk scribes fell in love with the supposedly man-made book of the Jews that they copied from it. |
Nosubmission wrote: |
I hope you will not discard the following verses in your scripture as remnants of the satanic revelation: |
Nosubmission wrote: |
Mohammad's scribes said that it was a wise thing to kill youngsters to protect their parents: |
Nosubmission wrote: |
Surah 18:74-75
So they twain journeyed on till, when they met a lad, he slew him. (Moses) said: What! Hast thou slain an innocent soul who hath slain no man ? Verily thou hast done a horrid thing. He said: Did I not tell thee that thou couldst not bear with me ? |
Nosubmission wrote: |
Surah 18:80-81
And as for the lad, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief. And we intended that their Lord should change him for them for one better in purity and nearer to mercy. |
Nosubmission wrote: |
look what your Koran says about the punishment of disbelievers: |
Nosubmission wrote: |
Surah 5:33
The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom. |
tawasaubilhaq wrote: |
That is a very good, sweet and short explanation, AhmedBahgat. I would have done almost similar. |
tawasaubilhaq wrote: |
I would like to make it simpler for the poster to understand by saying, if a girl was raped or forced by a cruel man into submission to his lust, she would be forgiven by Allah. |
tawasaubilhaq wrote: |
However, a girl who then continues to make it her profession, then she will not be forgiven. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Why don't you explain his valid argument to us again? |
Aksel, Ankersen wrote: |
Hello Ahmed. Sura 4 verse 127. Do these words " يتامى النساء" I underlined not mean, "orphan girls"?
Orphaned females =/= adult women. Koran used Nisa to refer to females among the orphans. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
[Al Quran ; 4/6]
وَابْتَلُواْ الْيَتَامَى حَتَّىَ إِذَا بَلَغُواْ النِّكَاحَ فَإِنْ آنَسْتُم مِّنْهُمْ رُشْدًا فَادْفَعُواْ إِلَيْهِمْ أَمْوَالَهُمْ وَلاَ تَأْكُلُوهَا إِسْرَافًا وَبِدَارًا أَن يَكْبَرُواْ وَمَن كَانَ غَنِيًّا فَلْيَسْتَعْفِفْ وَمَن كَانَ فَقِيرًا فَلْيَأْكُلْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ فَإِذَا دَفَعْتُمْ إِلَيْهِمْ أَمْوَالَهُمْ فَأَشْهِدُواْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَكَفَى بِاللّهِ حَسِيبًا (6) -> Se: وَابْتَلُواْ الْيَتَامَى حَتَّىَ إِذَا بَلَغُواْ النِّكَاحَ, Wa Ibtalu Al Yatama Hatta Iza Balaghu Al Nakah, i.e. And test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage, can you see the words: بَلَغُواْ النِّكَاحَ, i.e. They reach the age pf marriage, i.e. when they reach puberty, in fact this is what the Arabs use to express reaching puberty, Balagha, possibly you need to check with a knowledgeable kafir like All_Brains to confirm that you have been slammed Here you have it, 4:6 clearly talks about orphans who reach the age of Nakah, i.e. the age of marriage, i.e. the age of puberty. And this should be our first slam dunk in our fourth dozen of slams, to watch it, go there: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1171178#1171178 |
Haik Monsieur wrote: |
"Balagha" is used in Quran in some places only to prompt a meaning ?????????????????????¢??Reach?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? And when it meant reaching the age of something, Quran specified it. We see in Quran:
Blah Blah Use your Quran, and answer. |
sum wrote: |
We are lead to believe, according to Islam, that each person has two Recording Angels, one on the left shoulder and one on the right. Their function is to record all the good and bad deeds, words and thoughts of the person and present these to Allah on Judgement Day.
This implies that the Recording Angels can distinguish the good from the bad. It also implies that Allah is unable to keep tabs on his creation otherwise there would be no need for the Recording Angels. If muslims claim that Allah is omniscient then why do the Recording Angels have to inform Allah about the person`s deeds, words and thoughts on Judgement Day when Allah already knows? Will the muslims please explain why the Recording Angels are needed and if they actually believe that they exist? sum |
Aksel, Ankersen wrote: | ||
Hello Ahmed
You used to say that "Lam Yahidna" in verse 65:4 does not mean negation in the past tense (i.e. a little girl who has never had menstruated) because it lacks the preposition "Min Qabl". Do you still believe this?
لولا = ?????????????????????¢??if only?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? جاؤوا = ?????????????????????¢??come?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? عليه = ?????????????????????¢??thereon?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? باربعة = ?????????????????????¢??four?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? شهداء = ?????????????????????¢??witnesses?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? ~~~~ ?????????????????????¢??Why did they not bring four witnesses??????????????????????¢??????????????????????~~~~ فاذ = ?????????????????????¢??so then?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? لم = *negation of the past tense* ياتوا = ?????????????????????¢??they bring?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? بال = prefix meaning ?????????????????????¢??in the?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? شهداء = ?????????????????????¢??witnesses?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? فاولئك = ?????????????????????¢??so those?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? عند = ?????????????????????¢??with?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? الله = ?????????????????????¢??Allah?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? هم = ?????????????????????¢??they (are)?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? الكاذبون = ?????????????????????¢??liars?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? ~~~~ ?????????????????????¢??Since they did not bring forth witnesses, those (accusers) are liars in the sight of Allah?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? ~~~~ The accusers are liars because they did not bring forth four witnesses. The accuser?????????????????????¢??s present status is a direct result of what they have done. Lam must equal negation in the past tense as anything else would not make sense here. Note that there is no ?????????????????????¢??Min Qabal?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? necessary. |
Quote: |
Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes from dealing kindly and justly with them: ... |
Quote: |
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah |
antineoliberalaxgrinder wrote: |
AhmedBahgat. Could you please explain the following apparent contradiction between Koran verse 60:8: |
antineoliberalaxgrinder wrote: | ||
|
antineoliberalaxgrinder wrote: |
and verse 24.2 in which Allah is clearly prohibiting Muslims from dealing kindly with adulterers: |
Windsor wrote: |
Peace brother AhmedBahgat
Has any of those retards got a response to any of my comments? So far I can only see a response by Aksel, Ankersen which I will reply to later. I will also write my own rebuttals to God's "throne" and alcohol in the Quran. I have been very busy for the last week os so. So hopefully I will get all of this done by the end of this week. Peace. |
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
only the hadiths say that Muhammad was illiterate. The Quran does not expressly mention this. I know Muslims who interpret the Quran as not saying illiterate prophet, but rather the prophet of the illiterate, meaning the prophet who came to spread the message to the Arabs who were essentially illiterate while the Christians and Jews were literate. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
LOL, here is Ugly begging to be humiliated
Tell me Ugly: What illiterate means to you IN ENGLISH? Simple answer please, no Barbie stories if you don't mind |
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
It means can't read, and some Muslims interpret the Quran as saying that Muhammad was the prophet of those who can't read (the arabs) rather than it saying that Muhammad couldn't read. So me giving you the definition of illiterate doesn't change what I said one iota. What is the matter with you? Read what I said again. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Therefore if the Quran said that Mohammed could read not nor write then you have been slam dunked along with Idiolite |
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
And I'm telling you that some Muslims interpret the Quran as saying that it says prophet of the illiterate rather than illiterate prophet. |
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
What part didn't you understand the first time I said it? Go back and read it. |
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
If you disagree with this interpretation, |
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
then go talk to those Muslims who think that this is what the Quran really says. |
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
Shees, what does it take to get you to understand a post?? |
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
I thought Muslims weren't allowed to drink?? |
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
I know people who could understand a post better than you with a belly full of Jack Daniels in them. :D I"m not as think as you drunk I am ossifer. :p |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
The arabs are not mentioned in the verse you manipulator |
Islamis_Tashit wrote: |
They claim that prophet of the illiterate means the Arabs because the Arabs of that time were illiterate whereas most Jews and Christians were not. Get it? Get it? |
Ex-muslimah wrote: |
To all those who replied to my angels in hell question, that was what I was thinking but it was for ahmed. |
Ex-muslimah wrote: |
I still can't get over how twisted Islam is to completely degrade ANGELS, they are full of love, which Islam isn't :grr: |
Quote: |
Raymond Ibrahim: Are slave-girls in Islam equivalent to animals?
Many are now aware that the Koran?????????????????????¢??that is, Allah?????????????????????¢??s word?????????????????????¢??permits, not just polygamy, but forced concubinage (sex with captive women), according to Koran 4:3: ?????????????????????¢??Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice, then only one, or what your right hands possess [captive women taken in war].?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? There is, however, an interesting, and very telling, linguistic aspect to this verse that is often overlooked?????????????????????¢??or intentionally obscured. The Arabic states: ?????????????????????¢??Ankahu [marry]?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦ma [what] malakat [possess] aymankum [your right hands].?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? Oddly enough, the Arabic relative pronoun used to indicate these captive women is "ma": ma malakat aymankum, literally, ?????????????????????¢??what your right hands possess?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? (see Shakir?????????????????????¢??s acclaimed English translation which most literally translates this). In Arabic, when one refers to a rational being (i.e., a human), the word used is min, which means ?????????????????????¢??who(ever)?????????????????????¢??????????????????????; ma, on the other hand, refers only to things or animals?????????????????????¢??trees, rocks, dogs and cats?????????????????????¢??very much similar to the English ?????????????????????¢??it.?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? Thus, in proper Arabic the phrase might have been min malakat aymankum: ?????????????????????¢??who(ever) your rights hands possess.?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? For long I assumed this was but a stylistic matter. However, the highly revered Islamic scholar al-Qurtubi (d.1273) also makes this observation in vol. 5, p.12 of his authoritative 20-volume Tafsir Al Koran (Exegesis of the Koran). He points out that members of the human race should be referred to with min (who), whereas only ?????????????????????¢??inanimate objects?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? or ?????????????????????¢??brute beasts?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? should be referred to with ma (what). Does this suggest that the Koran?????????????????????¢??s Arabic?????????????????????¢??touted as the most perfect Arabic?????????????????????¢??is flawed? Of course, no Muslim would allow for that. Nor need they, as this phenomenon (portraying concubines as non-human) accords well with a number of hadiths that place females and animals in the same category. Musnad Ibn Hanbal (vol. 2, p. 2992), for example, records Muhammad saying ?????????????????????¢??Women, dogs, and donkeys annul a man?????????????????????¢??s prayer.?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? Indeed, in Qurtubi?????????????????????¢??s same Tafsir (vol.15, p.172), after examining such hadiths, he writes, "A Woman may be likened to a sheep?????????????????????¢??even a cow or a camel?????????????????????¢??for all are ridden.?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? |
Ahmed wrote: |
His understanding to the word Ma is flawed
Certainly Ma can be used to refer to intelligent beings, here is a verse where it clearly refers to Allah Himself: Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve: [The Quran ; 109:3] وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ (3) |
Quote: |
-> See Mohammed is saying to the kafirs: وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ, Wala Antum Aabidoon MA Aabud, i.e. Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
And I am also sure that Min may also be used for non intelligent beings, I may post a verse later inshaallah The writer of such crap in your comment is certainly wrong and confused |
skynightblaze wrote: |
Do you realize the mistake that your prophet in the above verse? Look at the red part above. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Ignorant, the prophet could have never made a mistake in the above words because they are not his words
try to present your argument accurately or it will be dismissed |
skynightblaze wrote: |
Are these Allahs words? Whom does Allah serve then? You should be able to tell us that. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Ignorant, start reading from verse # 1 until your reach verse # 3 , then before you reach the last verse, you must, and I repeat, you must dismiss yourself |
skynightblaze wrote: |
I guess i must really dismiss myself this time around. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
And He Who created pairs of all things, and made for you of the ships and the cattle what you ride on |
Trojan Horse wrote: |
Ahmed,
A little off topic! Does the word "Ships" here refer to camels? because we have yet to see a ship constructed by allah.....no? :heh: |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||
Still regarding Slam # 40, another FFI goon asked me in sarcasm:
My reply was: No it does not We have yet to see a camel constructed by the God, all the camels we have seen so far were born from other camels See the message of the verse is way too smart for a kafir like you, the message is only for the believers who believe firmly that Allah must be the One Who constructed the ships, because He is the one who constructed the timber and the iron from the first place. You as a kafir should pay no attention for these type of verses, you only need to look at the verses warning you from the torture of the fire Final warning to write Allah with a capital A in any comment to me, if you fail to do so next time, you will be life dismissed. |
BMZ wrote: |
I see that life dismissal warning really works well there and some posters do listen to you. lol!
Salaams BMZ |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
Salam mate No man, no replies yet, they are a bunch of confused goons Take care |
Quote: |
I still can't get over how twisted Islam is to completely degrade ANGELS, they are full of love, which Islam isn't :grr: |
pvb wrote: |
and all various meaning of each word. Thank - you!!
Waqawlihim inna qatalna almaseeha -messiah AAeesa -Jesus ibna - son of maryama -Maryama rasoola -messanger Allahi - God wama qataloohu wama salaboohu walakin shubbiha lahum wa-inna allatheena ikhtalafoo feehi lafee shakkin minhu ma lahum bihi min AAilmin illa ittibaAAa alththanni wama qataloohu yaqeenan 004.157 YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. 004.158 YUSUFALI: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- PICKTHAL: But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. SHAKIR: Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Actually without even changing the translation the interpretation seems wrong to me! The Jews didn't Kill Jesus, the Romans did, no Judas, but actually GOD did for it was in His plan for our salvation. In the next verse GOD takes Jesus up to Himself. Which He eventually did!! Thanks again!! |
pvb wrote: |
The Jews didn't Kill Jesus, the Romans did, no Judas, but actually GOD did for it was in His plan for our salvation. In the next verse GOD takes Jesus up to Himself. Which He eventually did!! |
Quote: |
The Jews didn't Kill Jesus, the Romans did, no Judas, |
Quote: |
feel fear accordin to the Koran!!
033.072 YUSUFALI: We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof:........ And God offered them trust?! But they refused it!!!! ) Only a mentally deluded person would believe in this nonsense. |
Windsor wrote: | ||
According to whom exactly? The Bible? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Salam all
Let me confirm Slam Dunk # 45, as I have progressed further in my sura 19 translation, I found that an angel was also called Takiyya, let's have a look: 16- And remember in the book, Mariam, when she withdrew from her family to an eastern place; 17- So she took a seclusion from them; then We sent to her Our spirit (an angel), and he (the angel) appeared to her as a human alike (her). 18- She (Mariam) said: Indeed, I seek refuge by the Beneficent from you, that you are fearing (Allah). [Al Quran ; 19:16-18] وَاذْكُرْ فِي الْكِتَابِ مَرْيَمَ إِذِ انْتَبَذَتْ مِنْ أَهْلِهَا مَكَانًا شَرْقِيًّا (16) فَاتَّخَذَتْ مِنْ دُونِهِمْ حِجَابًا فَأَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْهَا رُوحَنَا فَتَمَثَّلَ لَهَا بَشَرًا سَوِيًّا (17) قَالَتْ إِنِّي أَعُوذُ بِالرَّحْمَٰنِ مِنْكَ إِنْ كُنْتَ تَقِيًّا (1 -> The verses above are from the story of Mary: And remember in the book, Mariam, when she withdrew from her family to an eastern place;, So she took a seclusion from them; After Mary took seclusion from her family, Allah sent an angel to her, who (the angel) appeared to her as a human like her: then We sent to her Our spirit (an angel), and he (the angel) appeared to her as a human alike (her). so she feared him of course, imagine a human appearing all of a sudden in an area in which you sought seclusion, so she quickly sought refuge by Allah from that angel who appeared to her as a man: She (Mariam) said: Indeed, I seek refuge by the Beneficent from you, and while seeking refuge by Allah from him, she asked Allah that such man is one who is Taqiyya: إِنْ كُنْتَ تَقِيًّا , Inn Kunta Taqiyya, i.e. that you are fearing (Allah). Imagine now the flawed understanding by the hard core confused goons of FFI, that Taqiyya means lying about the faith to protect the faith, so Mary suppose to have sought refuge in Allah and asking him that such man be one of those who lie about the religion to protect it. hahahahahaah I told you, you must (and I repeat you must) shove those ignorant and kafir goons into that bin I mentioned in my Slam # 45 |
Quote: |
Ahmed, please understand that taqqiya is an IDIOMATIC meaning derived from the context of 3-28, not the LITERAL translation. Bringing us literal translations in other verses is just a red herring because the context (and hence the idiomatic meaning) is different. |
antineoETC wrote: |
BTW Ahmedbahgat, could you please address my previous question: |
Quote: |
"Verse 9:03 orders you to "proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.". What might be the nature of this "grievous penalty" of which you are ordered to warn the Kafirs?"
Thanks |
Nosubmission wrote: |
You silly liar,
In the New Testament Jesus commanded people to give alms, which is not the same as the Islamic notion of Zakat. Besides, Jesus asked a rich man to sell "whatever" he has and follow Him. There is not a single verse in the New Testament (you cling to it in panic to defend your fabricated Koran!) that asks Christians to give Zakat. I have caught you lying again. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Quote: |
T. NGUYEN says:
First Sina's knowledge in Christianity is much left to be desired. Second his knowledge of Arabic and of the Quran is superb. |
Quote: |
Re: Takiyya and mistranslations of the Koran I: ronyvo wrote:Well, I wanted to expose the manipulation of explaining takiyya, but I see that there are few people here done that very well. I studied the Koran in Arabic, so I know that you are distorting the meaning intentiaonally or unintentionally. Since your are expert in Arabic, can you interpret the word enkahoo, which means the "F..." letter word. It is translated in the Koran marry. Narry means tzawago. See the difference. And many mistranslations like that to hide the violence and the wickidness of Islam. |
Quote: |
Thanks for your honesty, however it won't save you from your ignorance, here is the Root Na Ka Ha search results for the most popular Arabic dictionaries, read them all then dismiss yourself. |
parvez mushtaq wrote: |
thanks haik
you have solved nearly 30% of the problem c rso as per you all tafsirs are regarding "for those who HAVE NOT MENSTRUATED" BUT ONE MORE THING where is "YET" haik with regards Mushtaq |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
The phrase "Wallaee Lam yahidna" as interpreted by Islam's authentic Mufassirs generates the meaning "Those who have not menstruated yet". BTW, don't you have anything worthwhile to add than coming up with these silly bits?
Regards KhaliL |
parvez mushtaq wrote: |
haik pl don't waste time
pl tell me in "yes" or "no" if there is "yet" then tell me where |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Sad individual. Do you think this is smart enough? |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Do you know Arabic? |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
I bet you do not. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Do you have your comprehension intact? NOT. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
How would you translate a phrase if that denotes "Girls who have not reached the age of menstruation?" |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Now listen you kid. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
"Lam" = Denotative of negation. "NOT" |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
"Yahidh" = Verbal form of "Haidh" or "Maheedh" = "Menstruate" |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
"Na" = Resonance which means either "Still or Yet". |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Why do you skip your Quran classes? |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Ahmed Bahgat, |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
No comment on your ad hominem rants which are reflective of your frustration. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
I forgot to warn you beforehand abrogating my life dismissal to engage with me will pay you dearly Mr. Bahgat, |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
You have not learnt from your past mistakes. Now let me move into business. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
The phrase in trial is ?????????????????????¢??Lam Yahidna?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
As in the post above to that of yours, I dislodged the phrase into three parts. It was to make sense when a phrase of a Semitic language translates into an entirely different lingo. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Now, I can?????????????????????¢??t stop calling you a kid; it is not a derogatory term but just consider I am too much fond of you. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
LAM = Negation in the past. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Yahidh = Present tense from the root Haidh |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Na = Suffix |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Can you translate this word to word to English without adding ?????????????????????¢??Yet?????????????????????¢?? in it and make sense of it? |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Do you want to see how it goes: |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
?????????????????????¢??Not in the past to menstruate?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Does it make sense to you? |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Perhaps; since you are not a native speaker of English and your skills in this beautiful language is very poor. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
But ask any native speaker whether the above is grammatically correct sentence or not. It is NOT until you insert the term ?????????????????????¢??YET?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? and retranslate it in an appropriate mode. I would do it for you and consider this free. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
?????????????????????¢??Not menstruated yet?????????????????????¢??????????????????????
See, it makes perfect sense; |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Now, let me challenge you to translate the Arabic phrase ?????????????????????¢??Lam Yahidhna?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? literally into English without adding ?????????????????????¢??YET?????????????????????¢??????????????????????. Let me see how far you can move on. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Waiting
KhaliL |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Mohammed said nothing of his own you manipulated manipulator, the words were put in his tongue |
charleslemartel wrote: |
So that bit about disease and medicine on either wings of flies were put on his tongue by Allah? Allah sure seems to be a total ******. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
You have been life dismissed:
http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=3646#3646 |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Idiot, can you say the following:
You decieved a deceit? if you can't, then dismiss yourself in the ignorance rubbish bin, that is the truth that you should handle, punk |
winston wrote: |
I can see the truth hurts and makes you angry. |
zack wrote: |
salaam brother Ahmed,
I have another item that you can add to your slam dunk show to slam the ignorants. Several kafirs asked me this question: Why is the first surah(fatiha) not direct speech of God? To be more specific, they ask who is "we" and "us" in that surah. May be you've answered this question already, if so please pardon me. I really enjoy your show May Allah guide us always closer to the truth. |
Nosubmission wrote: |
Surah 5:116
And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah ? All these references surprisingly(!) add up to THREE persons: Jesus + Mary + Allah= 3 persons. 5) Your fabricated Koran blames Christians for believing Jesus to be the THIRD of the THREE: Surah 5:17 They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Surah 5:73 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three. If Jesus was the THIRD of the THREE, who was the second? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||
Salam All,
Let?????????????????????¢??s have a look at the subject of today?????????????????????¢??s slam:
Let me bring the 4 verses in here and walk you through one after the other and you should know by the end that the kafirs enemy of Islam failed again, I use Shakir translation as you know as I have not yet reached these suras to use my own translation which I believe is the most accurate and most literal one Let?????????????????????¢??s look at the first verse and indeed it should be enough to slam dunk this silly allegation: Surely We sent on them a tornado in a day of bitter ill-luck [The Quran ; 54:19] إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا فِي يَوْمِ نَحْسٍ مُّسْتَمِرٍّ (19) -> The verse above is telling us that Allah sent a violent tornado on a day to punish Ad?????????????????????¢??s people: ِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا فِي يَوْمِ نَحْسٍ , translated according to Shakir as follow: Surely We sent on them a tornado in a day of bitter ill-luck, as you can clearly see that his translation is missing the last word in the Arabic verse: مُّسْتَمِرٍّ , Mustamir, here is Google translation to the word: Mustamir
Hahahaha, i.e. the day in which Allah sent the tornado CONTINUED. In this verse Allah didn?????????????????????¢??t tell us how long that day continued, but he did in other verses, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look So We sent on them a furious wind in unlucky days, that We may make them taste the chastisement of abasement in this world's life; and certainly the chastisement of the hereafter is much more abasing, and they shall not be helped. [The Quran ; 41:16] فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا فِي أَيَّامٍ نَّحِسَاتٍ لِّنُذِيقَهُمْ عَذَابَ الْخِزْيِ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَلَعَذَابُ الْآخِرَةِ أَخْزَى وَهُمْ لَا يُنصَرُونَ (16) -> See, in this verse Allah told that the wind lasted some days: فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا فِي أَيَّامٍ نَّحِسَاتٍ , i.e. So We sent on them a furious wind in unlucky days, , see how those days in here were described as being unlucky as the day that is described in the 54:19, let me put it to you under each other: -> 41:16, فِي أَيَّامٍ نَّحِسَاتٍ , Fi Ayam Nahisaat, i.e. Unlucky days -> 54:19, فِي يَوْمِ نَحْسٍ , Fi Yawm Nahis, i.e. Unlucky day -> As you can see that the only difference between these words above as used in 41:16 and 54:19 is: 41:16 is talking plural while 54:19 is talking singular, now if the word مُّسْتَمِرٍّ , Mustamir, i.e. Continued was not used in 54:19 to describe the singular day then I would have agreed that it has to be a clear cut contradiction, but Allah described the singular day in 54:19 not only by calling it Nahis, i.e. Unlucky, rather He also called it مُّسْتَمِرٍّ , Mustamir, i.e. Continued, i.e. that unlucky day continued on, and that should be exactly what 54:19 is telling us, here is the proper translation for 54:19 Indeed We sent on them a whistling tornado in a day that was unlucky and continued. [The Quran ; 54:19] إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا فِي يَوْمِ نَحْسٍ مُّسْتَمِرٍّ (19) -> Compare the two verses and you should recognise HOW ACCURATE THE WORDS OF ALLAH ARE. Allah even told us how many days the tornado lasted in another verse: 6: And as to Ad, they were destroyed by a roaring, violent blast. 7: Which He made to prevail against them for seven nights and eight days unremittingly, so that you might have seen the people therein prostrate as if they were the trunks of hollow palms. [The Quran ; 69:6-7] وَأَمَّا عَادٌ فَأُهْلِكُوا بِرِيحٍ صَرْصَرٍ عَاتِيَةٍ (6) سَخَّرَهَا عَلَيْهِمْ سَبْعَ لَيَالٍ وَثَمَانِيَةَ أَيَّامٍ حُسُومًا فَتَرَى الْقَوْمَ فِيهَا صَرْعَى كَأَنَّهُمْ أَعْجَازُ نَخْلٍ خَاوِيَةٍ (7) -> See: سَخَّرَهَا عَلَيْهِمْ سَبْعَ لَيَالٍ وَثَمَانِيَةَ أَيَّامٍ حُسُومًا , i.e. He made to prevail against them for seven nights and eight days unremittingly , see how those 7 nights and 8 days were described as حُسُومًا , Husuma, i.e. unremittingly , which confirms what we read in 54:19, that is the singular unlucky day Continued From all the above, it is been proven that the kafir enemy of Islam have failed again to prove a clear cut contradiction in the Quran and in this case they deserve the following slam: # 5 |
Cassie wrote: |
Ahmed,
Is it possible that thee verse does not say that the day was continuous but that it was a day of continuous ill-luck? Have you considered that? The mustamir is more likely to be the modifier of the nahsin. Otherwise, you would have to say yawmi nahsin wa mustamir - or something like that. |
skynightblaze wrote: |
The tally of translations is 9 (previously brought up by me on page 21) + 5 =14
We have 14 translations translating it as "CONTINUOUS MISERY/ILLUCK" and not " DAY CONTINUED" . I guess a good 100 m rod has been shoved up your arse. Ask your cheerleader to come cheering for you . You badly need it. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Do not you read above, you blind dumb bum?
I said to inmate cassie, fine, even if I accept that, WHERE IN THE VERSE THAT IT SAID IT WAS FOR ONE DAY ONLY, OR WHERE IT SAYS THAT THE TORRENADO STOPPED ON THAT DAY? you need to come back with a logical answer or you will be dismissed in the bin lablled, Stupids |
skynightblaze wrote: |
chapter 54:19
19. For We sent against them a furious wind, on a Day of violent Disaster, 20. Plucking out men as if they were roots of palm-trees torn up (from the ground). |
skynightblaze wrote: |
Read both the verses in a sequence. The wind was sent down on a day destroying people . Doesnt that mean people were destroyed in a single day? |
skynightblaze wrote: |
I have a problem with the verses from chapter 69 |
skynightblaze wrote: |
Chapter 69 :
6.. And the 'Ad, they were destroyed by a furious Wind, exceedingly violent; 7. He made it rage against them seven nights and eight days in succession: so that thou couldst see the (whole) people lying prostrate in its (path), as they had been roots of hollow palm-trees tumbled down! |
skynightblaze wrote: |
Since Allah says that winds were sent down for 8 days it means people were not killed within a single day. How is this possiblE? Would anyone stay in the town after knowing that people are getting killed continuously day after day?
Assume you are in their place. From day 1 to day 5 say people in your town are getting killed by a cyclone would you still stay in the town till day 8?? I found this ridiculous to accept. In short All the people would get killed only if there is a sudden wind leaving them no chance to escape.If there were 8 days with the people of Ad do you think they would keep watching the show?? |
skynightblaze wrote: |
Read both the verses in a sequence. The wind was sent down on a day destroying people . Doesnt that mean people were destroyed in a single day? |
Aksel Ankersen wrote: |
The wind will last as many days as it's "sent" for. If it's sent one one day it will last one day. Wind is a continuous thing, a liquid flow much like a river. If the source stops "sending" the wind the wind stops blowing.
This even applies to a cyclone, it loses power when it moves onto land and has no warm water to feed off. |
Aksel Ankersen wrote: |
Damage along the coasts, the eyewall of the storm complex was still feeding from warm Gulf waters until it made landfall. The storm complex was very wide and took days to cross land.
And of course, cyclones are moved by steering winds. They still need to be sent. Ad and Thamud were not cities along the coast of the Arabian sea, where they could receive a cyclone - but if for the sake of argument they did get a cyclone, it still had to be sent over a period of days by the steering winds. |
Aksel Ankersen wrote: | ||||
Yeah and that map was drawn by you and hosted on your website, right? Thamud were successors to the 'Ad anyway and likely inhabited the same region. Iram lost city of the 'Ad is most probably of the Rub al-Khali (Empty Quarter) and not near the coast as the pic you've drawn shows. If Iram was on the coast they would've found it by now as that stretch of coast is well inhabited.
|
Quote: |
Aad & Thamud have continued after one another IN-THE-SAME place. |
Quote: |
There are only two places in the Middle East that have distinct stone carvings (we chose Middle East because that is where civilization first began after the Earth's re-birth in Mesopotamia, and where the Arabs and Arabic language originated from - 26:195): |
Quote: |
Medien Saleh - Northern Arabia;
Petra - South of Dead Sea. |
Quote: |
Although both places are remnants of the 'Nabataean' Kingdom (the fathers of the Arabs), our research eliminates 'Medien Saleh' as being the central city for the following reasons: |
Quote: |
Medien Saleh has 'tombs' carved out of the rock, whereas Scripture tells us they carved 'homes' (7:74); |
Quote: |
Medien Saleh is situated in a 'flat-land' with 'rock-peaks' around it. The Scripture tells us to look for a 'Valley' (89:9); |
Quote: |
Medien Saleh has no water water source to host crops and gardens, while Petra has an advanced water system used for irrigation (26:147-148). |
Quote: |
Petra.
Thus we are left with 'Petra' which fits all our clues for being 'Irum' with the Great Columns (89:6-9): |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Quote: |
Petra also happens to be situated in a 'Valley' (89:9) and is well described by all archeologists as being a 'Military Complex' (85:17-18). |
Quote: |
Also, an 'advanced' hydraulic water system was in place with the walls of the narrow entrance 'Siq' lined with channels (originally fitted with chamfered clay pipes of efficient design) to carry drinking water to the city, while a dam to the right of the entrance diverted an adjoining stream through a tunnel to prevent it flooding the Siq (26:147-149). |
Quote: |
Petra has only recently been attracting archeological excavations; however, excavations have only been done on less than 2% of the ancient city. According to some archeological research, Petra dates back to 3,500 BC: |
Quote: |
"In Abraham's time, Petra was known as Salah. It is located in the mountains of Seir, the land of the Edomites. Petra is the Greek name for Sela, or Selah, a city of ancient Edom. The Hebrew word sela means "lofty, craggy rock, fortress, stronghold, cliff." |
Quote: |
The site of Petra seems to indicate the presence of multiple civilizations, the last of which were the Nabateans (Arabs) and the Romans (Byzantines) upto the 6th century A.D. when it was struck by a devastating earthquake in 551 A.D. and the city fell out of disuse (http://nabataea.net/lhistory.html). |
Quote: |
Thus, in conclusion to this part of the research, |
Quote: |
it can be said with some certainty that the ancient city of Petra is indeed the location where the civilizations of????????Aad and Thamud once lived and flourished. |
Aksel Ankersen wrote: |
To be honest, I don't care either way - I posted for skynightblaze who still makes the effort to discuss with AB but I'm tired of playing games with this sadistic, twisted fantasist. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
2) See if the prophet was really favored by Allah regarding his martial/sex life:
Ironically Mohammed as well was not favored over a an ordinary Muslim man, an ordinary Muslim can marry as many women as he wishes as long as he does not combine more than 4 wives at any moment of time, even marrying a 1000 wives by an ordinary Muslim will bear no sin, on the other hand the Quran told us that prophet Mohammed was restricted at one point of time by Allah not to marry further wives nor divorce anyone from the wives he already had:, let?????????????????????¢??s look at the following verse which is from the same sura again: It is not lawful for you (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even if you admired their goodness, except any of whom your oath possess and Allah is over everything a Watcher. [The Quran ; 33:52] لَا يَحِلُّ لَكَ النِّسَاءُ مِنْ بَعْدُ وَلَا أَنْ تَبَدَّلَ بِهِنَّ مِنْ أَزْوَاجٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكَ حُسْنُهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُكَ ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ رَقِيبًا (52) -> See the restrictions that were enforced upon Mohammed regarding further marriages and divorces: It is not lawful for you (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even if you admired their goodness,, therefore an ordinary Muslim who may marry as many as he wishes as long as not combining more than 4 wives at the same time at any point of time by divorcing as many as he wishes to be able to always make it 4 at a time, has indeed higher privilege than prophet Mohammed because Mohammed was ordered not to marry any more at a certain point in time nor divorce any of the ones he already had If Mohammed was lusting for women after faking the Quran, why he includes such verse (33:52) in it, restricting himself to marry or divorce any more women? Only the dumb bums won?????????????????????¢??t get it. |
samson wrote: | ||
Hello AhmedBahgat i have a question on the following point
The first part of 33:52 forbids Mohammed from marrying more wives but further puts an exception on ma malakat yaminuka. Since he is forbidden from marrying more wives, does it mean that he can still have sex (outside of marriage) with as many ma malakat yaminuka as he wishes? or does ma malakat yaminuka actually refer to the wives he already has. thanks |
Rigel wrote: |
Salam,
Sorry to popin but this is interesting, can this verse understood as below? and how/why does this verse concerns the prophet only. It is not lawful for you (to marry more) women after this, No woman is lawful after this one, nor to change them for (other) wives, Not to change or have more wives of choice even if you admired their goodness, Even if you admire their goodness except any of whom your oath possess and Allah is over everything a Watcher. Can marry but only from ma malakat yaminuka. |
Quote: |
------ But isnt marrying from ma malakat yaminuka conditional under 4:3 or ... ? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
C) The Quran clearly commanded the believers to share their money 50:50 with Ma Malakat Aymanihum, i.e. with Those who are possessed by their OATHS, THIS POINT ALONE is enough to destroy the ignorant understanding that it means POWs or Slaves, because in no way anyone should command to share their money 50:50 with either the POWs or the Slaves |
shindeiru wrote: | ||
salaam brother, i was reading your post on ma malakat aymanikum, and with respect your opinion, i have an observation to make on 30:28 which you brought up. if you look at the preceding verses, its all about Allah's absolute dominion over everything, and then He sets a parable in 30:28 to draw us a picture as to why He doesnt have partners in His dominion. He is asking us a rethorical question Have you among those whom your right hands possess (ma malakat aymanikum) partners in what We have given you for sustenance, so that with respect to it you are alike; you fear them as you fear each other? the implied answer to that rethorical question should be "no", like Allah doesnt have partners and doesnt fear His creatures (servants), we dont have partners or fear those under our authority (ma malakat aymanikum). my understanding of this verse is the opposite of yours, could you elaborate more on your position thanks |
shindeiru wrote: |
hi brother, |
shindeiru wrote: |
i fully agree with your english translation of aymanikum as oaths, since it is always used this way in the quran, |
shindeiru wrote: |
but it seems to be corrupted eachtime it is used for humans and i wonder why. |
shindeiru wrote: |
probably the lust and low desires of men who seized the opportunity to abuse of these weak people in society. |
shindeiru wrote: |
now back to our topic, i thought i should bring some verses which deal with sharing from our wealth with ma malakat ayamikum |
shindeiru wrote: |
24:33
And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you وَلْيَسْتَعْفِفِ الَّذِينَ لَا يَجِدُونَ نِكَاحًا حَتَّى يُغْنِيَهُمْ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا وَآتُوهُم مِّن مَّالِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي آتَاكُمْ |
shindeiru wrote: |
we need to answer the following question here, what is the kitab which ma malakat aymanikum are asking for? |
shindeiru wrote: |
if it is, as the tafsirs say, the document of freedom of a slave from his master, then ma malakat aymanikum must be war slaves in this verse isnt it? |
shindeiru wrote: |
and the money we are told to give them is the agreed amount collected by his labor before setting him free |
shindeiru wrote: |
but i tend to think that this kitab is simply the act of marrying them (as we say upon marrying someone "katabtu kitaabi 3alayha") and the money we are told to give them, is simply the dowry as confirmed by 4:25 |
shindeiru wrote: |
4:33
And to every one We have appointed heirs of what parents and near relatives leave; and as to those with whom your rights hands have ratified agreements, give them their portion وَلِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مَوَالِيَ مِمَّا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالأَقْرَبُونَ وَالَّذِينَ عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَآتُوهُمْ نَصِيبَهُمْ |
shindeiru wrote: |
here we are told that those whom عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ (im not sure if they are the same category as ma malakat aymanikum) have a rightful share in inheritance, and this is reinforced by the preceding verses where we are told not to 4:29-32"devour your property among yourselves falsely..And whoever does this aggressively and unjustly, We will soon cast him into fire..And do not covet that by which Allah has made some of you excel others" in my opinion, the bolded ^part is cleary an allusion to the weak people in society and namely ma malakat aymanikum, as the very next verse proves.. |
shindeiru wrote: |
so here we have 2 verses, especially the last one (i dont know if there are others) which clearly order us to share from what Allah has given us with ma malakat aymanikum.
now how do we reconcile this with 30:28 which apparently tells us that, like Allah doesnt have partners from among His creatures and servants, we dont have partners either among the people under our protection/authority, namely ma malakat aymanikum? |
shindeiru wrote: |
in my opinion, we could say the following. like Allah doesnt have equal partners but bestows his bounties on all regardless of faith or race 17:20,39:52 and gives to humans in measure, according to a divine logic 42:27, we too do not have equal partners from among the people under our protection/authority namely ma malakat aymanikum but nevertheless we have to give from our sustenance to them. |
shindeiru wrote: |
let me know what you think |
shindeiru wrote: |
hi man how are you, |
shindeiru wrote: |
i enjoyed sharing our thoughts on the topic of ma malakat aymanikum and confirming our mutual beliefs. |
shindeiru wrote: |
you know, as i already told you im lebanese. |
shindeiru wrote: |
im from a shia background and you know how shia are hardcore hadith lovers and conjecturers.. |
shindeiru wrote: |
like you, i never blended into that way of thinking and always wondered why people would spend so much time talking about the men (the imams, the prophet etc) rather than meditating on the quran. in discussions, they always reference them rather than quoting the quran, the hadith of Allah and this always made me feel uncomfortable. |
shindeiru wrote: |
it is true that our duty is to inform our nearest relatives, many times i hint to them that one should concentrate more on the quran rather than the man-made traditions. they never disputed that but at the same time, continued to turn 90% of their attention to the traditions than the book of Allah. |
shindeiru wrote: |
at the end i told myself, if they want to complicate their lives with their traditions and burden the simple rituals with unnecessary and "paranoid" actions, then ok, as long as they dont contradict anything in the quran. |
shindeiru wrote: |
it is true though, that by doing so they are passing as religious laws and rituals things that were never sanctionned by Allah, which is tantamount to commiting shirk. |
shindeiru wrote: |
it is the exact same behavior as the people of old, who slowly went astray because of their innovations they attached to the original religion. |
shindeiru wrote: |
i frankly dont have the same motivation as you in trying to convince everyone around me, maybe one day i will but in the meantime i tell myself that as long as they dont exagerate (for example in the rituals) then i prefer letting them be.. |
shindeiru wrote: |
its been a while i didnt go to FFI by the way, what a bunch of inoffensive, repetitive donkeys HAMIR lol. |
shindeiru wrote: |
even the supposedly "educated" ennemies of islam among them hardly go there anymore. i think ill just sit and watch from far, and until i see a big deception which has the potential of catching an uneducated muslim coming across such circus show of a site, i wont post there. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Salam mate Good alhamdullelah, just cannot wait until I finish the first phase of Free Islam translation, I need to stat the final phase so that I work hard on accuracy, spelling and consistancy, this when Free Islam translation will show well
Cheers, the thoughts were spontenious as I was reading your comment, that is why I could not nit stop it, lol
Yeh mate, however you do not sound like most Arabs whom I know, a bunch of ignorant freaks who always fond of self destruction, look ate what youe people did to your beautiful country for so many fukin years and still going till today, we have a big lebenese community in Australia, some of them are great people, I am a good friend with a very kind lebenese family and huess what, they are christians, however we never talk religions, nor that I am interested t talk religions to christians, I am only interested now to talk religions to my fellow muslims
Yeh mate, I am glad that you managed to break your association with such cult, as I did with my sunni cult, I was actually never associated with it nor that I ever considered myself a sunni, I always refer to myself as a Muslim I saw some youtubes videos by some shia imams the other day, I was shocked and horrified by the crap and conjectures they allege about Omar, he said that Omar was a fag, who used to take it in his arse during the time when his wife had the period, he even said that Omar was proud of it. Mate, I could not believe it, not to say that he is 100% wrong, I actually do not know and only Allah knows, however why the hell he promotes such crap from the first place about Omar?
I even wished that it was all about the prophet, now read such imams writings, they talk about so many other people, like Aysha, Omar, and so many others, I call it Jerry Springer Hadith.
That is the delusion thay are living in man, see, Allah does not love those who do not do what they say, they say that Quran is imortnat but their doings say the opposite, that hadith is more important, they never ponder upon the Quran, but they always ponder upon Jerry Springer hadith Mate, Satan indeed did them big times.
They have one serious problem, that Allah clearly told us that He wants to make the religion EASY on us, so who would you go for, an EASY religion from Allah, or a confused tough and hard core religion from them? the answer should be clear the second problem that they indeed contradict the Quran specifically and in general, we know how they do it epecifically, however they also do it general by contradicting the whole Tawhid message of the Quran about Allah, they try to escape as such argument by saying that they only consider Mohammed as a prophet, well you can conrener them easily, by asking them, but do they consider MOhammed equal to all other prophets (from their perspective of course), they have no right to talk from Allah perspective about something that they should uphod like Allah, that is where they got it really wrong, and it is to a degree similar to how Satan made the christians to take Jesus.
Exactly, the Quran even said it BOLDLY as such to us: 42:21 and in many other verses we read that OBEYING OTHERS may constitute a type of shirk
See, we agree totally while we have never met face to face nor even know how we look like to the other, therefore we have merit, especially that you and me only use the Quran to seek unorrupted guidance about our great religion.
I guess you are in your 20s, or early 30s, and I can assure that at ageI cared less to even talk to them and even cared less to what lies to promote, however when I started to realize that their actions indeed hurt my religion, this is when I decided to take a stand and I clearly witnessed how my stand is fetting stronger and stronger, while seeing at the same time that their theolgical belief is getting weaker and weaker, I actually met no Muslim yet from any where to just refute one verse from the thousands i posted, they even cannot refute any crap hadith that I exposed from their own man made religious scriptures that is called Jerry Springer hadith, this shows how weak they are, and will be till the end of time inshaallah.
They are indeed boring, I am the same too, I have been quite in there and so not feel like contributing especially after theynever replied to my request to reinstate BMZ as they reinstated the clown of a troll pragmatist, this made me believe that they are not fair, and I hate dealing with people like that I am taking the chance to concentrate on my own work which also include my IT work, and just stoip wating my time there, they already know well that there are tough Muslims out there who can make fools of them and slam dunk their crap with ease, all they can do just keep repeating it like ignorant parrots
Exactly, i call it hit, slam dunk and dismiss, never give them the oppotunity to entertain themselves Take care mate |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
however you do not sound like most Arabs whom I know |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
look ate what youe people did to your beautiful country for so many fukin years and still going till today |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I was actually never associated with it nor that I ever considered myself a sunni, I always refer to myself as a Muslim |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I was shocked and horrified by the crap and conjectures they allege about Omar, he said that Omar was a fag, who used to take it in his arse during the time when his wife had the period, he even said that Omar was proud of it. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
See, we agree totally while we have never met face to face nor even know how we look like to the other |
Quote: |
I looked up a couple of tafseers for you. |
Quote: |
First of all there are two almost identical verses, one that you quoted in Sura Tahreem verse 12 and another in Sura al-Anbiya verse 91. |
Quote: |
The one in al-Anbiya uses the female prounon (i.e. blew into it (fem) ) and so seems to refer to Maryam. |
Quote: |
The one in Tahreem uses a masculine pronoun (i.e. blew into it (masc) ) and this would seem to refer to "Farj" (gap/vagina) |
Quote: |
Ibn Kathir says that it means he blew into her sleeve and it descended and entered her "farj" (gap/vagina).
Zamakhshari just says "He blew into her vagina" and seems to thing that the 'sleeve' tafseer is far-fetched. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||||||
Salam all
It?????????????????????¢??s been long time since our last slam, I actually missed the show, I mean the slam dunk show, so let me dunk the next slam The Kafirs somehow are interested to know where the angel blew into Mary, I mean, which organ exactly, well, the question is useless indeed, however we can sense the motive of the kafirs trying hard to make the action of blowing into her vagina, I believe the reason for this cheap action, is simply to link what happened to Mary to some sexual activity one way or another, how sick they are. They brought to me some Tafisrs, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look at what they are trying to say, while adding my replies as I read:
Tafsirs, means nothing to me, for me the Quran explains itself, i.e. the Quran Yufsir itself
Let me bring the two verses in questions in here: And Marium, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her private parts, so We blew into it of Our spirit and she believed in the words of her Lord and His books, and she was of the obedient. [The Quran ; 66:12] ومريم ابنت عمران التي احصنت فرجها فنفخنا فيه من روحنا وصدقت بكلمات ربها وكتبه وكانت من القانتين And she who protected her private parts (Mariam), so We blew into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for the worlds. [The Quran ; 21:91] والتي احصنت فرجها فنفخنا فيها من روحنا وجعلناها وابنها اية للعالمين As you can see above that the two verses 66:12 & 21:91 are talking about the same incident. However in verse 66:12 we read that action of blowing as follow: التي احصنت فرجها فنفخنا فيه, Al-lati Ahsanat Fargaha Fa Nafakhna FIHI, FIHI is an indication of single masculine, so the proper translation should be: who guarded her private parts, so We blew into it However in verse 21:91 we read that action of blowing as follow: التي احصنت فرجها فنفخنا فيها , Al-lati Ahsanat Fargaha Fa Nafakhna FIHA, FIHA is an indication of single feminine, so the proper translation should be: who guarded her private parts, so We blew into her Now let me just state this for now then elaborate: See, that is the problem with all Quran ignorant people, even Arabic speakers, they do not look at all verses where the same word is used, they only pick and chose what suit their argument, this is going to be a perfect example in how someone like me who studied the Quran for so many years word for word will expose such people Let me now continue to read and reply to the kafir argument:
I agree, it was a female pronoun, Nafakhna FIHA, i.e. Blew into her, the underlined word indicates the feminine pronoun.
I agree and disagree, I agree that it is a masculine pronoun, Nafakhna FIHI, i.e Below into it, the underlined word indicates the masculine pronoun Now, I disagree with those who say ?????????????????????¢??it?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? should mean explicitly the vagina, the reason I disagree is simply this, it can also mean the Mouth of Mary, or the Womb of Mary What you need to understand, that the Quran does not adhere completely to such grammar rules, the Quran is totally free form any man made grammar rules, this is evident in many locations seeing the Quran words defying it. Let me give you a clear example using the same word Nafakh i.e. blew from the story of Jesus, in which he blew into the birds with the permission of Allah to make them alive, as you may know that the word birds in Arabic is feminine plural, yet we read in two verses about the same incident by Jesus the same words in the story of Mary (Fihi & Fiha) here is the first one: And a messenger to the children of Israel. That I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I create for you out of the mud like the form of a bird, then I blow into it and it becomes a bird with Allah's permission and I heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead to life with Allah's permission and I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses; indeed in this, there is a sign for you if you are believers. [The Quran ; 3:49] ورسولا الى بني اسرائيل اني قد جئتكم بايه من ربكم اني اخلق لكم من الطين كهيئه الطير فانفخ فيه فيكون طيرا باذن الله وابرىء الاكمه والابرص واحيي الموتى باذن الله وانبئكم بما تاكلون وما تدخرون في بيوتكم ان في ذلك لايومصدقا لما بين يدي من التوراه ولاحل لكم بعض الذي حرم عليكم وجئتكم بايه من ربكم فاتقوا الله واطيعون ه لكم ان كنتم مؤمنين -> See above, what Jesus said: فانفخ فيه, Fa Anfukh FIHI, i.e. then I blow into it, now, Jesus is talking about the birds which is feminine plural under Arabic grammar, YET IT IS REFRRED TO AS MASCULINE SINGULAR in this verse. Let's look at another verse which is talking about the same thing and see how the birds were referred to: When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favour upon you and upon your mother, when I supported you with the holy spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and in old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you created out of clay the like of a bird by My permission, then you blew into her and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from (killing) you when you came to them with the clear arguments, then those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but an obvious magic. [The Quran ; 5:110] اذ قال الله يا عيسي ابن مريم اذكر نعمتي عليك وعلي والدتك اذ ايدتك بروح القدس تكلم الناس في المهد وكهلا واذ علمتك الكتاب والحكمة والتوراة والانجيل واذ تخلق من الطين كهيئة الطير باذني فتنفخ فيها فتكون طيرا باذني وتبري الاكمه والابرص باذني واذ تخرج الموتي باذني واذ كففت بني اسرائيل عنك اذ جئتهم بالبينات فقال الذين كفروا منهم ان هذا الا سحر مبين -> See, above, the same story about Jesus, now Allah is telling him about such miracle of giving life to the birds, see what Allah told Jesus: فتنفخ فيها, Fa Tanfukh FIHA, i.e. Then you blew into her, Allah is talking about the birds which is feminine plural under Arabic grammar, AND IT IS REFRRED TO AS FEMININE PLURAL in this verse Here you have it, TWO IDENTICAL EXAMPLES SHOWING THE SAME WORDS: 3:49, فانفخ فيه, Fa Anfukh FIHI, i.e. then I blow into it which is identical to 66:12 5:110, فتنفخ فيها, Fa Tanfukh FIHA, i.e. Then you blew into her which is identical to 21:91 In 2:49 and 5:110, we were talking about blowing into the same thing, the birds, and the Quran referred to them by using FIHI and FIHA And in 21:91 and 66:12, we were talking about blowing into the same thing, Mary, and we referred to her by using FIHI and FIHA This must conclude one conclusion for a believer, that the blowing meant for such entity, not for a particular organ in such entity, only the kafirs and the confused Muslims will try to make a fuss of it, yet such fuss can be demolished with ease even if I take the word FIHI as referring to a particular organ, by comparing 3:49 (blowing into an organ of the birds) and 21:91 (blowing into an organ of Mary), by simply stating, yep, it can be blowing into the mouth of Mary or the Womb of Mary, as it can be blowing into the mouth of the birds, or the womb of the birds, and both the Mouth and the Womb are single masculine. To really make it simple, I take it as blowing into Mary, and blowing into the Birds, I really care less what organ being blowed, IT SHOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, and the Quran conclusively proved that with all 4 verses that we discussed above. Now to make it even harder for those confused kafirs who work hard to cook any non sense to suit their desires, let me just say for counter argument sake, ok, the angel blow into Mary's vagina, it still does not mean sex, see, I can blow something into any woman vagina and that does not mean that I had sex with her It is the sick mentality of the kafirs and their fellow confused Muslims that they want to know the organ being blown, and most certainly they will think of a pussy first, absolutely sick retarded people, they just distort the message that Allah is able to do whatever, whenever and by any mean or way He desires, while all they want to know, what bloody organ that was blown, such people, have no integrity in my book, being Ibn Kathir, or Ibn Kalb, I do not give a fuk really, and that should slam dunk all of them, but let me finish replying to what they had to say:
Then Jesus was also blowing in the vaginas and dicks of the birds, hahahahaha And that was all what they had to say Now, there is only one thing left for me to say: # 53 |
Quote: |
Then Jesus was also blowing in the vaginas and dicks of the birds, hahahahaha |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: | ||||||||
I was sure about it. Ahmed can not stop being Ahmed Bahgat.
Hello Ahmed, You should not have been strived to find the above verse in Quran to tell me all of Allah?????????????????????¢??s attributes are not exclusive to him. Here are some from ?????????????????????¢??Asma?????????????????????¢??Al-Husna?????????????????????¢?? Hakim: The All-Wise (having absolute wisdom in All His decrees and acts). Alim: The All-Knowing (One Who knows all that is hidden from us and all that is known to us). Sami': The All-Hearing. Basir: The All-Seeing (One Who witnesses all things and events). Any human can be described with the above said attributes of Allah. We have'Hakims'and ?????????????????????¢??Alims' among us. Human can hear, so he is 'Sami'. He can see so he is ?????????????????????¢??Basir?????????????????????¢??. The point is you should discern attributes ?????????????????????¢??exclusive to Allah?????????????????????¢?? from the many of his attributes. ?????????????????????¢??Asma-al-Husna?????????????????????¢?? is about 99 attributes but not all are restricted to Allah. ?????????????????????¢??Halim?????????????????????¢?? is a mild attribute of Allah almost exactly like what it means. It?????????????????????¢??s meaning might be ?????????????????????¢??Clement, Kind?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦ but it is not like ?????????????????????¢??Raheem?????????????????????¢?? which is an exclusive attribute of Allah because it connotes ?????????????????????¢??the one who is merciful to believers only in the hereafter?????????????????????¢??. That is why it is often seen after ?????????????????????¢??Rahman?????????????????????¢?? which generates almost the same literal meaning of ?????????????????????¢??Raheem?????????????????????¢?? This attribute of being merciful to believers only in the hereafter is given to Muhammad. Should not Rashad Khalifa concerned of this? Of course because it is lethal. Allah is being shared which a faithful Rashad Khalifa could not have tolerated. Two verses of Quran are missing in Rashad Khalifa?????????????????????¢??s translation. And they are the verses which share Allah?????????????????????¢??s exclusive attribute with Muhammad. Regards KF |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||||||
Hello Khalil You are missing a very important point regarding the word "Rahim", let's see how Allah been described in comparison with anyone who is Rahim: And say: My Lord! Forgive and grant mercy, and You are the best of the merciful. [The Quran ; 23:118] 23:118 وقل رب اغفر وارحم وانت خير الراحمين -> Here you have mister Khalil, see Allah is the best of the merciful: خير الراحمين, Khair Al-Rahmeen, i.e. the best of the merciful, and as you know well, no one waqs described as such, except Allah Let's have another example: He (Yusuf) said: No blame against you today; Allah may forgive you, and He is the most Merciful of the merciful. [The Quran ; 12:92] 12:92 قال لا تثريب عليكم اليوم يغفر الله لكم وهو ارحم الراحمين -> See this one: وهو ارحم الراحمين , Wa Hua Arahm Al-Rahmeen, i.e. And He is the most Meciful of the merciful, again, no one is described as such except Allah Therefore if Mohammed was described as being merciful, then Allah is the best of the merciful, as well, Allah is the most Merciful of the merciful That should send you back to your confusion and shiftiness board to try and cook another crap of yours You have been slam dunked cheers |
BMZ wrote: |
Salaams, Ahmed Concentrate more on the translation of Qur'aan and hammer the FFI goons only when you see something which deserves to be responded to. Baig |
Rigel wrote: | ||
|
ronny wrote: |
Hello AhmedBahgat |
ronny wrote: |
in reference to the topic of ma malakat aymanukum, do you hold that sex with them is absolutely forbidden out of wedlock? |
ronny wrote: |
if you do then how do you explain 70:30,23:6 telling men to "guard their private parts" from their wives OR their ma malakat aymanukum. doesn't it mean that sex with these categories is allowed outside marriage? |
ronny wrote: |
thanks |
shindeiru wrote: |
salaam brothers how are you doing |
shindeiru wrote: |
its a while i havent posted anywhere including FFI because i was traveling for work and also they banned me there after i exagerated the insults on two of their monkeys, ugly lyin bin trashbin and the pastor nosolution (nosubmission, probably the filthiest of their members and the most full of hate for islam). |
shindeiru wrote: |
i wanted to share my thoughts again on this topic of ma malakat aymanikum. |
shindeiru wrote: |
concerning sexual relations with them, i do not believe it is allowed outside of wedlock for the following reasons: |
shindeiru wrote: |
-4:3 includes them with other regular women who should be married (this is an encouragement, not yet an obligation to marry them) |
shindeiru wrote: |
-4:25 the believer is told to marry Ma Malakat aymanikum if he cannot sustain a free (financially) believing woman, and he has to take the consent of her family (again, this is an encouragement, not yet a clear obligation to marry them before having sex with them) |
shindeiru wrote: |
-5:5,24:33 clearly tell the believers not to have sex outside of wedlock with any member of society. |
shindeiru wrote: |
More precisely 24:33 explains the important point that if a believer does not have the means to marry then he must keep chaste at all costs, until Allah frees him from his financial needs out of His grace, |
shindeiru wrote: |
so that the believer may sustain a wife and children. Fornication is a heavily punishable sin 24:2 and the guilty becomes unlawful for marriage with a believer as long as he/she perseveres in such behavior 24:3. Fornication is thus strictly forbidden in all situations, and the Quran particularly emphasizes this fact towards the weak people of society under our authority and protection, such as slaves or servants 24:32,2:221 as exemplified throught the story of prophet Yusuf, bought as a slave and whom his mistress wanted to abuse sexually under the threat of emprisonnement. The noble Quran condemned such action and God annuled her guile and answered Yusuf's wish to preserve his chastity 12:30-34. |
shindeiru wrote: |
the only 2 verses that may cause difficulty in understanding the permissibility or not of having sex with Ma Malakat aymanikum outside wedlock are 70:30,23:6.
The believers are told to "guard their private parts" from all persons outside their mates or (aw) ma malakat aymanukum. Similarly to 70:30,23:6 and in the context of marriage, 33:50 mentions the women lawful for the prophet such as his wives and other categories of women are mentionned seperately, including ma malakat aymanukum 33:50"O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses.." |
shindeiru wrote: |
But the fact the verse mentions ma malakat aymanukum seperately than the wives does not mean the latter are lawful outside of wedlock otherwise the verse would be allowing extra-marital sexual relations with, not only ma malakat aymanukum in contradiction with 4:3,24:33, but also with the daughters of the paternal uncles and aunts, the migrant and homeless daughters of the maternal uncles and aunts etc. which is of course an absurdity alien to the meaning of the Quran. |
shindeiru wrote: |
As in other languages, the particle aw (or) used in 70:30,23:6 does not necessarly denote an alternative or an exclusion. It is also used for "tafseel" meaning elaboration, in correlation, to connect alternative terms for the same thing or rephrase what was previously said by adding some charachteristics -"in other words" or "that is"- (Lane?????????????????????¢??s Arabic-English Lexicon) |
shindeiru wrote: |
for example |
shindeiru wrote: |
4:110-111
And whoever does evil or (AW) acts unjustly to his soul, then asks forgiveness of Allah, he shall find Allah Forgiving, Merciful. And whoever commits a sin, he only commits it against his own soul; and Allah is Knowing, Wise. the quran is full of verses where sinning is synonymous to destroying one's soul. 25:62 And He it is Who made the night and the day to follow each other for him who desires to be mindful or (AW) desires to be thankful. I sort of get it but not entirely, so I would appreciate elaboration and how the verses above use such techique of talking about a main group using its sub groups? 50:37 Most surely there is a reminder in this for him who has a heart or (AW) he gives ear and is a witness. in those 2 verses AW is clearly used for elaboration, not exclusion. Have you considered if he were on the right way, Or (AW) enjoined guarding (against evil)? again, clearly used for elaboration, not exclusion 48:16 Say to those of the dwellers of the desert who were left behind: You shall soon be invited (to fight) against a people possessing mighty prowess; you will fight against them until (AW) they submit |
shindeiru wrote: |
shakir's translation for AW as "until" is not correct obviously (it should literaly be "or") |
shindeiru wrote: |
but, like other translators, i believe he did so because AW in that verse is again used for something else than an alternative. it is used for the consequence of an action; the believers are invited to fight a people, they shall fight them until they submit. |
shindeiru wrote: |
since the verse is telling the believers that they shall effectively fight them (tuqaatilunahum), then AW cannot be used for an alternative, meaning that they will fight them or they will submit. the submission will necessarly come because of the fighting. |
shindeiru wrote: |
(i would apreciate your feedback or corrections for the translation of that verse) |
shindeiru wrote: |
Finally, who says that 70:30,23:6 are referring exclusively to males guarding their private parts from females? |
shindeiru wrote: |
The Quran applies the terms believers (mu'minun) 4:124, mates (azwaj) 2:232,234 to men and women alike (could you also tell me if ma malakat aymanikum can be males or females, i have an idea but im not sure) therefore and keeping in harmony with the repeated protective statements regarding the weak people in society and the encouragement to marry them, more precisely ma malakat aymanukum and the prohibition of sex outside wedlock, 70:30,23:6 speak of both husbands and wives, who "rightfully possess" one another by virtue of marriage "Except before their mates or (that is) those whom their oaths possess". |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I did not know that they banned you, what a bummer by them, however FFI site has become so boring lately so you are not missing on anything of a value |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I agree totally, I have seen a few examples of such type of elaboration by breaking up a main group into sub groups, I will try to find these verses inshaallah. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I agree with you on that, in fact even Ma Malakat Aymanikum covers Males, the Quran told us about the prophet wives who had Ma Malkat Ayman, therefore this add strong merit to your already powerful argument. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Take care mate and I would appreciate your continues coontribution to this place, bear in mind that this place is about helping the confused Muslims and getting them united again under the rope of Allah (the Quran) |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I agree totally, I have seen a few examples of such type of elaboration by breaking up a main group into sub groups, I will try to find these verses inshaallah. |
shindeiru wrote: |
yes bro, could you please give more evidence of such cases in the quran if you have time? the ones i found i quickly looked them up. the aim is to gather as much strong arguments as we can. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I agree with you on that, in fact even Ma Malakat Aymanikum covers Males, the Quran told us about the prophet wives who had Ma Malkat Ayman, therefore this add strong merit to your already powerful argument. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
can you please show how the quran conclusively refers to Ma Malakat Ayman as males |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
There are two examples that come quickly to my mind:
1) When Allah says that He sent down the book AND the wisdom Both words mean Quran |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Conclusively, it should be this verse:
وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا ۖ وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ ۖ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَىٰ عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ ۖ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ ۚ وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ (31)
And say to the believing women that they lower their visions and guard their private parts and do not show their adornment except what appears thereof, and let them draw their scarfs over their bosoms, and not show their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers if their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sister, or their women, or those whom their oaths possess, or the attendants of men who do not have need (for women), or the children who are not aware of the private parts of women; and let them (the believing women) not strike their legs so that what they conceal of their adornment may be known; and repent to Allah all of you , O believers! That you might succeed. [Al Quran ; 24:31] -> See how is the message is directed at the believing women to not to show their adornment except to: their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers if their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sister, or their women, or those whom their oaths possess, or the attendants of men who do not have need (for women), or the children who are not aware of the private parts of women; Salam |
shindeiru wrote: |
if you come across a verse using specifically the particle AW for something else than an exclusion (like the few verse i showed) then please add it here, it will add more arguments. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Conclusively, it should be this verse:
وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا ۖ وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ ۖ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَىٰ عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ ۖ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ ۚ وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ And say to the believing women that they lower their visions and guard their private parts and do not show their adornment except what appears thereof, and let them draw their scarfs over their bosoms, and not show their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers if their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or their women,or those whom their oaths possess, or the attendants of men who do not have need (for women), or the children who are not aware of the private parts of women; and let them (the believing women) not strike their legs so that what they conceal of their adornment may be known; and repent to Allah all of you , O believers! That you might succeed. [Al Quran ; 24:31] -> See how is the message is directed at the believing women to not to show their adornment except to: their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers if their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sister, or their women, or those whom their oaths possess, or the attendants of men who do not have need (for women), or the children who are not aware of the private parts of women; Salam |
shindeiru wrote: |
this is the verse i had in mind, but im not sure it conclusively says ma malakat ayman are males.
even if the verse addresses the believing women why would ma malakat ayman HAVE to be males? it cannot be because the verse is allowing believing women to uncover in front of them because the verse is also telling the believing women that they can uncover in front of females. |
shindeiru wrote: |
another reason why i think ma malakat ayman are not males in that verse is that right next to it, when the verse mentions non-relative males to whom the believing women can uncover, the verse specifies that these males servants "do not have need (for women)". so if the verse meant ma malakat ayman as males (who are not their relatives) then why doesnt it specify the same condition? |
shindeiru wrote: |
finally, could you explain who are the women in front of whom the believing women are allowed to uncover, whose wives are they? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Finally, while I changed my position and agree with you now that 24:31 cannot be conclusive, I still believe that it is more likely too mean from among the MALES, because the Ma Malakat Ayman from among the women may be covered under category 9, Their women |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Also if you read the following verses, you may notice that the words Ma Malakat Ayman cannot mean Females only, rather Males & Females: 24:33 is a very strong evidence
Now these words must cover Males & Females: وَالَّذِينَ , Wa Alzeen, if it means females only then it should be: واللاتي , Wa Alati, or واللائي , Wa Alaai يَبْتَغُونَ , Yantaghoon , if it means females only then it should be: يَبْتَغُنَ , Yantaghn فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ , Fa Katibuhum , if it means females only then it should be: فَكَاتِبُوهُنَ , Fa Katibuhun |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Finally, while I changed my position and agree with you now that 24:31 cannot be conclusive, I still believe that it is more likely too mean from among the MALES, because the Ma Malakat Ayman from among the women may be covered under category 9, Their women |
shindeiru wrote: |
salaam bro
my position is Ma Malakat Ayman in 24:31 could include both males and females ONLY if it wasnt for the conditional clause "or the male servants not having need (of women)". if we say that Ma Malakat Ayman can be males then the verse would be allowing the women to uncover in front of any males Ma Malakat Ayman, which is obviously not correct. so i would say that in 24:31, Ma Malakat Ayman must only be females. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Also if you read the following verses, you may notice that the words Ma Malakat Ayman cannot mean Females only, rather Males & Females: 24:33 is a very strong evidence
Now these words must cover Males & Females: وَالَّذِينَ , Wa Alzeen, if it means females only then it should be: واللاتي , Wa Alati, or واللائي , Wa Alaai يَبْتَغُونَ , Yantaghoon , if it means females only then it should be: يَبْتَغُنَ , Yantaghn فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ , Fa Katibuhum , if it means females only then it should be: فَكَاتِبُوهُنَ , Fa Katibuhun |
shindeiru wrote: |
i agree with you, here the arabic allows that Ma Malakat Ayman can be both males and females. just a question regarding yabtaghuuna. do you mean, if it meant females only then it should be yabtaghuna without the waw? |
shindeiru wrote: |
but at the end whether Ma Malakat Ayman are only females or could be both males and females changes nothing to the strong case against concubinage. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||
Hello Not really sex with them, rather marrying them See, women back then were offering themselves to the prophet as wives in masses, the prophet too felt shy to reject many of their offering of marrying him, so I believe that is why the divine command in that verse was revealed, on the other hand I understand why Ma Malkat Aymanikum were excluded, this is because the prophet took an oath on himself <b>What your oaths possess</b>, to take care of such weak and unprotected women, therefore if any of those whom are already possessed by his oath, is qualified to be a wife for him, then he can marry her without violating such command of not marrying any more women except from those whose oath possess |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||
Hello Not really sex with them, rather marrying them See, women back then were offering themselves to the prophet as wives in masses, the prophet too felt shy to reject many of their offering of marrying him, so I believe that is why the divine command in that verse was revealed, on the other hand I understand why Ma Malkat Aymanikum were excluded, this is because the prophet took an oath on himself <b>What your oaths possess</b>, to take care of such weak and unprotected women, therefore if any of those whom are already possessed by his oath, is qualified to be a wife for him, then he can marry her without violating such command of not marrying any more women except from those whose oath possess |
shindeiru wrote: |
salaam brother, how are you |
shindeiru wrote: |
i was just pondering on 33:52 actually |
shindeiru wrote: |
"It is not allowed to you to take women afterwards, nor that you should change them for other wives, though their beauty be pleasing to you, except what your right hand possesses and Allah is Watchful over all things." |
shindeiru wrote: |
according to your understanding, the verse is telling the prophet he cannot marry/divorce (with the aim of remarrying) any other woman than those he already has (mothers of the believers), except for ma malakat yaminuka whom he is still allowed to marry/divorce (with the aim of remarrying another ma malakat yaminuka). |
shindeiru wrote: |
the problem is, after marrying them, ma malakat yaminuka become mothers of the believers and therefore he cannot divorce them anymore with the aim of remarrying another ma malakat yaminuka. its like a contradicting cercle, do you understand what i mean? |
shindeiru wrote: |
i have a different understanding of the verse, but i would first like to hear your opinion on my objection. |
shindeiru wrote: |
about another verse, how can we be 100% sure the kitaab mentionned in 24:33 is the kitaab of marriage
salaam |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
See, in 4:3 Allah is commanding the believers (in the case of not being fair with more than one wife) to: فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ , Fa Wahidah AW Ma Malakat Aymanukum, i.e. then (marry) one OR what your oaths possess
i.e a legal wife is one OR the other, NOT BOTH OF THEM at the same time i.e. a legal wife may be: 1) A woman who is protected and supported (Muhasanah) OR 2) A woman who has neither protection nor support (Ma Malakat Ayman) |
shindeiru wrote: |
salaam bro, everything ok with me too. i've been busy too recently, travelling for work but wherever i am the book of Allah is always on my mind, with the hope that He will guide me. |
shindeiru wrote: |
i just saw your interesting post, |
shindeiru wrote: |
and concerning the following point: |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
See, in 4:3 Allah is commanding the believers (in the case of not being fair with more than one wife) to: فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ , Fa Wahidah AW Ma Malakat Aymanukum, i.e. then (marry) one OR what your oaths possess
i.e a legal wife is one OR the other, NOT BOTH OF THEM at the same time i.e. a legal wife may be: 1) A woman who is protected and supported (Muhasanah) OR 2) A woman who has neither protection nor support (Ma Malakat Ayman) |
shindeiru wrote: |
in 33:50,52 a legal wife covers Ma Malakat Ayman as well as regular women and both are allowed at the same time. but since these verses address the prophet, we can conclude it only applies to him. your thoughts? |
shindeiru wrote: |
and concerning my previous post, your clarification that Ma Malakat Ayman still preserve a special status even after marrying (according to 4:25) answers the question as to why in 33:52 the prophet is still allowed to marry/divorce and then remarry from Ma Malakat Ayman only, it gives this category of weak women a great chance of improving their lives. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Of course both are allowed at the same time, however when I talk one wife, I consider what 4:3 and 4:127 stated that for those who fear not to be fair between more than one wife, then marry only one OR what you oath possess |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Of course both are allowed at the same time, however when I talk one wife, I consider what 4:3 and 4:127 stated that for those who fear not to be fair between more than one wife, then marry only one OR what you oath possess |
shindeiru wrote: |
im sorry to insist, just want to make the matter very clear to me and all others who may read this:
if both are allowed at the same time, then who are 70:30,23:6 addressing? is it only the men who fear not to be fair between more than one wife therefore they are told to marry a muhsana or a malakat ayman |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
while for the men, it is better for them to marry one or the other if they fear not to be fair between them, but for the sake of caring for orphans they can marry both at the same time |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
while for the men, it is better for them to marry one or the other if they fear not to be fair between them, but for the sake of caring for orphans they can marry both at the same time |
shindeiru wrote: |
to marry a regular woman and malakat ayman at the same time would be contradicting 70:30,23:6 that give the option of marrying one or the other, wouldnt it? |
shindeiru wrote: |
to solve this i would say 70:30,23:6 and 4:3,25 should be read together to understand that the believers can marry a muhsana OR a malakat ayman but in extreme cases is allowed to marry both as declared in 4:3. |
shindeiru wrote: |
therefore 70:30,23:6 cover:
-a man who fears not to act equitably to more than a wife and according to God can never act equitably 4:129. He can have one OR the other as a legal wife but not the 2 together. This is statistically the vastest majority of cases. |
shindeiru wrote: |
-Because there is nothing in 70:30,23:6 suggesting that it is exclusively the males who are told to "guard their private parts" from females, because the Quran applies the terms believers (mu'minuun) 4:124, mates (azwaaj) 2:232,234 and ma malakat ayman 24:33 to men and women alike so 70:30,23:6 are addressing also women telling them to marry only one mate or ma malakat ayman. |
shinderiu wrote: |
70:30,23:6 do not cover the extreme cases as described through 4:3 where a man who, for the fear of not acting equitably towards orphans decides to opt for the extreme measure of marrying more than one wife and may mix a muhsana AND a malakat ayman since it is for a noble social cause |
shinderiu wrote: |
Finally as you correctly observed, Ma Malakat Ayman still enjoyn a special status of clemency for their wrong-doings even after marrying because of their past hardships, which is why 70:30,23:6 still refer to them as such next to regular mates. |
shinderiu wrote: |
let me know what you think |
skynightblaze wrote: |
7.54.
Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds! 23.14. Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create! Both these verses say Blessed be Allah. A person gets blessed from a higher authority. Since Allah is being said to be blessed who is blessing Allah? |
expozIslam wrote: |
which makes it even worse. What was wrong with your arabic when you translated it first time and mind you, you repeated the same thing in 3 or more places. One can understand a mistake once, twice but 3 times. That itself says a lot. keep lying to yourself and wasting your time banging your head to a satan. |
shindeiru wrote: |
hey bro,
let me know what you think of this. the end of 4:25 tells us that to marry malakat ayman is for those who cannot keep chaste and cannot find a free woman, and that to abstain is better. why does the verse discourage such union |
shindeiru wrote: |
there seems to be a problem when i want to post something longer than a few sentences so im gonna break my post in several |
shindeiru wrote: |
the way i understand 4:25 is the following.
a poor believer who by definition cannot afford a malakat ayman wants to marry. but he cannot afford a muhsana either so he is given the option to marry a malakat ayman (who is not his) by asking the permission of her guardian. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
most likely that a man who cannot afford marriage of a protected woman, will not be able to offer protection to Ma Malakat Ayman |
shindeiru wrote: |
she is still under her guardian's authority after marrying so its like she's torn between two men. i find no other logical reason |
shindeiru wrote: | ||
i agree with this, it should explain why the quran, although allowing a poor man to marry malakat ayman states that it is better for him to abstain because at the end he will not be able to provide so well even for a malakat ayman especially if he has kids with her |
shindeiru wrote: |
still not working bro. i deleted cookies and restarted. ill try again later |
bin lyin wrote: |
And this gives us a look into just how desperate their mentality is and just how willing they are to blatantly lie if need be. When it comes to religion, nobody has less integrity than Muslims. Nobody. And somehow, lying and cheating are completely acceptable as long as it furthers the cause of Islam. This is the kind of people the rest of the world has to deal with. Liars and cheaters and they can't even do THAT right. |
Islamic_Science2 wrote: |
This is what I wrote in another forum. http://www.debatefaith.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=63 |
Islamic_Science wrote: |
088.020 And at the Earth, how it is spread out?
This verse should be translated as And at the Earth, how it has been flattened. |
Islamic_Science wrote: |
Tafsir Al Tabari interpretation of verse 88:20
وَقَوْله : { وَإِلَى الْأَرْض كَيْف سُطِحَتْ } يَقُول : وَإِلَى الْأَرْض كَيْف بُسِطَتْ , يُقَال : جَبَل مُسَطَّح : إِذَا كَانَ فِي أَعْلَاهُ اِسْتِوَاء . وَبِنَحْوِ الَّذِي قُلْنَا فِي ذَلِكَ قَالَ أَهْل التَّأْوِيل . ذِكْر مَنْ قَالَ ذَلِكَ : 28703 - حَدَّثَنَا بِشْر , قَالَ : ثَنَا يَزِيد , قَالَ : ثَنَا سَعِيد , عَنْ قَتَادَة { وَإِلَى الْأَرْض كَيْف سُطِحَتْ } : أَيْ بُسِطَتْ , يَقُول : أَلَيْسَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ هَذَا بِقَادِرٍ عَلَى أَنْ يَخْلُق مَا أَرَادَ فِي الْجَنَّة . |
Islamic_Science2 wrote: |
It is difficult to translate but it says that the earth was a mountain placed on top of the equator and then flattened. |
Islamic_Science2 wrote: |
Is it any wonder that Muslims will not translate Tabari's Qur'anic interpretation? Would it expose Allah being *****? Liars and cheaters and they can't do it right. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Tell me dumb bum, what the Arabic word سُطِحَتْ means? |
manfred wrote: |
I think pretty well most people here know that one, even me... |
manfred wrote: |
سطحت is feminine for سَطَّحَ |
manfred wrote: |
The root
سَطَّحَ can mean spread out , unfold , level , range , pave , pervade ,grade , reach , even , level off , spread out , prostrate , plane , outstretch, flat , flatten , even , smoothen, circulate (pass around) |
manfred wrote: |
Have I missed any? It seems the common theme of all of these is an evening out action, rather what an iron does on top of a sheet... |
manfred wrote: |
Ahmed,
why on earth are you always so rude? I KNOW that is not the real you... dispense with the "dumb this and that" and the f - word, it's better without it. |
manfred wrote: |
Of course it's a verb, a verbs they relate to nouns, right... |
manfred wrote: |
Now, the real question is this: How can you be sure that the meaning you give is the ONLY correct one? I don't need to tell YOU that translating from Arabic is tricky, as the language is very different from, say, English. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
manfred wrote: |
I have no problem at all with you telling me that the verse is saying "the earth was surfaced" (see: participium perfectum, femininum). Who am I to argue about that with a native speaker? |
manfred wrote: |
There is, however, the simple fact that most other translators did not render the verse like that. So, are they all wrong, or would you agree with me that the verse is richer than that and can have several meanings? |
manfred wrote: |
The other problem is that saying that God gave he earth a surface really says very little at all... all solid objects have surfaces, after all. So the surface was already there since the instant of creation, it's intgral to the earth. Therefore the verse must mean that God DID something to the surface... well, as you say, he paved it, made it easier to walk on, flattened it out... so the other translations seem to have a point, too... |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Salam all
Let me show you a perfect example of the clear cut ignorance of the FFI goons A criminal in there who is currently serving time in my Cyber Jail somehow is hooked on the issue of the moon, the earth and the rest of the heaven as talked about in the Quran, I used to reply to that inmate but since he was charged, convicted and jailed, I stopped replying to him, he is indeed a clear cut dumb bum with masses of stupidity pouring of him. So he said his usual crap:
Nothing much but his typical rants against the Muslims, but forget his crap above, what I want you to read is what the following jerk said in reply to the above crap:
Simply he is promting his ignorance, let?????????????????????¢??s see what he had to say on the other forum:
In effect, what he is saying that verse 88:20 states that the earth has been flattened, i.e. the earth is flat. i.e. the Quran is wrong, i.e. the Quran cannot be the word of God Well, well, well, the story is going to be interesting, just be patient with me please. Now, I have replied to this Barbie allegation at least 10 times on FFI, but as you can see, the goons are adamant in continuously exposing their ignorance BY THEIR OWN HANDS, let me show you how it happened So, the goon Islamic_Science brought in some crap from the man made books of Tafsir by Tabari, simply he brought in what is alleged to be said by Tabari as an explanation to verse 88:20
Then the goon admitted his ognorance that he cannot translate the above, so what he did, he intrprted according to his low desire, see:
Hahahahaha, clearly he admitted his ignorance, then injected his crap to fulfill his low desire, what he does not know that the above Arabic text never mentioned THE EQUATOR The kafir then insulted Allah, I replaced his crime with *****:
What a clear cut stupid piece of shit bound to hell you are, the above Arabic text is indeed very simple to translate, let me tell you, ignorant, what Tabari said just in one sentence: يُقَال : جَبَل مُسَطَّح : إِذَا كَانَ فِي أَعْلَاهُ اِسْتِوَاء, i.e. It is like when it is said: FLAT MOUNTAIN: when the mountain has a flat summit See how ignorant that dumb bum goon Islamic_Science is, what Tabarai said is 100% compatible with the 3 dimension shape of the earth, this is because a mountain is 3 dimensions, all he said that the mountain has a flat summit, and indeed if we consider the earth as a mountain, IT MUST HAS A FLAT SUMMIT which is what we live on. In effect, that stupid goon slam dunked his own kafir arse with his own hands. But that was not my pick on it, I never discuss the books of Tafsir, Fiqh, Sirah and Sunnah with the kafirs, so I asked him:
Simply, I asked him to tell me the meaning of the word: سُطِحَتْ , Suttihat as appeared in 88:20 { وَإِلَى الْأَرْض كَيْف سُطِحَتْ } However, I knew that he will be a clear cut coward and not respond because he knew that I am setting him up, so another goon volunteered to reply on his behalf, see below: manfred of FFI replied to Ahmed on behalf of the Tard Islamic_Science: I think pretty well most people here know that one, even me... سطحت is feminine for سَطَّحَ The root سَطَّحَ can mean spread out , unfold , level , range , pave , pervade ,grade , reach , even , level off , spread out , prostrate , plane , outstretch, flat , flatten , even , smoothen, circulate (pass around) Have I missed any? It seems the common theme of all of these is an evening out action, rather what an iron does on top of a sheet... Ahmed says in reply to manfred:
And I am sure most goons in here are dumb ignronat bums
How fukin funny, lol سطحت is a verb, mister dumb However this is not what I asked
All the above crap from your Tom and Jerry dictionary is wrong with the exception of pave i.e. the earth was PAVED, i.e. the earth was SURFACED, i. fukin e. a surface was added to the earth Ahmed adds: Can you see that some words in the Tom and Jerry list above are the opposite to each other, or at least cannot be compatible, for example, Flat & circulate, certainly cannot be the same, and they suppose to be the meaning for the same Arabic word, how bloody funny
What you missed is the fact that the word only means ONE THING, PAVED OR SURFACED, now dismiss your Tom and Jerry menu above that suits your low desires, bad luck you will not be able to choose from it. Ahmed adds: Certainly I was rude to him, but there is a long story behind that, just know well that I am never rude to anyone without merit, and there is a lot of merit behind my rudeness to him but there is not need to go through the story as it goes back to July last year So, manfred replied back: manfred said to Ahmed: Ahmed, why on earth are you always so rude? I KNOW that is not the real you... dispense with the "dumb this and that" and the f - word, it's better without it. Of course it's a verb, a verbs they relate to nouns, right... Now, the real question is this: How can you be sure that the meaning you give is the ONLY correct one? I don't need to tell YOU that translating from Arabic is tricky, as the language is very different from, say, English. I have no problem at all with you telling me that the verse is saying "the earth was surfaced" (see: participium perfectum, femininum). Who am I to argue about that with a native speaker? There is, however, the simple fact that most other translators did not render the verse like that. So, are they all wrong, or would you agree with me that the verse is richer than that and can have several meanings? The other problem is that saying that God gave he earth a surface really says very little at all... all solid objects have surfaces, after all. So the surface was already there since the instant of creation, it's intgral to the earth. Therefore the verse must mean that God DID something to the surface... well, as you say, he paved it, made it easier to walk on, flattened it out... so the other translations seem to have a point, too... |
manfred wrote: |
Ahmed,
why on earth are you always so rude? I KNOW that is not the real you... dispense with the "dumb this and that" and the f - word, it's better without it. |
manfred wrote: |
Of course it's a verb, a verbs they relate to nouns, right... |
manfred wrote: |
Now, the real question is this: How can you be sure that the meaning you give is the ONLY correct one? I don't need to tell YOU that translating from Arabic is tricky, as the language is very different from, say, English. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
manfred wrote: |
I have no problem at all with you telling me that the verse is saying "the earth was surfaced" (see: participium perfectum, femininum). Who am I to argue about that with a native speaker? |
manfred wrote: |
There is, however, the simple fact that most other translators did not render the verse like that. So, are they all wrong, or would you agree with me that the verse is richer than that and can have several meanings? |
manfred wrote: |
The other problem is that saying that God gave he earth a surface really says very little at all... all solid objects have surfaces, after all. So the surface was already there since the instant of creation, it's intgral to the earth. Therefore the verse must mean that God DID something to the surface... well, as you say, he paved it, made it easier to walk on, flattened it out... so the other translations seem to have a point, too... |
Sanitarium wrote: |
Hi Ahmed,
Thanks for your input. Did you see the '?' in my post there? sum asked for a verse saying something. I found a verse that I thought might fit, and because I wasn't sure if it was the right one, I put a '?' there. I didn't say "yes this is definitely the verse you want - and it means exactly what you're asking for." Thanks |
sum wrote: |
Can anyone tell me which verse it is in the Koran that tells muslims not to stop fighting when they are winning?
Sum |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||
Hi Sani I am sorry that you are totally wrong, Doccy bum asked the following question:
Can you see it now? Here it is again: tells muslims not to stop fighting when they are winning? Now let?????????????????????¢??s walkthrough the verse you brought in and another verse that I will bring in to expose your Quran ignorance: So do not show weakness by calling for peace and you are higher, and Allah is with you and will not deprive you of your deeds. [Al Quran ; 47:35] فَلَا تَهِنُوا وَتَدْعُوا إِلَى السَّلْمِ وَأَنْتُمُ الْأَعْلَوْنَ وَاللَّهُ مَعَكُمْ وَلَنْ يَتِرَكُمْ أَعْمَالَكُمْ (35) -> See, the verse never talked about winning any fights, in fact the message implied that in case the Muslims are LOSING a fight or a war, THEY SHOULD CONTINUE to fight and not فَلَا تَهِنُوا , Fa La Tahnu, i.e. So do not show weakness by calling for peace and you are higher i.e. the Muslims are getting beaten, therefore even in such case, they should not show weakness by calling the unbelievers to peace (to escape being beaten), while (and) they are higher than the unbelievers because: and Allah is with you and will not deprive you of your deeds. Now let?????????????????????¢??s read the following verse and your ignorance should become clear as light. The following verse is telling us the same message with further info that the Muslims should not grieve while they are higher, and as you know grieve can not be the result of winning a war, the verse should also tell us why the believers are higher: وَلاَ تَهِنُوا وَلاَ تَحْزَنُوا وَأَنتُمُ الأَعْلَوْنَ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ (139) And do not show weakness nor grieve, and you are higher if you are believers. [Al Quran ; 3:139] -> See, how it is almost the same exact words as in verse 47:35, وَلاَ تَهِنُوا , Wa La Tahnu, i.e. And do not show weakness, then the same verse told the believers: وَلاَ تَحْزَنُوا , Wa La Tahzanu, i.e. nor grieve, i.e. they are getting beaten. Now why they should not show weakness nor greive while they are getting beaten? The same verse tells us: وَأَنتُمُ الأَعْلَوْنَ, Wa Antum Al-Aaloon, i.e. and you are higher , and when they should be classified as higher? Again the same verse tells us: إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ , In Kuntum Mumineen, i.e. if you are believers Another slam dunk, hey Cheers |
abdullahinislam wrote: |
:) 112:1 Say, He is Allah, the ONE. |
openurmind wrote: |
Hi,
Dear brother Ahmed, |
openurmind wrote: |
did you write this? I mean the argument and the explanations. |
openurmind wrote: |
The more I read about things like this, I just wonder, why the Quran is so accurate while what is happening is not. |
openurmind wrote: |
And I mean even from the time of the prophet. There are many Hadiths, stories and recorded actions and even wars during the time of the prophet which really contradict the Quran. |
openurmind wrote: |
You know me well by now, I am only searching for a common ground, I do not mean any harm, but I just feel that the gap between the Quran and the Muslims, including the prophet (Or what was told/recorded about him) is too great to be ignored. |
openurmind wrote: |
I think you are taking few serious steps that are confirming what I am saying. First you do not rely much on Hadith, |
openurmind wrote: |
which was obvious to you from the start. |
openurmind wrote: |
Then, you Are re-translating the Quran, and that is not because the last few generations lacked the translation skills from Arabic to English, but simply, and somehow, they were blinded by the common explanation of the Quran. |
openurmind wrote: |
The Hadith had the same problem. I have always wondered, how could people in the past had listened to obviously corrupt Hadith and said ?????????????????????¢??Sobhan Allah?????????????????????¢??????????????????????? |
openurmind wrote: |
It is a mystery. |
openurmind wrote: |
And it is that mystery which led people, like myself, to question the validity of Islam in general. Yet, while and when you consult the Quran, the picture changes. |
openurmind wrote: |
I am beginning to truly ask myself tonight, was the prophet really aware of the message he was delivering, |
openurmind wrote: |
or he was just the currier who had nothing to do with the package? |
openurmind wrote: |
The more I review the Quran, with your help, I just realise that people have listened, believed, worshiped the currier than the message itself. |
openurmind wrote: |
It is not an easy fight now; |
openurmind wrote: |
I would even dare to get involved. |
openurmind wrote: |
The number of people who believe in what Hadith, society, scholars, fundamentalists taught them, are very hard to change. |
openurmind wrote: |
Even though what you have got is possibly the word of God, you and people like youself are still facing a war |
openurmind wrote: |
that would need more than the re-coming of the prophet himself. Yet, one step is better than stillness. |
openurmind wrote: |
May God be with you
We have never been contated. No one knows the truth |
byteresistor wrote: |
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: |
Sten wrote: |
The Tard wrote: |
So you laugh when you cannot refute me, Alhamdulillah I have won. |
expozIslam wrote: |
and yeah, i forgot the Bani Qurayza which your criminal pedophile MOhammad himself oversaw. |
The Tard wrote: |
The Bani Qurayza had committed treason by breaking the pact they had with the muslims, the pact meant the jews couldn't help the enemies of the muslims & vice versa, if anyone did they'd be punished (important) the leader of bani Qurayza had helped the pagans against the muslims (clear act of treason) during the battle of the trench. To sum the war up, the pagans withdrew coz of a sand storm, after the war instead of begging for mercy & forgiveness the jews were *INSULTING* the muslims & wanted to fight! Then when the bani Qurayza were besieged by the muslims a former ally (tribe) of the bani qurayza were given the right to judge them the bani qurayza agreed to this, a man from this tribe who was an ex-jew meaning he was jewish by race but not by faith, judged them according to their *OWN* laws (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) this is what the jews *BELIEVED* in! SO they were judged according to their *OWN* laws!
So the bani qurayza a) broke a treaty b) Didnt want peace c) accepted who judged them and d) were judged according to their laws. And you still cry over this? Wow! And like Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says only men should be killed, not women or children, so no a whole population wasnt wiped out. |
Quote: |
]Bani Qurazya. 900 jews in one day.Entire tribe wiped out by your beloved prophet. hey how many kurds were gassed by Saddam? Do you know?
Is that not a total wipe out? and you forgot to address others. Coptic Christians are pesecuted by muslims in Egypt. The goverment only supports muslims. US does not ask egyptians to persecute coptics. So start taking responsibilty for the crimes that your brothers commit or stop defending them. |
The Tard wrote: |
Do you know who supplied Saddam with those chemical weapons? US. If someone hands a murderer a knife over, that person is partly responsible, the US knew he was crazy (Iran-Iraq war) yet gave him them! The US turns a blind eye to human rights abuses in Saudi, UAE, Jordan, Egypt etc. they don't give a fuck about copt christians they just want an apostate regime to rule over muslims. The *ONLY* crime that ever took place by an islamic regime was the crimes against amernians by the Ottomans & that is still disputed over today. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Read it here: The Genocide of Banu Qurayza
KF |
BurgeoningKnowledge wrote: |
Interestingly, this unprovoked attack had already been predicted by muhammad. WikiIslam barely constitutes an unbiased account.
AllahAkbar, don't even try. |
BurgeoningKnowledge wrote: |
These guys, despite their pretensions, have only strength in numbers, not in their arguments. You can prove them wrong, but another would just come back around next week and ask the same question. |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: |
Oh NO please, you should quote from your sources. I mean Qur'an and your prophet's Sunnah. Do not quote what Kaffirs wrote. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Then, you also mister coward, don't quote Islamic sources, quote whatever from your deluded barbie world
sounds fair, mister coward? |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Ain't Islam a really funny religion, where the scholars misunderstand the Quran and the dumb bums correctly understand it? :lol: |
expozIslam wrote: |
:roflmao: :roflmao: |
The tard wrote: |
Alright, about the wiki-islam site.
5)Unless you can prove that the Banu Qurayza never helped the enemies of the muslims their punishment was justified not only according to Islamic law but also Jewish law. The green light did come from the Banu Qurayza fortunately they never set off coz of the brilliant strategy devised by the prophet that created hostility between the 2. 4)The muslims besieged the Banu Qurayza (like they did) and it was decided & agreed (by all) that the fate of the Banu Qurazya was to be decided by Saad ibn Muadh he judged them according to their own Jewish scripture (I gave the reference before!) and yes there was war booty, the important guy above who got the Banu Qurayza to commit treason had a daughter called Saffiya (ra) and she became a wife of the prophet. 3)Then a guy called Nuaym who secretly converted to Islam & was respected by the meccans visited the prophet who had a plan he told Nuaym (no-one knew hes a muslim) to infiltrate the ranks of the Meccans & Banu Qurayza to create distrust & enmity the prophet allowed him to lie saying war is deception to cut the story short this strategy worked the meccans & Banu Qurayza couldnt agree on what to do next & the meccans retreated this wasnt the end of the battle though, treason had taken place. 2)Now the war didnt really get into top gear every time the Meccans went into the trench they didnt come out, it basically was a few skirmishes. The Meccans then sent a guy called Huyayy ibn Akhtab (important guy) to try to persuade the banu qurayza to revolt against the muslims, at 1st he was refused entry to the southern parts eventually he did enter (kinda breaking the constitution already) & tried to persuade them to attack the muslims from the South, news of this reached the prophet via Umer (ra) the prophet became anxious coz the muslims had no defence setup on that side. He sent a few of his companions to investigate I think it was 3 or 4 cant remember, to find it if the rumours were true (they were) the prophet wanted to hide this act of treason from the muslims so they wouldnt worry but they found out, they were running short on food, they were under attack from North & South (area controlled by the Banu Qurayza!) 1)The only way for the Meccans to attack the muslims was from the South-an area controlled by the banu qurayza, coz trenches were only dug on the north side, the east & west were surrounded by rocky mountains & trees not ideal territory for large cavalries (they did number around 10,000) so if the meccans were to attack the muslims from the south side (an area controlled by the banu qurayza) it would be against the constitution of medinah meaning it was an act of treason, right? Hope you at least agree with this |
KhaliL FarieL wrote: | ||||||||||||
It does not look like you read any Wikiislam article on Banu Qurayza. The only possibility is you read the wrong stuff in somewhere and came up to this forum to waste our time. Get the facts right you Muslim: 1. Khandaq (war of trench) was not a war that was fought. So, if you argue Jews helped anyone for anything at Khandaq, you should give them full credit to help Meccans NOT to fight a war. 2. There is no Jewish law that spurs genocide. I proved it in the article. What you guys hang on to as Jewish law is a specific directive from god for a specific program of conquest. Deuteronomy is not the law of Torah and if you want to know what the laws of Torah are, get hold of Talmud. Either Babylonian or Jerusalem, they were written long before Muhammad ever footed over earth. 3. The moment Muhammad applauded Sa?????????????????????¢??d as the latter judged according to the laws of Allah, (Sahih Bukhari[B:58 H:280] your Muslim acrobatics hanging on Jewish laws become obsolete. Muhammad gave reason to its obsoleteness giving ovation and affirmation to Sa??????????????????¢??s gory verdict. When Muhammad says Sa?????????????????????¢??d judged according to Allah, what makes you Muslims argue it is the law of a corrupted Torah? What was the job of Muhammad? Was he there to approve the corrupted laws of the corrupted Torah or was he supposed to correct the corrupted laws? He did not correct Sa?????????????????????¢??d who allegedly gave the corrupted verdict (since a corrupted Torah can not contain uncorrupted laws). That means, Banu Qurayza Jews were exterminated by the laws of Allah. No more acrobatics on this. And apologies to all for one more redirection; I have debated on this Banu Qurayza way earlier with a Muslim. This links you to it: >>>Banu Qurayza Critus Vs Mr. Keren Abix <<< (I was under the username "Critus" then in FFI.
Again facts for you: 1. Banu Qurayza did not agree to Sa?????????????????????¢??d becoming their adjudicator. It is the wild imagination of Abu Said Al-Khudri that makes you argue in this line. Jews of Banu Qurayza were surrendered unconditionally. Unconditional means unconditional; and making a Sa?????????????????????¢??d bin Muad an adjudicator was not a Banu Qurayza directive. It was Al-Aus, an ally tribe of Banu Qurayza who agreed on Sa?????????????????????¢??d bin Muad being the judge. Being the unconditionally surrendered tribe after the siege, Banu Qurayza were left with no power of deciding their judge. Simple common sense, if you have it left with you to use; 2. Safiyya bint Huyayy has nothing to do with Banu Qurayza. Perhaps you meant Raihanna?
If a Nuaym can lie because his holy prophet taught him to lie and for this holy prophet war means deceit, what makes this lie and deception so tragic and lethal for the other side? Why should the entire pubertal boys of Banu Qurayza be beheaded but not Muhammad who employed pure and uncorrupted deception?
At last what I understand from the above paragraph is Muslims ran short of food and they found Banu Qurayza might or not join Meccan army. Muslims running short of food during the siege at trench is not an excuse to bloodily exterminate an entire tribe. Once again a paranoid speculation is not an excuse to wipe out an entire tribe. What about trying again? Both the above excuse do not serve your purpose in this case.
I feel like making a deal with you Muslim instead of wasting my time. I would deal with you on a very simple issue: Since you are debating on Banu Qurayza betraying Muhammad and Muslims, the best authority to speak on the treason of Banu Qurayza is Muhammad and Muslims (those warrior Muslims). I wish to hear this excuse from Muhammad?????????????????????¢??s or those warriors under Muhammad?????????????????????¢??s mouth. Can you bring me the substance? That means, bring me a hadith in which I can see either Muhammad or the Muslim warriors under him accusing Banu Qurayza of treachery BEFORE they besieging the helpless tribe. Focus on the capital ?????????????????????¢??BEFORE?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? because it is going to be important in this matter. We know Muhammad besieged the tribe to slaughter them. So, if it was for the treason the tribe committed, we should see Muhammad accusing the tribe of treason prior to besieging them. So; a piece of hadith? Qur?????????????????????¢??an describes the whole incident after the occurrence. That means once the siege and the subsequent manslaughter is over, Allah sends holy verses to vindicate his pet prophet. (I just reminded you of this or else you would come up with Qur?????????????????????¢??an which will only serve to lengthen this debate)
What are you going to believe Muslim? Your Sira and Sahih sources or Jewish Encyclopedia? Make up your mind; I am asking for a reference from Muhammad and I don?????????????????????¢??t think Jewish encyclopedia will help you to bring me a hadith in your defense. Remember, I asked you a very pertinent question. That is to bring a hadith to substantiate your claim Banu Qurayza betrayed Muhammad. Since the person betrayed here lived his life even after the tribe betraying him (what brainless betrayal from Banu Qurayza.., they did not know how to do the job) he can speak up on this betrayal. But he did not speak up of Banu Qurayza betraying him and his warriors during the Khandaq siege. Muhammad and the Muslim warriors (THUGS) were not that passive sort of guys to not to stay idle if such a betrayal has occurred. But as Ibn Ishaq points out in his Sirah Rasul Ullah, Muhammad and his thugs were reclining and preparing for their afternoon prayer after Meccans left without fighting. Besieging of Banu Qurayza was not their agenda at that time. But that did not last, as Muhammad can not help with it. He needs war booties to satisfy him and to moralize his thugs. So slows down Gabriel, the alter ego of Muhammad in time. And it was Gabriel who incited Muhammad to besiege Banu Qurayza. This is according to Sirah and Hadiths. So, however you cry over Banu Qurayza treachery, that is not going to make it a fact because all evidences are against you Muslim. Be it solid or circumstantial, evidences are against you. One Huayy bin Aktab getting his way to Banu Qurayza fort is not going to annul a Medinan pact. Or you will have to argue, all the pubertal boys of Banu Qurayza were beheaded just because one Huayy has been hosted by the tribe. Hosting one person = Genocide???? Are you that stupid and cruel Muslim? Regards Khalil |
The Tard wrote: |
Thank you for the first reasonable answer. I have to admit one thing, I'm beginning to have my doubts about Islam after your post. I'm confused on what really happened now, is there an article which answers http://muslim-responses.com/Banu_Qurayza/Banu_Qurayza_claims or not? I'm hoping the second since I can't really think of Muhammad (PBUH) being bad at all, but the fact that he did behead over 600 jews does bring doubts to me about him being a prophet, I'm not completely immoral. |
expozIslam wrote: |
Thank goodness. I was getting sick of you defending this genocide but I appreciate your honesty. You don't have to believe us. Read from authentic islamic sources but don't go and ask your imam. He might get suspicious of you and your safety might be compromised. |
The Tard wrote: |
Thank you for the first reasonable answer. I have to admit one thing, I'm beginning to have my doubts about Islam after your post. I'm confused on what really happened now, is there an article which answers http://muslim-responses.com/Banu_Qurayza/Banu_Qurayza_claims or not? I'm hoping the second since I can't really think of Muhammad (PBUH) being bad at all, but the fact that he did behead over 600 jews does bring doubts to me about him being a prophet, I'm not completely immoral. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
You need to stop believing anything you hear
The prophet never killed an innocent man, nor he behead 600 jews, whoever told you that is a liar |
The Shifty Tard wrote: |
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 362:
Narrated Ibn Umar: Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again) . He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Bani Qainuqa', the tribe of 'Abdullah bin Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina. |
The Shifty Tard wrote: |
Well, isn't that proof about the Bani Qurayza betraying Muhammad and violating their peace treaty? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Is that the compelling evidence you want to believe along with the kafirs bound to hell? Well, if yes, then fuk you and your master Bukhari, hell is the destination |
The Tard wrote: |
Hilarious, the second I begin to doubt Islam a Muslim that's supposed to guide me is turning his back on me and threatening me with hell. You, sir are the one who might've just made my final conclusion. |
Quote: |
The prophet never killed an innocent man, nor he behead 600 jews, whoever told you that is a liar |
The Tard wrote: |
Or then you're a liar.
Eitherway I would like an explanation for: |
Quote: |
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 362:
Narrated Ibn Umar: Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again) . He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Bani Qainuqa', the tribe of 'Abdullah bin Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina. |
The Tard wrote: |
Afterwards I'll denounce my faith. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Indeed punk, I am glad that a punk like you will be barbecued in hell
put your feet together for the loser flap,flap, flap flap you are dismissed, punk |
The tard wrote: |
Afterwards I'll denounce my faith. |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Please don't be too quick to denounce your faith. Even though I am against Islam, and fight it intellectually with whatever intellect I have, I am not in favor of hasty conclusions. Premature decisions make one repent later on.
You have so far (Prior to coming to FFI) heard one side of the story as told to you by the Muslims. Here at FFI, you have an opportunity to hear the other side of the story. I would only request you to be as dispassionate, and neutral, as you can while analyzing both sides. Even though I am convinced that eventually you might denounce Islam, I won't advise you to do it too fast. Childhood Conditioning is difficult to get rid of, so do read on, and research on the issue (as well as many other issues) as much as you can, and from different angles so that you are convinced before taking the plunge. Wish you all the best. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
What?
Far out, let him leave Islam, so I watch him barbecued in hell along with you It's showtime |
pr126 wrote: |
How can you watch unless you are there with them?
Does hell have a TV station broadcasting local events? :roflmao: |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Yes. Were you surprised by my post advising him to tread cautiously?
I am not preventing him from leaving Islam. I am just advising him to think rationally without any fear (of hell). |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Get over your irrational fear man; it makes you look like a kid. There is no Allah, no hell and no barbecue. There won't be any showtime for you. |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
Interesting article here: |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Salam Bunny
The article should be interesting to expose the stupidity of such fedral shariat court, they sound as stupid as the Ulamaa of Azhar, to be honest Now let me give you an introduction: If I tell you in general that everything bad is Haram (prohibited) Then I tell you, doing a specific action is very bad That must lead to, such specific and very bad action is Haram (prohibited) |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
OK - I follow so far, Ahmed. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
With that simple and compelling logic in mind, let me show you now, how those dumb bums are wrong |
Quote: |
From lashes to strokes
Posted by Nadeem F. Paracha in Entertainment, Featured Articles, Pakistan on 09 24th, 2009 | 113 responses The lingering Islamisation milieu put together by the Ziaul Haq dictatorship got a beating recently. In May this year, in an unprecedented move, the Federal Shariat Court declared that the consumption of alcohol in Islam was a (comparatively) lesser crime. The court duly overturned the punishment of applying 80 lashes to the seller and consumer of alcohol (with a whip) and replaced it with light ?????????????????????¢??strokes from a stick made from a palm tree leave.?????????????????????¢?? In her book, Islam, Its Laws & Society, Islamic law expert Jamila Hussain states that though the Quran ?????????????????????¢??advises?????????????????????¢?? Muslims to stay away from wine (khamr), it does not outright forbid it like it does carrion meat, blood, pork, and idolatry. She also states that neither does the Holy Book prescribe any punishment for consuming alcohol. http://blog.dawn.com:91/dblog/2009/09/24/from-lashes-to-strokes/ |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
First of all, the Quran indeed prohibited Alcohol outright, she just does not understand the Quran, as simple as that, but before I show it to every body, let me just tell you something that should expose the stupidity of such woman and such federal court:
I guess they mean by ?????????????????????¢??outright prohibition?????????????????????¢?? is to say: Alcohol is Haram (prohibited) Well, for them, if they do not read such outright prohibition in the Quran, then Alcohol is not Haram, the problem for them is this, the Quran never said: Zina (sex outside wedlock) is Haram, in such outright manner, they are after. Would that mean that it is allowed? |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
The problem here is not that it is haram, but just how haram it is. |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
Zina is already a sin that can be punished to Hadd (death by stoning) if there are 4 witnesses |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
in Iranian Shia jurisdiction and under the original Hudood laws of Pakistan. (though I cannot remember the verse - Sura 2 somewhere? - the reference specifically comes from the Quran) |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Well, indeed the Quran outright prohibited both sins, let me first bring a verse in which we read that Allah outright prohibited a few things:
قُلْ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّيَ الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَالإِثْمَ وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَأَن تُشْرِكُواْ بِاللّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا وَأَن تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ (33) Say: Indeed My Lord has prohibited indecencies, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, and sin and perpetration without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say about Allah what you do not know. [Al Quran ; 7:33] -> See mate, in 7:33, Allah has outright prohibited the following: 1) الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ , i.e. indecencies, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, 2) وَالإِثْمَ , i.e. Sin 3) وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ , i.e. perpetration without right 4) وَأَن تُشْرِكُواْ بِاللّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا , i.e. associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority 5) وَأَن تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ , i.e. say about Allah what you do not know Now, I want you to concentrate on 1 & 2 The Arabic word for Indecencies is فَوَاحِشَ , Fawahish, which is plural, the singular is : فَاحِشَةً , Fahishah, i.e. Indecency The Arabic word for Sin is إِثْمَ , Ithm, which is singular, the plural is : إِثامَ , Atham, i.e. Sins Now bear in mind, that in Arabic language, we can use either the singular or the plural to prohibit plural, this is just a style and is commonly used in the Arabic language, you can see both examples in 1 & 2 1- The plural ?????????????????????¢??indecencies?????????????????????¢?? is used to prohibit all indecencies. 2- The singular ?????????????????????¢??sin?????????????????????¢?? is used to prohibit all sins. |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
OK - I follow your drift and agree so far |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Now, indecencies & sins are very general and can be speculated of course, and had Allah left it at that, I would have agreed with those ignorant from Pakistan, but Allah did not leave it at that, for Alcohol, He told us:
يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَآ أَكْبَرُ مِن نَّفْعِهِمَا وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا يُنفِقُونَ قُلِ الْعَفْوَ كَذَلِكَ يُبيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمُ الآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَفَكَّرُونَ (219) They ask you regarding the alcohol and the gambling; say: In both there is a great sin and means of benefit for the people, and its sin is greater than its benefit. And they ask you regarding what they should spend; say: Pardon others. Thus does Allah explain to you the signs that you may ponder- [Al Quran ; 2:219] -> See, They ask you regarding the alcohol and the gambling; say: In both there is a great sin |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
Agreed. |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
But there is a great sin - and means of benefit - in both alcohol and gambling. |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
I assume this "benefit" means the possibility of winning in gambling, |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
and the pleasure of a small drink, |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
as opposed to losing one's mind and liver through alcoholism or being ruined from gambling debts. |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
The nature of the sins is irrelevant as being "haram", alcohol and gambling are forbidden. |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
However, the extent of the sin here must be proportionally less than a sin that leads to Hadd, simply because there is a (potential) benefit from alcohol and gambling. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Now I know that you are a smart bunny, and I am sure that you should conclude, that according to 7:33 & 2:219, ALCOHOL IS HARAM
For Zina, Allah told us: وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَا ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا (32) And go not near adultery; indeed, it is an indecency and an evil way. [Al Quran ; 17:32] -> See: And go not near adultery; indeed, it is an indecency and an evil way. , i.e. according to 7:33 & 17:32, ZINA IS HARAM Finally, not because there is no punishment for it in the Quran, it means it is allowed, this is stupid, indeed there is a huge punishment for it in this life and the punishment is from Allah, Alcohol will kill you and before it do that, it will humiliate you. And surely the ultimate punishment will start when it kills you. Salam |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
You write: "And surely the ultimate punishment will start when it kills you."
Good points, and thank you for taking the time to guide me through the linguistics. It is always a pleasure to engage with posts like these. |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
I still maintain that - because there is implied some benefit, even though it is eclipsed by the enormity of the sin, |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
that for punitive purposes (and Pakistan's Federal Shariat Court exists for such purposes) the punishment must be less than for exceptionally heinous haram activities, in crimes where there is only sin, and no implied "benefit". |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
I may be entirely wrong, |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
but I bow down to your higher knowledge of the Quran and Arabic. If you say I am totally astray, I will concede.
And a big Salam to you too, Ahmed. |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
Well I was wrong, and I admit it Ahmed.
Sorry! I liked the stories though. Shows you as more of a personality. All good stuff..... |
Psycho Bunny wrote: |
Thank you Ahmed
Nice to see you back here, and also providing me with education. I don't have the time right now to absorb all that you have presented, and to respond and query any of the points now - when I have not fully absorbed your nuggets of wisdom - will not do justice to your efforts. But thanks for taking the time to correct the points in the article. I will respond in about 12 hours. I hope you are well Best Regards |
the stagyrite wrote: |
Baghat, |
the stagyrite wrote: |
I was being sincere when I said "dear", |
the stagyrite wrote: |
since I wish good to everyone and ill to no-one, |
the stagyrite wrote: |
even people who call me "jerk", "hypocrite" and "punk". |
the stagyrite wrote: |
In this I am only following the teaching of my Master who said "love your enemies, do good to those who do ill to you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who calumniate you" (Lk 6). |
the stagyrite wrote: |
As for your refutations, |
the stagyrite wrote: |
anyone can see they are just hot air. |
the stagyrite wrote: |
You bluster a lot, |
the stagyrite wrote: |
but where is the substance of your argument? |
the stagyrite wrote: |
You propose that I bring a god to give witness that my stuff is his. |
the stagyrite wrote: |
Great idea, Baghat! |
the stagyrite wrote: |
- why did Muhammad not do that all those years ago? Do you not stop to think before you write, you fool? (Note - I say that in charity, hoping to rouse you from your sleep-walking credulity.)
How can you ask me to do what the Prophet himself refused to do for his alleged "scripture"? When did he ever bring Allah to "witness" to the divine origin of the Qur'an? In his moon-splitting trick? In the great and wonderful "sign" of the slaughter of all his enemies? Did he not say that the qur'an itself was his miracle - in other words, did he not claim that his "revelations" were self-authenticating, as behoves the Word of God itself? I am not being so stupid as to say that my words are the word of God - that's not the point of the exercise. But if you can see how stupid that claim is, why can't you see how stupid it is to believe in the Qur'an? And lastly - you think, in your ignorance and supremacist delusion, that God is going to punish eternally in hell all those who disagree with YOU and your triumphant UMMAH. That is called projection, my man. You project onto God your own (all-too-human) ideas about glory and victory. "Our enemies are God's enemies" - that is what Muhammad thought, that is what the Qur'an says, that is what Muslims even today think. "God will destroy them and rub their noses in the dust and give us the victory!" Thus you make the One God, the All-Merciful, (who I believe in by the way) to look like a BIG MERCILESS RELENTLESS FASCIST. Do you think that glorifies God? WAKE UP YOU BLIND AND MISGUIDED MAN!! You "guidance" is wrong; you are in thrall to a lie. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Salam all
The reason of this comment was to expose a couple of confused Ahmadi sect followers on faithfreedom who are promoting their non sense between the kafirs, they are however fearing to confront me, so I tried to encourage them a bit, let's see what I said to them on faith freedom, sorry about the insults: -------------- Let?????????????????????¢??s learn something from al-Dajjal Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, the founder of the confused Ahamdi sect bound to hell: Writings of liar compulsory contains contradictions (Zamima Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya part 5, Roohani Khazain vol 21 page 275) Cool, Dajjal Mirza Ahmad, so if you contradict your arse in your writings, this means that you are a clear cut liar. Fair enough I have to say Writings of a truthful and clear-conscience person never contains any contradictions. Yes if someone is lunatic and insane or such a hypocrite who is a yes man for flattering someone, his writings will, of course, be contradictory (Sat Bachan, Rohani Khazain, vol. 10, page 132) Can?????????????????????¢??t agree more, Dajjal Mirza Ahmad, so if your own writings contains contradictions this means, according to you, that you are: 1- Lunatic 2- Insane 3- Hypocrite 4- A man with no clear conscience God is the one who has sent his messenger, this humble self, with good conduct and manners. (Roohani Khazain vol. 17 p.426) So who is that humble man with good conduct and manners? I guess, you mean yourself, so in effect you are considering that Allah sent you as a messenger after the last messenger sent Muhammad This should mean for any sincere Muslim, that Miraza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani is nothing but: 1- Lunatic 2- Insane 3- Hypocrite 4- A man with no clear conscience I have not even answered back anyone with abusive language. (Roohani Khazain vol. 19 p.236) That must be you, I guess, well, in Arabia a wise man always said: I hear your words, I believe you, but when I see your actions, I wonder. To Curse is not the Quality of a SIDDIQ (Truthful). Believer does not send Curses. (Roohani Khazain vol. 3, p.456) Hmmm, so if you ever get caught cursing someone, then you cannot be SIDDIQ (Truthful) nor you can a believer So let?????????????????????¢??s see your reality, Dajjal: O Low Caste! Khabees! Enemy of Allah and Prophet! You have done this Jewish alteration in the (prophecy), so that this Grand Miracle of Holy Prophet SAAW is hidden from this world .....your lie O Worthless is exposed ...... from which word did these Stupids understood these meanings? O Morons! O Sightless! Disgrace to the Molviyat! ......especially the head of the Dajjaleens, Abdul Haq Ghaznavi and his followers; Hundred thousand times Shoes of Curses of Allah may fall upon them. O Dirty Dajjal! Prophecy has been fulfilled but bigotry has blinded you. (Zamima Anjam-e-Atham, Roohani Khazain vol 11 p.330) Holy shit Dajjal, you curse like no one else, therefore, according to your own fukin words, you cannot be: 1) SIDDIQ (Truthful) 2) a believer How about one of the opponents of Mirza Ahmed, let?????????????????????¢??s see how Mirza insulted him: Lair, Khabees (wicked). Sting like a scorpion. O Land of Golra! Curse of God be upon you. You have become accursed because of the cursed one. (Roohani Khazain vol.1 What a clear cut hypocrite piece of shit you turned to be mister Ahmad Qadiani, well, do not fukin blame me, blame your own words you sharmoot, see again: To Curse is not the Quality of a SIDDIQ (Truthful). Believer does not send Curses. (Roohani Khazain vol. 3, p.456) Hmmm, how about more: Enemies (meaning Muslims) have become swines of our jungle and their women have become worse than B******. (Roohani Khazain vol.14 p.53) What a son of a B**** you are mister Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, so the Muslim women have become worse than B****** Let?????????????????????¢??s see more of the morality and good manners of the Dajjal Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, talking about his opponent Maulvi Saadullah Ludhianvi : Demon. Secondrel Profilgate. Devil. Accursed seed of evil person. Wicked Mischievous. III-omened Son of a B****. (Roohani Khazain vol.14 p.53) Let me remind you all with what that drunk freak bound to hell said earlier: I have not even answered back anyone with abusive language. (Roohani Khazain Vol19 p.236 by Mirza Qadiani) That cannot be one who is a messenger of God, a humble one, a man with good conduct and manners, see again what that lying freak said earlier: God is the one who has sent his messenger, this humble self, with good conduct and manners. (Roohani Khazain vol. 17 p.426) Let?????????????????????¢??s spin more with Mirza?????????????????????¢??s lies: Mahdi is not a student of anybody. I swear that this is exactly my condition. Nobody can prove that any human has taught me Quran. (Roohani Khazain vol 14 p.394) Then: At 10 years of age an Arabic Teacher was appointed for me whose name was Fazal Ahmed ....and when I was 17-18 years of age I was taught by another Molvi Saheb, whose name was Gul Ali Shah, who was appointed by my father in Qadian to teach me. (Roohani Khazain vol 13 p.180) When I was 6-7 yrears old, a persian teacher was employed for me who taught me Holy Quran ....and his name was Fazal Ilahi. (Roohani Khazain vol 13 p.180) So what is the story you confused son of a B****? Were you not the student of any teacher? Or No one has taught you the Quran? Well, we do not need to fukin prove that someone has taught you Quran, you proved it you drunk, here is your words again: When I was 6-7 yrears old, a persian teacher was employed for me who taught me Holy Quran ....and his name was Fazal Ilahi. Let?????????????????????¢??s spin more with that drug addict freak son of a B****: How can it be permitted that I claim prophethood and go out of the fold of Islam and join the party of Kaafirs? (Humamatul Bushra, Roohani Khazain vo.7 p.297) You son of filthy whore, did you not tell us about yourself the following: God is the one who has sent his messenger, this humble self, with good conduct and manners. (Roohani Khazain vol. 17 p.426) Then you continue to fool your confused sect followers by saying: O People!... Do not be an enemy of Quran and after Khatamun Nabiyeen do not start new silsila of prophetic revelation. (Asmani Faisla, Roohani Khazain vol.4 p.335) Can such a wretched fabricator who claims himself to be a prophet and messenger, have faith in Quran, and can such a person who have faith in Quran and believes the verse: 'wa laakin Rasoolullah wa Khatemun Nabiyeen' to be the word of Allah, say that I am also a messenger and prophet after Holy Prophet SAAW? (Anjame Atham, Roohani Khazain vol.11 p.297) I am neither a claimant of prophethood and nor I deny miracles, angels and Night of Power .... and after Syedna wa Maulana Muhammad SAAW, Khatemul Mursaleen, i consider any claimaint of prophethood and messengership to be a liar and kaafir. (Tableeghe Risalat vol.2 p.22, Collection of Advertisements vol.1 p.230) Ok, punk, we believe you, you are no messenger or prophet. Opps: I swear upon God in whose hands is my life, He has sent me, He only has named me prophet and He only has sent me as Promised Messiah. (Tatumma Haqeeqatul Wahi, Roohani Khazain vol.22 p.503) True God is that God who has sent His Prophet in Qadian. (Dafa alBala p.11, Roohani Khazain vol.18 p.231) So what is the story you confused son of a kalb? Are you a messenger? Or Are you not a messenger? Possibly you are the promised Messiah? I have never claimed that I am Messiah Ibne Maryam and he who accuses me of such a thing, he is absolutely a liar and a fabricator. (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol.3 192) This humble self has simply claimed to be a Maseel Maseeh, which foolish people have thought to be Promised Messiah... (Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.192) So I must be a clear cut fool to consider you the promised Messiah, I am sorry about that, Dajjal. Opps: I claim that I am the Promised Messiah, about whom all the Holy Books of God have foretold that he will appear in the last days. (Roohani Khazain vol.17 p.295) I swear upon that God upon whom to fabricate is the job of accursed ones, He has sent me as Promised Messiah. Collection of Advertisement of Mirza Goolam vol.3 p.435) So what is the story you son of a filthy male prostitute? Are you the promised Messiah? Or Are you not the promised Messiah? Every sane one should know who the fuk you are by now and according to your own words: Writings of liar compulsorily contains contradictions. (Zamima Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya part 5, Roohani Khazain vol 21 p.275) Writings of a truthful and clear-conscience person never contains any contradictions. Yes if someone is lunatic and insane or such a hypocrite who is a yesman for flattering someone, his writings will, of course, be contradictory. (Sat Bachan, Roohani Khazain vol 10 p.132) Any wise and sensible person can never keep two different beliefs. (Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.220) You are nothing but: - A Liar - A Lunatic - An Insane - A Hypocrite - A Toady - A Sycophant Salam |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
Assalamualaikum Rahamatullahi Wabarakathahu
good Ahmed this is a good post these people are like Christians ,ahmed they allure Muslims to spread they cult there were lots of seminars and lecture exposing them in Chennai recently cos , they were working in conversion of muslims in there cult btw i have found a link about his death http://irshad.org/exposed/death.php the wonder is his death wow yet another proof for Islam Mushtaq |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Thanks for the link man, I need it as I read a few years back that he himself asked Allah to die by Cholera |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
And yes, those confused Ahmadis are nothing but another Christian sect, |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
including sunni, shias and others |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
they are not confused ,ahmed they do this deliberately as Christians do these people are satanic as GOD says in quran parties of satan and best powerful among them are christians perhaps main satanic party |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
including sunni, shias and others |
parvez_mushtaqi wrote: |
don't believe in sects , ahmed |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
each sect have their own plus and minuses |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
best is quran and with it is sunnah |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I believe you do a bit, but possibly ashamed to admit it, but that is a good sign, as gradualy you should proudly distant yourself from them as well ATTACK them, because they are the greatest enemy of our great religion, remember well that I told you that one day.
|
parvez_mushtaq wrote: | ||
ahmed i am not ashamed of any thing i was born salafi (ahlul hadith) i think they are the most logical sect yet they have a blind faith upon all sahih hadiths i don't believe this cos even hadith direct us to believe hadiths which don't contradict quran pl read this hadith The Book of Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq) Muslim :: Book 9 : Hadith 3524 Abu Ishaq reported: I was with al-Aswad b. Yazid sitting in the great mosque, and there was with us al-Sha'bi, and he narrated the narration of Fatima bint Qais (Allah be pleased with her) that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) did not make any provision for lodging and maintenance allowance for her. Al-Aswad caught hold of some pebbles in his fist and he threw them towards him saying: Woe be to thee, you narrate like it, whereas Umar said: We cannot abandon the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of our Apostle (may peace be upon him) for the words of a woman. We do not know whether she remembers that or she forgets. For her, there is a provision of lodging and maintenance allowance. Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, said:" Turn them not from their houses nor should they themselves go forth unless they commit an open indecency" (lxv. 1). this is very clear from this hadith even hadrat umar followed this as well as there are hadiths even ayshe followed this method yet there is a ruling of no iddah after the third divorce but ahmed , if we keep in disputing upon these things , when we will unite my point is no one is 100% there is degree of deviation in each sect and we are yet to know Islam completely for example , as per qadiani , esa alysalam died as per quran this i know you will agree with qadianis why don't we believe in which we are common among ourselves instead of disputing and fighting ourselves think about this verse , which zikir naik uses frequently 003.064 YUSUFALI: Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will). this is for us not for others first we should adopt this verse then we can talk about others Mushtaq |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
........the hadith still stated crap and non sense that only damages our great religion,....
|
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
.......The bottom line is this, the great damage the hadith did to our religion outweigh all good things it stated......
|
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
........the hadith still stated crap and non sense that only damages our great religion,....
|
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
.......The bottom line is this, the great damage the hadith did to our religion outweigh all good things it stated......
|
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
can you be specific how hadiths damaged our religion i mean , how hadiths effected Muslims to get diverted from monotheism (the basic faith of a muslim) |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
simply it diverted them from monotheism by making them MUSHRIKOON
|
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I cannot be more specific than that, most of my comments on this web site confirms so
|
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
simply it diverted them from monotheism by making them MUSHRIKOON
|
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
wsalam |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
i mean , can you tell me one hadith which says take two gods or don't worship ALLAH |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I cannot be more specific than that, most of my comments on this web site confirms so
|
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
one can comment on hadith as well as quran even
but , it is the message that we are commenting on which we can even manipulate you are commenting on hadiths and kafirs are commenting on quran as well |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
first , you said , hadiths did damage to our religion
now , your claim is they made Muslims to get diverted from monotheism |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
i want haidths which did this not your comments |
Quote: |
Surah 5 verse 3
This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. |
Couple of FFI Kafirs wrote: |
So the above sura MUST be the last revelation by ALLAH since the religion is already 'perfected' and Allah's favor had already been 'completed'.
Why is this verse then stuck in Sura 5 verse 3? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
SHIRK means that the action of SHIRK has been committed, and that is how I type SHIRK, through different actions, i.e. when I agreed that SHIRK is two types, I agreed based on the following notions:
1- Shirk type 1: is committed by a certain action 2- Shirk type 2: is committed by a different action |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: | ||
salam
before making a counter to your post , i request you to define the following types with verses from quran and examples
Mushtaq |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||
Salam brother Sure, despite that what you after is already explained in details through that link. But not to worry give me some time and I will compose something just for you Salam |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
salam
before making a counter to your post , i request you to define the following types with verses from quran and examples |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
SHIRK means that the action of SHIRK has been committed, and that is how I type SHIRK, through different actions, i.e. when I agreed that SHIRK is two types, I agreed based on the following notions:
1- Shirk type 1: is committed by a certain action 2- Shirk type 2: is committed by a different action |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
wsalam
this is a request |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
pl don't mistake me |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
pl make it short and sweet
Mushtaq |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Salam brother parvez and all
In my pre last comment I used the following Quran verse as an example of what the associates of the polytheists may be commanding them to do And thus have their associates made it pleasing to most of the polytheists the killing of their children, that they may cause them to turn back and confuse for them their religion; and if Allah had willed, they would not have done it, therefore leave them and that which they forge. [The Quran ; 6:137] وَكَذَلِكَ زَيَّنَ لِكَثِيرٍ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ قَتْلَ أَوْلاَدِهِمْ شُرَكَآؤُهُمْ لِيُرْدُوهُمْ وَلِيَلْبِسُواْ عَلَيْهِمْ دِينَهُمْ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا فَعَلُوهُ فَذَرْهُمْ وَمَا يَفْتَرُونَ (137) Clearly, the associates command the polytheists to kill their children, they even decorated such evil act for them. That is what I read today in an Egyptian newspaper. Almost every day I have to go through many of the online Egyptian newspapers, just to keep myself up to date to what is going on in such so called Muslim country Yesterday I read a horrible crime out of the zillions horrible crimes that happens on a daily basis in that country. The crime is indeed disgusting, in brief a woman killed her 2 years old son and 4 years daughter of one of her sisters in laws, she also tried to kill the 4 years old son of another sister in law, this is how it is posted in the newspaper: جريمة ????????????????????????????«الهجانة????????????????????????????» استغرقت ساعتين.. والجيران أنقذوا الطفل ????????????????????????????«يوسف????????????????????????????».. والمتهمة تفننت فى ذبح الضحيتين كتب فاروق الدسوقى وفاطمة أبوشنب ٢٥/ ١١/ ٢٠٠٩ ساعتان هى مدة الجريمة البشعة التى شهدتها منطقة عزبة الهجانة بمدينة نصر.. تفننت المتهمة فى تقطيع جثتى ابنها وابنة شقيقة زوجها إلى أشلاء.. وكانت تشرع فى قتل يوسف ????????????????????????????«٤سنوات????????????????????????????» ابن شقيقة زوجها الأخرى.. المتهمة توجهت إلى مسرح الجريمة قبل الحادث بساعات وهى تحمل سكيناً و????????????????????????????«سنته????????????????????????????» ونفذت جريمتها.. اصطحبت الضحيتين والطفل يوسف الذى نجا من الموت إلى شقتها بالطابق الأرضى وبدأت جريمتها بقتل طفلها ثم طفلة شقيقة زوجها. قالت شقيقتا زوج المتهمة إنها تدعى الجنون للإفلات من العقوبة وقررتا أنها فعلت ذلك للانتقام بسبب غيرتها الشديدة من الأسرة وإنهم يتمنون إعدامها وتقطيعها فى ميدان عام. التقت ????????????????????????????«المصرى اليوم????????????????????????????» بالطفل يوسف ????????????????????????????«٤ سنوات????????????????????????????» الذى نجا من الموت قال: ????????????????????????????«هاجر قتلت يامن وفاتن توسلت إليها بعدم قتلها وظلت تصرخ وتنادى على أمها إلا أنها قامت بطعنها بالسكين????????????????????????????». والدة الضحية فاتن قالت: ????????????????????????????«قطعت ابنتى أشلاء حرام عليها ذنب الطفلين إيه.. المتهمة ابنة عمتى إلا أنها من يوم ما تزوجت وهى غيرانة مننا، منذ أسبوعين اتهمتنى أنا وأشقائى بأعمال السحر ومحاولة إيذائها فاتصلنا بشقيقها ومن أسبوع أثناء جلوسها معنا أمام التليفزيون فوجئنا بها تقول إن الأشخاص الموجودين فى التليفزيون يتحدثون معها وهى تكلمهم ورغم ذلك كانت تقرأ القرآن وتصلى الصلوات فى أوقاتها فلو هى ????????????????????????????«ملبوسة????????????????????????????» مثلما تقول لما كانت استطاعت قراءة القرآن????????????????????????????». يوم الحادث خرجت من المنزل - الكلام لوالدة الضحية - فى وقت الظهيرة وبصحبتها طفلها ????????????????????????????«يامن????????????????????????????» عارياً تماماً من ملابسه، فاتصلت بشقيقيها للبحث عنها، إلا أنها حضرت عقب ذلك وصعدت بالطابق الثالث واعتذرت عما فعلته واصطحبت ابنها وفاتن ويوسف بحجة تناول الطعام بشقتها. وأضافت أن هاجر دخلت شقتها بالطابق الأول فى الثانية والنصف ظهراً بصحبة الأطفال الثلاثة وظلوا معها ساعتين، فحضر شقيقاها وجلسا معنا نصف ساعة ونزلنا جميعاً نطرق على الباب إلا أنها لم تفتح.. والدتى صرخت وقالت لتكون عملت فى نفسها حاجة كسرنا الباب ووجدناها واضعة خلفه كنبة ????????????????????????????«أنتريه????????????????????????????» والشقة مظلمة وصوت التليفزيون مرتفع، فدخلنا غرفة النوم فاصطدمت قدمى بيد فاعتقدت أنها يد عروسة لعبة فقامت والدتى بفتح لمبة الغرفة فوجدت هاجر جالسة على السرير وتضع السكين على رقبة يوسف وبالبحث عن ابنتى اتضح لى أن اليد التى اصطدمت بها هى يد ابنتى وكانت بالنسبة لى صدمة بعد أن وجدت رأسها وقدميها مفصولة. قالت والدة الطفل يوسف: ????????????????????????????«حسبى الله ونعم الوكيل، ضحت بهما فى العيد.. حرام عليها قتلت يامن كان هيكمل ٣ سنوات فى شهر مارس المقبل وفاتن كانت هتكمل خمسة????????????????????????????» وأضافت أن ابنها أنقذته العناية الإلهية من موت محقق وأن المتهمة هاجر قتلت ابنها وظلت فاتن تتوسل إليها بعدم قتلها إلا أن قلبها أصبح كالحجر ونفذت جريمتها. قال على سليم، أحد الجيران، شاهد عيان، إنه سمع صوت صرخات واستغاثة، وأنه عندما اقترب من منزل المجنى عليهما، شاهد المتهمة تخرج من المنزل وفى يدها الطفل يوسف، وفى يدها الثانية ????????????????????????????«سكين????????????????????????????» وتظهر عليها آثار دماء، وأنه اقترب منها، وحاول تهدئتها، إلا أنها رفضت ترك يوسف. وأضاف أن المتهمة كانت فى حالة انهيار، وكانت تردد بعض الكلمات، مثل: ????????????????????????????«ارتحت????????????????????????????». قال هانى محمود، شاهد عيان، إنه شاهد المتهمة أثناء خروجها من باب المنزل ويحاول الجيران إبعاد الطفل عن يدها، بعد أن شاهدوها تمسك سكيناً فى يدها الأخرى وعليها آثار دماء، وأن الأهالى تمكنوا من السيطرة عليها وأخذ الطفل منها، وقاموا بإدخالها فى أحد المنازل وأغلقوا عليها الباب، حتى لا يفتك بها الأهالى الذين شعروا بأن المجنى عليهما طفلاهم هم، وليس طفل المتهمة وابنة شقيقة زوجها، حتى جاءت الشرطة، وسيطرت على الموقف، ومنع الأهالى زوجها من الاقتراب منها، خوفاً من أن ينتقم منها، أو يحاول الاعتداء عليها، وكانت تردد: ????????????????????????????«هما اللى اضطرونى لكدة????????????????????????????».. ولكن لا أحد يعرف من الذى تتحدث عنه! فى بداية الأمر شعرنا أنها تتحدث عن أهل زوجها، ولكن بعدما اقتربنا منهم اكتشفنا أنه لا توجد خلافات أسرية تدفعها لقتل طفلها وابنة شقيقة زوجها، خاصة أنهما طفلان لا علاقة لهما بأى شىء. http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=234502&IssueID=1600 Well, I am not going to translate all the above, I will tell you enough information so you understand this despicable story In brief, that woman is a Muslim, she also read the Quran all the times, as well pray 5 times a day, when she married her husband, problems started between her and her sisters in laws, it seems that she was full of envy towards them, so she decided to get her revenge from her husband and his sisters So she took all three children in her care then in two hours, she slaughtered her two years old son, chopped off his legs and arms, then killed the 4 years old daughter of one of her sisters in laws, also chopped off her head, arms and legs You can imagine the screams of the innocent children at that time, so the neighbors rushed and broke in her house and at the nick of time they saved the last child whom she was about to slaughter She told them now she is relieved, her husband and his sisters also refuted that she might be crazy, they used her devotion to Allah and her reading to the Quran as clear evidence that she cannot be mentally ill The graphic descriptions above are really gruesome, so I am not going to tell you all In the following day, the same newspaper posted the following about the same story: المتهمة أمام النيابة: القتيلان ذهبا إلى الجنة والناجى الوحيد لم يدخلها كتب فاطمة أبو شنب ٢٥/ ١١/ ٢٠٠٩ قرر قاضى المعارضات بمحكمة شمال القاهرة إيداع المتهمة بمستشفى الأمراض العقلية لمدة ١٥ يوم واعترفت المتهمة بتفاصيل الجريمة كاملة أمام محمد منصور، مدير نيابة حوادث شرق القاهرة، وقالت إنها تحب الأطفال، وأن الضحيتين اللتين قامت بذبحهما ذهبا إلى الجنة، ولكن يوسف الطفل الذى نجا حرم منها، وأضافت أنها ارتكبت جريمتها للانتقام من عائلة زوجها لخلافاتهم المستمرة معها، وأنها يوم الحادث استدرجت الضحيتين والطفل يوسف إلى شقتها بالطابق الأرضى، وأحضرت سكينا من المطبخ وذبحت ابنها يامن، ثم الضحية فاتن، وقامت بتقطيع قدميها ويديها، وشرعت فى قتل الطفل يوسف إلا أنها فوجئت بدخول شقيقيها وأشقاء زوجها، فأسرعت بحمله والخروج به إلى الشارع للتخلص منه، إلا أنها لم تتمكن من قتله. وأمرت النيابة العامة بإشراف المستشار محمد رمزى، المحامى العام الأول لنيابات شرق القاهرة، حبس المتهمة ٤ أيام على ذمة التحقيقات ووجه لها تهمة القتل العمد مع سبق الإصرار والشروع فى قتل الطفل يوسف. قال زوجها عنتر، والد الضحية يامن، إن زوجته كانت تتشاجر معه بصفة مستمرة بسبب مساعدته لشقيقاته البنات، وأنها تتمتع بكامل قواها العقلية ولم يصدر عنها أى أفعال جنونية أو تفيد بمرضها نفسيا، وأنها ارتكبت جريمتها للانتقام من شقيقاته البنات، وأنه يوم الحادث كان فى عمله، وعلم بالخبر. وقال شقيق المتهمة فى التحقيقات إنها ليس لها تاريخ مرضى وتتمتع بكامل قواها العقلية، ومنذ أسبوعين كانت تتحدث عن أشياء غريبة، وأنها تتخيل أشخاصا يتحدثون إليها عبر التليفزيون، وذلك للفت الأنظار إليها. واستمعت النيابة إلى أقوال عبدالله الشاهد الثانى فى الواقعة، الذى قال إنه فوجئ فى الساعة الرابعة والنصف من مساء الأحد الماضى بصوت صراخ واستغاثة صادر من منزل المتهمة، وبخروجه من محله شاهدها تهرول فى الشارع وفى يديها سكينة تظهر عليها آثار دماء وتهدد بذبح الطفل يوسف، وأنه استطاع بمساعدة الجيران أن ينقذ الطفل من يديها، وفوجئ بها تقول: ????????????????????????????«هما اللى أجبرونى أعمل كده????????????????????????????»!. وأنه حاول تهدئتها لأخذ الطفل منها ففوجئ بشقيقتى زوجها تصرخان أنها ذبحت طفلين آخرين. انتقل محمد منصور، مدير النيابة، إلى مكان الحادث لمعاينة جثتى الضحيتين، وتبين أن الضحيتين مصابان بجرح ذبحى فى الرقبة، وأن الطفلة فاتن تم تقطيع يديها وقدميها. http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=234504 They are saying above that the killer stated that both children she killed are now in paradise, while the third whom they saved from her, is not going to be in paradise, obviously her mind is polluted by the crap hadith that those who die while being children, the hadith tell us that they should go straight to the heaven, which I am not opposing but also we cannot know if they will go straight to heaven or not, we cannot know it for sure, if Allah wants to throw the children who die straight into heaven, or throw them into hell, we know well that He always does what He wills, it is not our business whatsoever, We can only wish them to be granted the mercy of Allah and thrown into heaven This is how the devil or the voices she was hearing from TV (as she alleged) were her associates, yet she also admitted that she killed them to get her revenge from her sisters in law Here you have it, a perfect example to verse 6:137, which just happened a couple of days ago, a believing Muslim woman who was praying 5 times a day as well reading the Quran, listened to her associates after they decorated for her killing the children, thinking that by doing so she will send them straight to heaven and get her revenge from her husband and her sisters in law You can imagine the anger of her sisters in law and her husband, they want her to be executed and ripped to pieces in a public place She is nothing but another clear cut Mushrik bound to hell (who thinks to be a believer) I seek refuge in Allah Salam |
skynightblaze wrote: |
Eagle says on page 9 that the arabic phrase in 2:284 should be translated only as Allah guides/punishes whom he wills and not Allah guides /punishes who wills to be guided or punished but yet shamelessly he changes his stance on page 11 saying that both renderings are equally correct.
Atleast maintain consistency in your lies . |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
What a shameless piece of ignorance you are, read this verse you stubborn dumb: شَرَعَ لَكُمْ مِنَ الدِّينِ مَا وَصَّىٰ بِهِ نُوحًا وَالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ وَمَا وَصَّيْنَا بِهِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ ۖ أَنْ أَقِيمُوا الدِّينَ وَلَا تَتَفَرَّقُوا فِيهِ ۚ كَبُرَ عَلَى الْمُشْرِكِينَ مَا تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَيْهِ ۚ اللَّهُ يَجْتَبِي إِلَيْهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي إِلَيْهِ مَنْ يُنِيبُ (13) He has ordained for you of the religion what He enjoined upon Nuh and that which We have revealed to you and that which We enjoined upon Ibrahim and Musa and Isa, to establish the religion and be not divided therein. Hard to the unbelievers is that to which you invite them; Allah chooses for Himself whom He wills, and guides to Himself whoever turns (to Him). [Al Quran ; 42:13] -> See: يَهْدِي إِلَيْهِ مَنْ يُنِيبُ, Yahdi Elaihi Mn Yunib, i.e. and (Allah) guides to Himself whoever turns (to Him) Oh yeh, I should not forget to slam dunk the punk: # 66 |
Quote: |
40)Or like darkness in a deep sea which is covered by waves above which are waves, above which are clouds, darkness, some of it are above others; when he holds out his hand, he is almost unable to see it; and to him whom Allah does not make light, then there is no light for him.
[Al Quran ; 24:40] |
Brendalee wrote: |
Hello Ahmed: I do wonder why you bring your controversial (because they so often disagree with the translators and tafsirs)Arabic language arguments into a thread where no one speaks Arabic except you. But I will take issue with your explanation of the verse. |
Brendalee wrote: |
Where does "like darkness in a deep sea" include any definition of "deep" except to define what sort of sea it is- eg a deep sea instead of a shallow sea? It does not define what depth the darkness is to be found at. Where does it say "several hundred feet" down? Where does it speak of the Abyss ? |
Brendalee wrote: |
The sea does not even necessarily need to be very deep to be impenatrable to the eye. |
Brendalee wrote: |
There are some bodies of water, and some areas of oceans/seas which tend to be clear; there are others which tend to be dark. Being able to see several hundred feet down would be remarkably clear water - and not the least bit typical. |
Brendalee wrote: |
There are even lakes with impenatrably dark waters, where, whatever the depth you are, you cannot see your hand even inches in front of you. |
Brendalee wrote: |
A body of water need not be deep; but consider a known deep water - Loch Ness: It's habitual condition is blackness itself. Even when conditions are perfect and it is at its most clear, it is still dark and black even at the surface. Maybe your vision might extend to feet instead of inches in perfect conditions. |
Brendalee wrote: |
The clarity of seas/oceans depends on location and conditions. It is not the least bit unusual that items dropped into the water vanish into blackness after only a few FEET. |
Brendalee wrote: |
I can attest to this personally. A friend of mine once took me on a day-cruise in the Irish Sea. I was like a little child in my excitement as I was sure I would see dolphins. I was told not to hope for dolphins as we might very well see none at all, but to my great delight, we did. But to my disappointment, we did not see them very well. They were clearly to be seen ABOVE the water line, even in the choppy conditions, as fins and arched backs appeared, but the ones who swam up to check out the boat were obscure and blurred even just a couple of feet below the surface. They were visible only just there at that depth - if they dived down lower, they vanished and could not been seen at all because the water was too dark for visibility to be any good.
So there is nothing at all the least bit miraculous about Quran 24:40. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
@ LYING Bahgat
What a lying pathetic freak you are Bahgat! |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
I have ALREADY shown you a verse where the Quran LITERALLY said: "By a star when it falls"... so? |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
What say you? |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
This verse PROVES that the Quran did use this expression: a falling STAR! |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
The Arabs COLLECTIVELY referred to all shiny objects (except the sun and the moon) as STARS. |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
Because they did NOT know ANYTHING about them except how they looked... |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
pretty lights adorning the sky!!! |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
And some of them did fall (like the verse where God swears by falling stars).. |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
Now, idiot, |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
I did say that sometimes they used the word Kawkab to refer to BRIGHT stars... |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
sometimes they used the word Shihab to refer to FALLING stars... but these were all known collectively as stars!!! |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
IN MODERN ARABIC, after the West taught us what is a star (a far away sun), and what is a planet (the stars that looked too bright to Arabs) and what is a falling star, MODERN ARABIC *RECYCLED* 2 old words that were used to distinguish the *appearance* of stars that were too bright and those falling ones... |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
Now, after the Arabs have been educated by the West, We *recycled* KAWKAB strictly to refer to a planet... back then it meant a bright star, now we know why, what our ancestors thought were just bright stars are actually planets... now we know that these lights in the skies are NOT the same thing... now we know that there are such things as planets... so we recycled the word Kawkab and used it to refer to something that never existed in the knowledge of our ancestors. In the same manner, we *recycled* the word Shihab to refer to meteors. |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
NOW, you LIAR you know that SHIHAB means literally blazing flame.... And to prove this, you LIAR I'll use non other the Quran itself: |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
27:7
إِذْ قَالَ مُوسَى لِأَهْلِهِ إِنِّي آنَسْتُ نَارًا سَآتِيكُم مِّنْهَا بِخَبَرٍ أَوْ آتِيكُم بِشِهَابٍ قَبَسٍ لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَصْطَلُونَ Transliteration: Ith qala moosa li-ahlihi innee anastu naran saateekum minha bikhabarin aw ateekum biSHIHABin qabasin laAAallakum tastaloona Pickhtal: when Moses said unto his household: Lo! I spy afar off a fire; I will bring you tidings thence, or bring to you a borrowed flame that ye may warm yourselves. |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
In conclusion, |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
1- using 62:1 I proved that shooting stars were referred to by Arabs literally as falling stars. |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
2- using 27:7 I proved that the word SHIHAB means flame (which also was used to refer to shooting stars). |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
What a clown! Far away suns, planets and meteors did NOT exist in the minds of 7th century Arabs... these STILL don't exist in the minds of primitive people living in this day and age you stupid idiot... back then: |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
1- Kawkab meant bright star. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
2- Shihab meant falling star. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
3- Stars meant pretty lights adorning the night sky (other than the moon). |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote: |
Now, in this age after the West taught us basic cosmology.
1- Kawkab means a planet. 2- Shihab means a meteor 3- A star means a far away sun. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Pervert and fake Muslim debunker wrote: |
Yep, that's right... a whole vast night sky cannot be "adorned" with only ~5 planets, |
Filthy pervert and traitor debunked wrote: |
As for ryhme Some Surahs rhyme entirely (from begnning to end) some have large portions rhyming... As for the Surah in question, 72, look at the transliteration:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/transliteration/072.html Every verse ends with -an.... |
Filthy pervert and traitor debunked wrote: |
And this is Surah 72 recited in Arabic:
Link |
yeezevee of FFI (yekee) wrote: | ||
eagle says
|
The Cat wrote: |
The heart of the matter from 29.27 is that Allah is NOT bestowing prophethood to Ishmael at all. He's unnamed but Isaac and Jacob.
I didn't investigated the matter so far but it seems that Ishmael is hardly mentioned in the Koran, Blah blah..... |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
Time to slam pussy cat again:
Read this, you ignorant and confused bum: وَاذْكُرْ فِي الْكِتَابِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ۚ إِنَّهُ كَانَ صَادِقَ الْوَعْدِ وَكَانَ رَسُولًا نَبِيًّا (54) And remember in the book Ismail; indeed, he was truthful in (his) promise, and he was a messenger, a prophet. [Al Quran ; 19:54] -> See you stupid, Ismael is mentioned as being A MESSENGER AND A NABI: وَكَانَ رَسُولًا نَبِيًّا, i.e. and he was a messenger, a prophet. UNLIKE Ishaq and Yaqoub, they were only mentioned as NABI, and not messengers: فَلَمَّا اعْتَزَلَهُمْ وَمَا يَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَهَبْنَا لَهُ إِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ ۖ وَكُلًّا جَعَلْنَا نَبِيًّا (49) So when he withdrew from them and from what they worship other than Allah, We gave him Ishaq and Yaqoub, and each of them We made a prophet. [Al Quran ; 19:49] -> See dumby, what the verse says about both Ishaq and Yaqoub: وَكُلًّا جَعَلْنَا نَبِيًّا, i.e. and each of them We made a prophet. I.e. from the perspective of Allah, Ismael has more of a mission as messenger and a prophet of Allah than both Ishaq and Yaqoub who were not messengers but were only prophets. You have been slam dunked again, pussy cat: # 76 |
BMZ wrote: |
Hello, Ahmed
Wanted to post something for your slam dunking but could not. Tried PM but that did not go through too. Salaams BMZ |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
Salam Mate do you still have a problem posting? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
Salam Mate do you still have a problem posting? |
Wootah wrote: |
Ahmed that didn't make sense to me. MBL is arguing against free will and arguing that since God knows what we will do that we don't have free will. God knows that 9 days ago you thought about not doing then 8 days you thought about doing it and so on. How did your reply circumnavigate the issue MBL is raising? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Bin Lyin is a confused freak, his stupid argument does not have any merit
God knows the the future regardless the amount of hesitation we may go through to do something or not to do it If we do it, then God knew that we will do it If we do not do it, then God knew that we will not do it |
charleslemartel wrote: |
Does God know what you are going to do on a certain date/time BEFORE you do it, or AFTER you do it?
The foreknowledge on the God's part has happened PRIOR to you doing or not doing something. Get it? So you can't go against what he already knows it. Get it, dumb? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||
Listen you piece of perverted kafir bound to hell. How the hell I go against what is already known to Him if I already do not know what is known to Him? Read this verse, you filthy kafir and FFI resident arse licker: فَلَا تَضْرِبُوا لِلَّهِ الْأَمْثَالَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ (74) Therefore do not set parables to Allah; indeed, Allah knows and you do not know. [Al Quran ; 16:74] -> See you stupid dumb: إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ , indeed, Allah knows and you do not know Who is the dumb now, filthy? You have been slam dunked, pervert # 77 |
Pussy Cat wrote: |
The very fact that there was no hamza in the Classical Arabic of the Koran debunks your statement. It had to be added so to fit the -later-
Arabic Qira'ah. So... NO... Arabic wasn't invented somewhere down the seventh heaven. It has a historical context, mainly Aramaic. See? Qira'ah itself has been borrowed from Syriac, not the other way around. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||
Time to slam dunk Pussy cat of FFI, again:
What an ignorant bum How come there was no hamzah and the Quran is full of hamzas? even the word Quran, you dumb, has a hamzah, this is how it should be written: قرءان
Another slam, hey And, here is an image from my software Access Quran showing the total number of the letter Hamzah in the Quran to be : 2691
And here is an example from the Quran showing a clear Arabic word that can never exist without the Hamzah: 2:228 والمطلقات يتربصن بانفسهن ثلاثه قروء ولا يحل لهن ان يكتمن ما خلق الله في ارحامهن ان كن يؤمن بالله واليوم الاخر وبعولتهن احق بردهن في ذلك ان ارادوا اصلاحا ولهن مثل الذي عليهن بالمعروف وللرجال عليهن درجه والله عزيز حكيم And the divorced women should wait for three periods; and it is not lawful for them that they conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the last day. And their husbands have right to take them back in that period if they want reconciliation. And for them (the wives) is similar rights to what is expected of them. And for the men, they have a degree over them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. [Al Quran ; 2:228] -> See dumby, قروء , i.e. periods And this should take us to slam dunk #78 # 78 |
Mordegast wrote: |
Regarding Ahmed's monthly miracle: |
Mordegast wrote: |
An independent check from: http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/statistical-miracles-quran |
Mordegast wrote: |
2 for the dual form شهرين |
Mordegast wrote: |
اشهر the indefinite plural gives 5 results
and الأشهر the definite plural gives 1 result |
Mordegast wrote: |
"شهر an indefinite word yields 3 results
الشهر the definite form of the word gives 4 results 2 more instances of شهرا meaning month in the accusative case one instance of بالشهر which is month prefixed by a preposition |
Mordegast wrote: |
brining the total to 18" |
Mordegast wrote: |
Ahmed will have to provide examples. |
The goon of FFI crazymonkie_ wrote: |
So if you get rid of the plurals, the numbers work out?
Why are you justified in excluding the plurals? Wouldn't it make more sense to include them, since we're talking about *months,* not just *a month*? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
Look brother BMZ how one of the goons replied to my slam dunk #79:
Ahmed said to the FFI goon: Read the start of my slam dunk, then dismiss yourself, jerk |
BMZ wrote: |
I don't see KhaliL Fariel writing anymore there. Has he left FFI?
Salaams, mate BMZ |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
Salam mate I dont see him either, I hope he is ok, I think he was suffering some sort of tough disease, anyway I wish him good in the life of this world I just slammed the 80th slam, I will post it in here tonight inshaallah Salam |
BMZ wrote: |
I am sorry to hear that and hope he recovers, fully. If, you can, please post a "Get Well soon" message to KhaliL.
\BMZ |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
No No, bring the verse in here and also the few verses before it and after it, then I will resume my slam dunk show |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I do not go any where pal, this is my home (FFI), so bring it in here and walk me through it using your own words so I can slam dunk you hard
Still waiting |
Wootah wrote: |
I picked a verse I went through it. Now slam dunk what I said. |
Wootah wrote: |
I'll make my point again. |
Wootah wrote: |
This sura has 3 ayat in it that are very disturbing to my sensibilities. |
Wootah wrote: |
Here were my comments on my understanding of them: |
Wootah wrote: |
9:71 - talks about the believers and how they should treat each other. Underlined for emphasis that the Koran does not teach the golden rule. |
Wootah wrote: |
9:73 - Be harsh with unbelievers. I would imagine that would entail doing harsh things? |
Wootah wrote: |
9:74 - if on earth they have no helper or protector I would imagine that a Muslim should not help or protect them. |
Wootah wrote: |
I would regard each 3 of these ayat as evidence of the following. |
Wootah wrote: |
- Muslims are to only be friends with each other |
Wootah wrote: |
- Muslims are not to be friends with non-Muslims |
Wootah wrote: |
- Muslims are to be harsh with non-Muslims. |
Wootah wrote: |
- Non-Muslims have no protection on earth and as such Muslims should not help or assist non-Muslims. |
Wootah wrote: |
Now is it your turn? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Mister wootah
You need to edit your comment above and write the Name Muhammed complete, if you ever write it again using those two letters you will be dismissed. if you want to play shifty then be aware that I will beat you hard with my language then life dismiss you |
Wootah wrote: |
Right ... next I will have to add saws ... next I will have to worship. Your moral outrage at words and thoughts is noted. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I think I slam dunked anything said about sura 9 before, so let me bring the verse in here from my site and continue?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦ |
Wootah wrote: |
Well you have a long history on this site. These issues no doubt crop up again from time to time. |
Wootah wrote: |
To be fair to me, 71 arose because you wanted some proceeding verses but it does seem like it has been worthwhile doing as you asked. |
Wootah wrote: |
It does seem that in context with 73 and 74 we are to contrast how sincere Muslims are to treat each other with how they are to treat non-Muslims. |
Wootah wrote: |
Of course we are dealing only with sincere Muslims. A sincere Muslim cannot treat non-Muslims how they treat sincere Muslims. It seems like we agree here? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Hmmm, so what? Do you want the sincere believers (men and women) to be described as enemies of each other or something? |
Wootah wrote: |
Of course not but it would be nice to compare Mohammad's teachings with Jesus and see some relationship. |
Wootah wrote: |
Jesus tells us to treat non-Christians as equal if not better than we treat each other. Also forget Jesus just to see equal morality with the golden rule. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
The verse above is talking about the hypocrites from among the fake Muslims, so you have no point again. |
Wootah wrote: |
Fair enough. But the verse says 'if they turn away' 'and there will not be for them on earth any guardian or a helper'. Clearly the fake Muslims that turn away are now amongst the apostates and unbelievers? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
So what did you want to be said? To give the Kuffar the second cheek while the Kuffar were working hard to kill Muhammed and kill the last message of Allah to humanity? |
Wootah wrote: |
If he was the last message of Allah then Allah would not have allowed that. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Did America and the world give their second cheek to the terrorists who started attacking America on their American land? In fact what America did chasing those who attacked them complies 100% with the above message and command from Allah |
Wootah wrote: |
Of course I agree with you here and with Mohammad. Mohammad was a man that fought for his side, killed who he needed to to survive, took the women and the booty and won but not a prophet. Just another historical figure. |
Wootah wrote: |
But this is why Jesus was God and we aren't. |
Wootah wrote: |
This is the kind of evidence you have that Mohammad wasn't a prophet and not the last prophet because we agree with Mohammad's actions and can understand them. He is of this world: killing, looting, defending his territory. We understand his motivations. He was so morally inferior to Jesus, who was not of this world and preaching of the kingdom of Heaven. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
For me the Kuffar and Hypocrites are those who commit atrocities in the land and kill masses of innocent humans. |
Wootah wrote: |
Fair enough. I agree. But you are labelling many highly respected authorities on Islam hypocrites. I am glad you are in Australia where we can protect you. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
If I know that one is working hard to kill me and take my land, I must work harder to kill him. You have no point, pal |
Wootah wrote: |
My point was to show that the Koran preaches 'harshness', which you agree can be up to and including killing your enemies. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
they will have no guardian or helper (being from the kafirs or being from the Muslims or being from any other man made gods), I hope you got it now. |
Wootah wrote: |
We agree again. No muslim can help or offer to help a hypocrite. Now you define hypocrite as a person that claims to be a muslim but is not a sincere muslim. And I agree. But the verse says 'if they turn away' 'and there will not be for them on earth any guardian or a helper' means that the verse is not talking about hypocrites as you define it but apostates. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Look pal, the Hypocrites from among the Muslims are the ones about whom 9:74 is talking, so please butt yourself out of it, it does not belong to you as a kafir. Again, the hypocrites from among the Muslims will have no guardian or protector (by anyone being a Muslim, a Kafir, some man made gods or angels etc) other than Allah to repel His punishment from them. |
Wootah wrote: |
Your argument seems to me that this verse is not talking to non-muslims or apostates but to insincere/hypocrite Muslims. |
Wootah wrote: |
However the proceeding verse 73 in your translation says 'Strive against the unbelievers and the hypocrites'. So even if hypocrite means insincere/hypocrite Muslims Allah is also including the unbeliever. |
Wootah wrote: |
Further in 74 when talking about the insinere muslims/hypocrites: 'So if they repent, it will be good for them; and if they turn away, Allah will castigate them with a painful torture in this world and the hereafter; and there will not be for them on earth any guardian or a helper.' |
Wootah wrote: |
Q:What on earth is an insincere muslim that does not repent and turns away? |
Wootah wrote: |
A: An apostate.
B: A really really insincere Muslim. |
Wootah wrote: |
Finally, if in 74 Allah will punish them with a painful torture, now and later, and there will be no protection on earth for them from this torture it could easily be implied by sincere Muslims not to help these people. Would you wish to be seen helping or aiding and abetting someone that Allah had marked for punishment? |
piscohot wrote: |
When muslims killed their enemies in battle, Allah too said that it is Him who killed the enemies not the muslims. Did not take away the fact that the people still died by the hands of the muslims. So likewise, Allah will castigate them can simply meant muslims will castigate them. Who you trying to fool here? |
Wootah wrote: |
I know I've seen that somewhere as well. Where is that said? |
piscohot wrote: |
hypocrites need to repent their hypocrisy?
you meant they need to become muslims again after their disbelief? |
Wootah wrote: |
Ahmed I'm not involved in your dismissed list. He made what seemed to me a very valid post. Where does it come from? I can't remember. Play or don't play Ahmed, I won't be threatened. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
The relationship regarding belief between believers has to be different to the relationship between the kafirs and the believers, this is bloody logical |
Wootah wrote: |
I agree it is logical. It is however a lower standard rather than the golden rule. And frankly I think you are saying that I am on the money here. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
See miser wootah, And if one of the polytheists seeks protection from you, then grant him protection so he hears the words of Allah, and deliver him to his place of safety. |
Wootah wrote: |
Well you will have to show the before and after verses etc then I'll look at this.... |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Concerning belief of course the treatment should be different, however concerning any other life matter, then the kafirs have a higher degree because what was said about the kafirs in 9:6 as a command from Allah concerning the peaceful kafirs should be the same as the Muslims being guardian to each other, as clearly 9:6 tells us in elaboration to offer protection to the peaceful kafirs. |
Wootah wrote: |
As you note, you use the term higher degree, not equal. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
The Quran only commands the Muslims not to seek protection from or protect the kafirs in religious maters, that should make sense because both the Muslims and the kafirs are the two ends of the spectrum, therefore a religious agreement between them would only happen if the kafirs concede that there is no god except Allah Whom they can worship Him the way they want on their land, but in the Muslim land, they can only worship him the way they want behind their home doors, not in public, as in public everyone should be the same while worshipping the one and only God on a Muslim land. |
Wootah wrote: |
Yes but that isn't fair or just. But that's OK, it's not your fault, |
Wootah wrote: |
you know it and I know it. Silly West, wake up. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Oh please, you just shot the dumb kafirs between the eyes, they accuse the Muslims of Tu quque or whatever they bloody call it when the Muslim bring the horrible teachings of the bible on the table as a comparison to what the kafirs allege against some Quran verses. |
Wootah wrote: |
Yeah I probably wish I had just used the golden rule to compare Mohammad to. Regardless, Jesus as a standard is far superior to Mohammad and it makes no sense to have such a low standard come next. You compare one prophet to a man that chopped off 600 heads. Be real. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Jesus clearly stated that he was sent to not to make peace between the parents and their children, so he was not that nice as you might delude yourself in your kafir world. Jesus was a great prophet who was sent to fulfil a specific task using whatever method or style Allah wanted him to use |
Wootah wrote: |
Jesus is a sword dividing this world. Jesus is not telling us to use swords to divide the world. Metaphor. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
If he was that nice to his people, why you think that they conspired to humiliate him in public then kill him? |
Wootah wrote: |
Because in their minds he was blaspheming. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Don?????????????????????¢??t come back with that Christian crap that he had to die for our sins, this is just bloody insane as the mighty God can simply can forgive all sins by just saying I forgive you, but it seems that the Christians made a god for themselves that he cannot even do it simply as such, he bloody has to kill his son or himself to bloody forgive the sins, how bloody insane. This is enough to expose all those dumb and stupid kafirs on FFI who use such flawe3d argument against the Muslims, they better use it against the Christian god who seems to anyone to be very helpless. |
Wootah wrote: |
Of course he can just say I forgive you but then he is unjust to do so. |
Wootah wrote: |
Have you ever been to court? |
Wootah wrote: |
Imagine if I robbed from you and we went to court and the judge said, "I forgive you Wootah. |
Wootah wrote: |
" You would think the judge was unjust. |
Wootah wrote: |
Even you think he will not say I forgive you for shirk and you can't even explain why. Explain why shirk is such a terrible crime. Why is shirk even worse than spitting? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Dismissed |
Wootah wrote: |
Don't dismiss it forever. The moral incompatibility between Mohammad and the golden rule and Mohammad and Jesus is clear to all. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
The verse means that if the hypocrites فَإِن يَتُوبُواْ يَكُ خَيْرًا لَّهُمْ وَإِن يَتَوَلَّوْا , So if they repent, it will be good for them; and if they turn away , i.e. when we tell them that they are hypocrites and they should repent or Allah will castigate them in this life and in the hereafter while they will never have a protector to repel His punishment, then it will be good for them, BUT IF THEY TURN AWAY FROM WHAT WE JUST TOLD THEM, then: يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللّهُ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ وَمَا لَهُمْ فِي الأَرْضِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلاَ نَصِيرٍ , Allah will castigate them with a painful torture in this world and the hereafter; and there will not be for them on earth any guardian or a helper. and as you can see, it says ALLAH WILL CASTIGATE THEM, it did not say the Muslims should castigate them.
|
Wootah wrote: |
No it does not say Muslims will castigate them. |
Wootah wrote: |
But as I said, Muslims would not be kind to someone that even Allah wants to castigate. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Of course Allah can do anything at anytime and without being questionable about what He does. |
Wootah wrote: |
If you understand why you said, you can start to understand why the Koran is meaningless. Nothing in the Koran applies to Allah because he does what he wants. You say Allah is loving, so what, even wicked people love sometimes now and then and especially when they want. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Come on, you are not going to get me some stupid stories from Bukhari Springer and his pals hadith show. |
Wootah wrote: |
I won't to you. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I do not give a fuk about any history you might bring on the tale, history records may or may not be correct, so it is classified as hearsay for me, and will be dismissed, but if you ever dare to go there I can dare ad do the same and show you from your bloody g history book of life far worth atrocities committed by your Christian and Jewish pals, so you need to shut the fuk up in that department. |
Wootah wrote: |
Of course you don't. Slowly more and more Western muslims are retreating to Koran only. Why is that? |
Wootah wrote: |
Western morality is superior and not compatible with so much that is traditional Islam. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
How bloody funny, so you are a confused Christian, look pal, do not spew such Christian crap at me, I know your Bible in two languages (English & Arabic) better than any confused Christian on this web site, therefore I will just ended by rejecting your crap that Jesus was god, but if you insist or continue to intimidate me by such pure rubbish and non sense, I will use your own Bible against you and you will have no way out, therefore you need to shut the fuk up in that department too. |
Wootah wrote: |
It won't hurt you to hear about God once in a while. As I showed before there is nothing in the Bible I won't defend. |
Wootah wrote: |
Forget Jesus for now, |
Wootah wrote: |
Mohammad was immoral in so many ways ... how can't you see that? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
So bloody what to kill the enemy? Fine pal, you can let your enemy to kill you, good luck with that, I won?????????????????????¢??t
But look how bloody hypocrite you are, America killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians including women and children by wiping two developed cities out of existence in a bloody flash |
Wootah wrote: |
Ahh but our discussion is really to work out what this verse means. |
Wootah wrote: |
You are fine in agreeing that it means killing your enemy. I am your enemy Ahmed, the whole non Islamic world is your enemy. I think the ignorant on my side needs to know your views.
If you want to talk about America be specific. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I explained the part of ?????????????????????¢??If they turn away?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? above, read again |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
The verse is talking to those who believe or at least claim to believe in the Quran, so those who believe in it should warn those who seems to be hypocrites |
Wootah wrote: |
Yes, you called them insincere Muslims. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
That is on a Muslim land, you need to read the whole surah from start to finish more than once to come to grasp with its practical ad logical message, verse 9:6 alone is enough to slam dunk your repeated argument. |
Wootah wrote: |
Well post it, the verses around it, explain what you think it means then I'll respond. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
For the kafirs, if they repent from attacking the Muslim or violating the new Muslims rules governing the House of Allah in Mecca after it was reclaimed
For the Hypocrites, they need to repent from being hypocrites. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
The verse gave us a hint about them, as well the hypocrites are thoroughly described in the Quran, in fact there is a whole surah that is named ?????????????????????¢??The hypocrites?????????????????????¢??????????????????????, you need to read more to learn, the message of Allah is not that easy for anyone btw |
Wootah wrote: |
Look I'm fine with your interpretation. The message is for the hypocrites and the really big hypocrites that turn away from Allah they get castigated. I imagine that by logic an apostate is the biggest type of hypocrite. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Wishful thinking is dismissed
You need to move on to the next argument, your argument inhere is thoroughly smashed not just slammed |
Wootah wrote: |
I think I'm on the money. |
Wootah wrote: |
I wasn't confident at first, |
Wootah wrote: |
I just picked a random verse to see how it went through the Ahmed slam dunk machine. It seems to be surviving pretty well. |
Wootah wrote: |
9:73 Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them
(interpretation: Be harsh with two types of people: the unbelievers and the hypocrites) |
Wootah wrote: |
9:74 If they repent then stop being harsh but if they turn away God will get them. |
Wootah wrote: |
Your reply is that this verse is for insincere Muslims which are called hypocrites. Well what is a hypocrite that turns away? |
Wootah wrote: |
A really, really big hypocrite? C'mon Ahmed at some point a Muslim that turns away far enough can be called an apostate. |
Wootah wrote: |
I would regard each 3 of these ayat as evidence of the following. |
Wootah wrote: |
- Muslims don't follow the golden rule. |
Wootah wrote: |
- Muslims are to be harsh with non-Muslims. (Sure not to the Dhimmi's but who wants to be a dhimmi) |
Wootah wrote: |
- Non-Muslims have no protection on earth and as such Muslims should not help or assist non-Muslims. Or are you really going to help someone that Allah is wrathing against .... |
Wootah wrote: |
ps: Ahmed you aren't really going to use the sword verse in your defence are you? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Talking about shirk is a lot of talk and is totally different subject so I have to dismiss your crap above that is based on an assumed illogical action of forgiveness by a judge that can never happen. |
Wootah wrote: |
Oh well I still wouldn't mind hearing your opinion. Why is shirk unforgivable? What is the crime? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||
Please read the previous few comments above first ^^^ starting from this one
And finally one more comment from me to Wootah concerning a question he asked me later:
My opinion is simple and logical: I believe that humans and all other creatures have absolutely no freewill when it comes to the belief in Allah, the humans and possibly other creatures may have freewill concerning deeds with other creatures, but when it comes to the belief in Allah, there is absolutely no freewill Now such no freewill (concerning belief) can be enforced in two ways: 1- Willingly 2- Unwillingly now we know well that unwillingly means no freewill, but I still see the willingly ones have no freewill either, because it is said to them by the same God, if you do not believe willingly then you will be burnt in hell, consequently there is no other option but to believe willingly, and consequently there is no freewill concerning belief for all creatures. Now, what i said above is certainly stated in the Quran, in addition to that, the Quran also told us that this is why humans were created for by God, TO ONLY WORSHIP HIM, i.e. 100% no freewill, Imagine now I invented a car and it does not do what I created it for to do, like when I want it to turn right, it turns left and kills someone, likewise with animals and other creatures, for example, I created something from steel that suppose to be tough, yet it breaks all the time, so I end up with something useless that can simply be squashed and replaced by something else useful that does what it is designed for and was created to do That is my personal opinion and is not debatable btw, you can say your opinion about it but I am not going to reply even if you intimidate me |
Wootah wrote: |
Ahmed,
Another topic. I noticed someone post about apostates: |
Wootah wrote: |
4:89 (pickthall) They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, |
Wootah wrote: |
What does "forsake their homes in the way of Allah". |
Wootah wrote: |
Does this mean repent or convert? You offered 4 answers earlier: |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Here is all possibilities:
1- One who leaves islam and live his life without defaming Islam (peaceful apostate who should be left alone and even protected) 2- One who leaves islam then work hard to defame the reigion (is not an apostate, rather an eney who be dealt with according to my Golden Rule) 3- One who leaves Islam then claim to be a Muslim (is a hypocrite who can also be peaceful who should be left alone) 4- One who leaves Islam then claim to be a Muslim while working with the enemy to defame the religion and expel the Muslim from their land and refusing to participate with the Muslim in the fight with the enemy(is a hypocrite and an enemy at the same time who should be dealt with accoridngly) |
Wootah wrote: |
Which of these 4 classes is 4:89 talking about? |
Wootah wrote: |
Is the notion of 'turn away' the same as 'turn back'? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||||||||||
Again the verse is talking about the hypocrites who claim to be Muslims while they refuse to go to fight with the real Muslims See the previous verse: فَمَا لَكُمْ فِي الْمُنَافِقِينَ فِئَتَيْنِ وَاللّهُ أَرْكَسَهُم بِمَا كَسَبُواْ أَتُرِيدُونَ أَن تَهْدُواْ مَنْ أَضَلَّ اللّهُ وَمَن يُضْلِلِ اللّهُ فَلَن تَجِدَ لَهُ سَبِيلاً (8 What is the matter with you, being two parties concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back because of what they have earned? Do you want to guide those whom Allah has misguided? And whomever Allah misguides, then you will not find for him a way. [Al Quran ; 4:88] -> See pal, when the hypocrites were exposed, refusing to go to war with the Muslims while defending themselves, some Muslims suggested punishing them, while others refused and suggested to give them another chance (sort of, as you know I am only interested in the moral of the story, not the details), so the verse above is criticizing the sincere Muslims for disagreeing on the matter of the hypocrites, by telling them, that they were exposed as hypocrites as a punishment of what they have earned, and you will not be able to guide them back because those who have earned misguidance from Allah will never have way to guidance. (i.e. Allah has power over all things): What is the matter with you, being two parties concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back because of what they have earned? Do you want to guide those whom Allah has misguided? And whomever Allah misguides, then you will not find for him a way. Let?????????????????????¢??s bring 4:89 in here and read further elaboration concerning those hypocrites fro among the Muslims: وَدُّواْ لَوْ تَكْفُرُونَ كَمَا كَفَرُواْ فَتَكُونُونَ سَوَاء فَلاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ مِنْهُمْ أَوْلِيَاء حَتَّىَ يُهَاجِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْاْ فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ وَجَدتَّمُوهُمْ وَلاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ مِنْهُمْ وَلِيًّا وَلاَ نَصِيرًا (89) They desire that you would disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so you would be alike; so take not from among them guardians until they emigrate to the way of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any guardian or any helper. [Al Quran ; 4:89] -> See what the hypocrites wanted: They desire that you would disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so you would be alike; obviously they disbelieved by becoming hypocrites. The hypocrites are promised with the lowest level of hell, i.e. the most severest of punishment in hell, i.e. it is a very bad crime in Islam, yet those hypocrites desired that more Muslims become like them ad refuse to go to war to defend their religion against the perpetrators, so the verse above is warning the sincere Muslims (who disagreed in 4:88 concerning the hypocrites) against them as well commanding them to not to take guardians or protectors from among them (i.e. not to force them to fight defending the religion of Allah which they claim to belong to), yet they were given a chance, that if they accept to fight and defend the religion of Allah, then the sincere Muslims can trust them and consider them guardians and protectors to them: so take not from among them guardians until they emigrate to the way of Allah. , emigration in the way of Allah can also mean and cover a few things including defending His religion against the perpetrators. Now that is the only chance to give the hypocrites who claim to be Muslims, to immigrate in the way of Allah. Now if they refuse that then, i.e. If they turn away the offer, then then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any guardian or any helper. So what should be the way out for those hypocrites? Very simple indeed, they only need to claim that they are apostates and leaving Islam in peace. Period But to fukin claim to be a Muslim, then knowing that the enemy of Islam are building arms to eliminate the religion and its followers, and you refuse to fight and sit in your arse at home fearing to be killed, then you must e a clear cut hypocrite who should be punished. Let?????????????????????¢??s just consider it as refusing to serve in the army during wars. Like when Muhammed Ali did in Vietnam war. I am not saying that Muhammed Ali was a hypocrite, I am sure he has his reasons which are valid, but just similar action by one who claims to be American then refusing to defend America?????????????????????¢??s concerns in Vietnam. On the other hand, the Quran gave us some examples of the excuses presented by those hypocrites, which I can show you later, but what is interesting to show you is the next verse in which we read that if those hypocrites conceded that they are not Muslims any more and just want to leave, then fine, see this compelling verse: إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ يَصِلُونَ إِلَىَ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُم مِّيثَاقٌ أَوْ جَآؤُوكُمْ حَصِرَتْ صُدُورُهُمْ أَن يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ أَوْ يُقَاتِلُواْ قَوْمَهُمْ وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ لَسَلَّطَهُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ فَلَقَاتَلُوكُمْ فَإِنِ اعْتَزَلُوكُمْ فَلَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ وَأَلْقَوْاْ إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلَمَ فَمَا جَعَلَ اللّهُ لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ سَبِيلاً (90) Except those who take refuge with a people between whom and yourself is a treaty, or those who come to you while their hearts are declining from fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah does not make for you against them a way. [Al Quran ; 4:90] -> Here is the exception of killing those hypocrites: Except those who take refuge with a people between whom and yourself is a treaty, or those who come to you while their hearts are declining from fighting you or fighting their own people. And here is the compelling part: So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah does not make for you against them a way. Bigger for inmate pisscohot: So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah does not make for you against them a way. Biggest for inmate pisscohot: So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah does not make for you against them a way. Pinkiest for inmate pisscohot: So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah does not make for you against them a way. Slam dunking inmate pisscohot: # 83
No, it means to not to fight in the way of Allah and defend the religion of Allah against the perpetrators while still claiming to be Muslim, they would be better off to claim to be apostates and leave in peace to live somewhere else as stated in 4:90
They belong to # 4 above. CLEARLY
Sort of, Walla = turn away Walla Zahrahu = turn away while showing his back Simply: Reject something. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
Salam mate I dont see him either, I hope he is ok, I think he was suffering some sort of tough disease, anyway I wish him good in the life of this world I just slammed the 80th slam, I will post it in here tonight innshaallah Salam |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
Salam mate I dont see him either, I hope he is ok, I think he was suffering some sort of tough disease, anyway I wish him good in the life of this world I just slammed the 80th slam, I will post it in here tonight innshaallah Salam |
parvez_mushtaq wrote: |
i think he must have found the truth about Islam and became Muslim
but i really miss him a lot Mushtaq |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||
Lol mate, i like him too despite his mocking to our religion, I am also thinking as you think, that Allah guided him to the straight path Cheers |
BMZ wrote: |
I don't see many Muslims on FFI either. Looks like FFI will start creating their own Muslims.
Salaam, bros. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
Lol mate, you always crack me up laughing Salam |
BMZ wrote: |
What can I do, mate? FFI is so hilarious to read that I cannot control my laughter and let it out here. By the way, I was reading a topic and looks like it was started by a Jesus Freak KufirbintKufr. http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6015 What an Ignorant Fool and Idiot this guy is! Looks like a Slam Dunk is due. Salaams BMZ |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Stoning half the adulterer and adultereress
Salam all This is a mother of all slams discovered by one of my dear Egyptian friends (Hany Mohsen); it happened yesterday as we were pondering upon the Quran together over skype. It is slam dunking Al-Mushrikoon from among the confused Muslims and worth adding to my slam dunk show, this is how I put it on facebook: |
AhmedBahgat begin_of_the_skype_highlighting???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? end_of_the_skype_highlighting wrote: |
The Gospel of Judas slam dunks the FFI goons:
Hey FFI goons Did you read the following in the Gospel of Judas: JESUS SPEAKS OF THOSE WHO ARE BAPTIZED, AND JUDAS?????????????????????¢??S BETRAYAL Judas said to Jesus, ?????????????????????¢??Look, what will those who have been baptized in your name do??????????????????????¢?????????????????????? Jesus said, ?????????????????????¢??Truly I say [to you], this baptism (56) .... my name (?????????????????????¢??about nine lines missing?????????????????????¢??) to me. Truly (i) say to you, Judas, [those who] offer sacrifices to Saklas .... God [?????????????????????¢??three lines missing?????????????????????¢??] everything that is evil. ?????????????????????¢??But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me. Already your horn has been raised, your wrath has been kindled, your star has shown brightly, and your heart has ..... (57) [Gospel of Judas] -> See what Jesus said to Judas: But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me See what the Quran said: وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا (157) And (for) their saying: Indeed, We have killed Christ Isa son of Mariam, the messenger of Allah. But they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it was made to look so to them; and indeed, those who disagreed over him are in doubt about him. They have no knowledge of it except following conjectures; and they killed him not for certain. [Al Quran ; 4:157] -> See: But they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it was made to look so to them; What a slam # 85 |
Quote: |
"Come therefore, let us go on with the completion of the will of the incorruptible Father. For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will put them to shame.
But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst. Do not be afraid because of your cowardice. Their minds shall be closed, for the invisible one has opposed them." When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?" The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me." But I, when I had looked, said "Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place." But he said to me, "I have told you, 'Leave the blind alone!'. And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame." |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Fixed
Cheers |
manfred wrote: |
Ahmed, you know the verse very well, and I have mentioned it previously in this thread:
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6725#p110097 7:157.... Moses is reported as speaking about Mohammed... Moses mentions the gospels ina way that he assumes that his audience knows exactly what he is saying.... How did he know about the gospels? Simple... Because,according to the quran he had a nephew called Isa (Jesus), also a prophet, and must have shown them to him, how else??... His listeners also know the gospels through Moses's busy nephew, Islamic Isa,in the same way. It is also interesting that Isa seems to have done exactly as Mohammed did: Mohammed also showed his revelations to his uncle and the people around him. The quran simply assumes that Isa did the same. Perfectly simple, and it makes complete sense... only it's completely wrong historically. This fits in exactly with the quran mentioning Miram,Jesus'smother,being the sister of Aaron and the daughter Amran and therefore supports very loudly a litteral reading of the Mary-sister ofAaron comment in the quran. So, wehave another historical error in the quran, a big fat one, quite a comical one,really... The two issues are two sides of the same mistake. The addition of the translators "later on" does not hide the propblem, as we both know it does not say that in the text. |
manfred wrote: |
In addition, we has seen quranic Moses makes a speech saying that he and his contemporaries know the injil. This means that according to the quran Jesus and Moses were seen as broadly contempories. |
manfred wrote: |
So,if Ahmed's reading of a figure of speech is to be believed, then the Moses speech is entirely illogical. |
Quote: |
كَمَثَلِ الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًا FFI مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Allah1 wrote: |
The Qur'an also states the prophet Job (Ayyub) was permitted to beat his wife in Sura 38:41-44:
And remember Our servant Ayyub, when he called upon his Lord: The Shaitan has afflicted me with toil and torment. Urge with your foot; here is a cool washing-place and a drink. And We gave him his family and the like of them with them, as a mercy from Us, and as a reminder to those possessed of understanding. And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with It and do not break your oath; surely We found him patient; most excellent the servant! Surely he was frequent m returning (to Allah). Qur'an 38:41-44 Allah1 |
Allah1 wrote: |
Salaam Ahmed,
Tafsir Al-Qurtubi (1214-1273 CE) In this version, it is said during the ailment of Job, his wife used to beg for him and Satan told her a word of disbelief to say and she told her husband Job, so he became angry with her and took an oath to strike her one hundred lashes, so God ordered Job to fulfil his oath by striking her with the bundle of thin grass. Allah1 |
manfred wrote: |
DearAhmed,
using only the Quran can you explain the passage to us? What cool washing-place is the Quran referring to? What oath did Job make? More importantly, why is God commanding Job to strike something or someone with a green branch? |
confused ahmed wrote: |
Again and again, the verse never said the word HER, it is the result of wishful thinking Jews and Christians and their fellow confused Muslim |
manfred wrote: |
Again and again, we know what it says and we know what it means. We have read the text and the tafsir.
You have not not actually said what it means, according to the only authority on Islam after Mohammmed, Ahmed Bahgat, the only true Muslim alive, all you do is to say "it does NOT mean this"... you have produced no evidence at all why not. and you have not given an alternative. Your alternative simply was "we don't need to know" thereby implying that at least part of the quran is gibberish. On that we can agree, good. |
manfred wrote: |
I am shoving it into you, and it does not seem to agree with you... Maybe you need some Alka Seltzer?
I told you my views, with sources and reasons. Will we hear yours? |
piscohot wrote: |
I was watching quran recitation (sura yasin) on youtube and this verse caught my attention: |
Quote: |
036.006
In order that thou mayest admonish a people, whose fathers had received no admonition, and who therefore remain heedless (of the Signs of Allah). |
piscohot wrote: |
This sura talked about the forefathers of the arabs who were NOT sent any 'warners' by Allah so they remained heedless and that's why Muhammad was sent as the prophet.
Yet on another verse, Allah claimed that there is not one nation that had not been sent any prophets... |
Quote: |
035.024
Verily We have sent thee in truth, as a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner: and there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past). |
Quote: |
010.047 To every people (was sent) a messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged. |
piscohot wrote: |
If according to verse 36:06, judgement in verse 10:47 would not be possible as there was no messenger sent.
another mistake... |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Again you dumb, the prayers is done 5 times a day, the fasting 29 or 30 days a year and hajj once a year and they did that in the first 200 years before your crap man made springer hadith were invented, it was memorised by heart then were inherited day after day, month after month and year after year, you stupid |
skynightblaze wrote: |
and how do you know the written hadiths werent memorized by heart? You dont need to memorize something 29 days a month to remember something.. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Simple answer, kid, here it is: |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Yohan wrote: |
This kind of answer is symptomatic of Muslims who are ashamed of their religion, and want to cleanse it of things they consider to be bad. People like you are there in every religion. Remember, one cannot cleanse a religion by lying! |
Yohan wrote: |
Hadiths had begun to be written soon after the death of Mohammed, especially after the deaths of so many of his companions in a battle with one false prophet in Arabia. Hadiths had become the backbone of Islam. Millions of Muslims had lived their lives by the Hadiths. Now you are here saying all these Muslims had been fooled ever since the beginnings Islam, simply because you (along with a small group of ashamed Muslims) have decided that Haidths make Islam look bad. Only fools would impressed by such a stand! |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
pr126 wrote: |
Why have Muslims been fooled by the hadiths for 14 centuries? |
pr126 wrote: |
How could the ulema permit such blasphemy for so long? |
pr126 wrote: |
What is the Al Ahzar University saying on this matter? Do they reject the hadiths too? |
pr126 wrote: |
Or are you a minority of "Quran only Muslims" |
pr126 wrote: |
(those living in western countries) |
pr126 wrote: |
who are ashamed of the history of Muhammad and Islam in front of the kuffar? |
pr126 wrote: |
What about the Sira, the life and times of Muhammad? Are they lies too? |
pr126 wrote: |
Not forgetting that the Quran was collected and put in writing in exactly the same manner as the hadiths, from memories of men, by the orders of Utman, who burned several versions before deciding which one to keep. That makes the decision of a man, (Uthman) and not Allah, who apparently had no say in the matter. Those Muslims who died in the battle of Yamama may have had important verses and lost or ever.
Allah guarded the Quran. Yeah, right. |
pr126 wrote: |
Wow. 1.2 Billion who are calling themselves Muslims are not Muslims at all. Well, not True Muslims, that is. |
pr126 wrote: |
But, if you are a minority, you have no power, no saying how Islam should be practised. |
pr126 wrote: |
Majority rules. |
pr126 wrote: |
Get back in your box. |
planck wrote: |
However, Judaism is not a universal religion. It is not intended to be observed by everyone--just Jews. |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
And even your Quran , it turns out, did NOT recommend praying 5 times per day and instead only listed three, and the other two comes from the hadiths. |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
What, exactly, do you mean by the earliest days of Islam? |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
And you and I both know that the Quran references mean very little without the additional, detailed info. |
Eagle wrote: |
Other sources of corruption came from...story-tellers and reciters of fables attaching their rich imagination to the narrations... |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
I can't understand why you think that lying is OK. |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
Actually, it was the Jews. But, Yes to the rest of your twisted post. So why did we even have to have that clarification when we both knew exactly what I was talking about?? |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
Since when did it go from "Quran only" to now including modern authors? |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
Citation please? |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
You've rejected the authenticity of the hadiths, and now when you need them, there are "certain parts" that are now true, and they are true as you need them to be true. |
Eagle wrote: |
Tradition and known history is not always equal with hadith, just like sunna is not equal with hadith. Hadiths can contain correct history and true sunna but not always. |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
Yes, Kathir is good when needed, and denied when not conveniently needed |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
Who wrote that??? Why didn't you quote it??? |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
So now, if a historical accounting of something meets your needs, it's true. But if it doesn't meet your needs, then this is due to the mischief of certain people. |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
And why was that? |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
what was Allah finding out from this test? |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
Well, i suppose |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
I asked you a question, and it's right above and in writing. So why are you asking me to explain myself properly |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
You said the journey was "A" sign, as in singular. Now the liar adjusts his story. Now it IS INDEED "signs". |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
You said "sign", you liar. |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
One car means one sign or "sign", and "signs" means multiple cars or signs. |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
Then why did you use the word "sign" in singular fashion? |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
Believe me, these games will not work. |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
Why should it be considered to be paranoia when I actually continually prove my point and you continually run out of answers? |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
Send a message back to the cockroach farm that it doesn't work in this kitchen. |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
By introducing a term that has no specific bearing as to get the conversation to go somewhere else. |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
Quote how you specifically spelled it out. |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
What does it depend on?? If you think it doesn't depend on the hadiths, then that means you KNOW what it DOES depend on |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
I asked you very clearly and very plainly whether the sunna that you raised in interest to this particular topic, was written before 17:1 was recited or not. |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
and give us a straight yes or no answer:?"?? |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
What did they know about the journey |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
When was the first time that the Kaaba was referred to as the sacred mosque? |
Bin Fagin wrote: |
you are an absolute disgrace. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
You may have wondered, where I have disappeared, well, i found something more interesting to do instead of wasting my time with the ignorant and confused goons of FFI
what I did in tha last three days is to create my first Quran software, which I called Access Quran, this is how the idea was born: http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=802 And here is the latest version that I released today: http://free-islam.com/downloads/AccessQuranV1_3.zip I hope that my software will fix your ignorance regarding the Quran Salam |
Slingshot wrote: |
How can one 'fix' ignorance if one is not allowed to be critical and ask questions? For example, in (Dawood) Q5:101-102 "Believers, do not ask questions about things which, if made known to you, would only pain you, but if you ask them when the Koran is being revealed, they shall be made plain to you. God will pardon you for this; God is forgiving and gracious. Other men inquired about them before you, only to disbelieve afterwards. |
Slingshot wrote: |
The verse is incoherent of course with it telling us not to ask questions unless we have the impossible situation of the Koran being revealed, |
Slingshot wrote: |
But if you do you will be forgiven but you might end up not believing - for which of course you will not be forgiven. |
Slingshot wrote: |
Still if it is as simple as having YOUR bit of software then its ok |
Slingshot wrote: |
- pity about the companions of the prophets and 14 centuries of believers who did not have it though and did God slip up somewhere as its now obvious he should have revealed your software and saved millions from hell. |
Lava Lamp wrote: |
It can be found here: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/011.sbt.html#001.011.626 |
Lava Lamp wrote: |
Now, I'm talking with a Muslim who says that the part translated "Certainly I decided to order", apparently in Arabic the word used there is "هممت", which means Muhammad didn't actually burn the people, but was just thinking about it. This sounds fishy (at best) to me. Can anybody who knows something about the language help me out here? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||
Salam all
A kafir on FFI posted the following:
Ahmed says: First of all, fuk the hadith, I dont reply to hadith arguments presented by kafirs, however I may only reply to the Arabic part which is the Arabic word in question: هممت, Hamamt The word is a verb from first person perspective, i.e. ?????????????????????¢??I هممت?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? The Quran actually used the word twice as a verb in one verse, but not from first person perspective, rather from third person perspective as follow: 1- He هم , He Hamma 2- She همت, She Hammat Let?????????????????????¢??s have a look at the verse: وَلَقَدْ هَمَّتْ بِهِ ۖ وَهَمَّ بِهَا لَوْلَا أَنْ رَأَىٰ بُرْهَانَ رَبِّهِ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ لِنَصْرِفَ عَنْهُ السُّوءَ وَالْفَحْشَاءَ ۚ إِنَّهُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا الْمُخْلَصِينَ (24) And she has certainly inclined to (seduce) him; and he would have inclined to (seduce) her had he not seen the evidence of his Lord. Thus have We averted from him evil and indecency; indeed, he was one of Our sincere servants. [Al Quran ; 12:24] -> See, the verse is talking about prophet Yusuf and the wife of Yusuf master as he and she: وَلَقَدْ هَمَّتْ بِهِ ۖ وَهَمَّ بِهَا , Wa Laqad Hammat bihi Wa Hamma Biha, i.e. And she has certainly inclined to (seduce) him; and he would have inclined to (seduce) her, the rest of the sentence surely confirms that at least Yusuf was thinking about it had he not seen the evidence of his Lord , i.e. he did not do it. From the above, it is clear that the word in the following forms of verbs: - هممت, Hamamt, i.e. I inclined to (do whatever) - هم , Hamma, i.e. He inclined to (do whatever) - همت, Hammat, i.e. She inclined to (do whatever) Do not really mean in any way that doing whatever was done, rather mere thoughts about it. Therefore, I am afraid to tell you that those hadith worshippers from among the Muslims are 100% correct in this occasion concerning the word in question that you presented. I did not need the Quran to confirm its meaning because the word is common and I knew from the beginning that it means so, but I wanted to leave no room for you to come and accuse me with the typical kafir crap that what the Muslims said sounds fishy. Well, possibly you may think that my translation above is fishy, so you may look at other common translations: Pickthal: 12:24 She verily desired him, and he would have desired her if it had not been that he saw the argument of his Lord. Thus it was, that We might ward off from him evil and lewdness. Lo! he was of Our chosen slaves. Shakir: 12:24 And certainly she made for him, and he would have made for her, were it not that he had seen the manifest evidence of his Lord; thus (it was) that We might turn away from him evil and indecency, surely he was one of Our sincere servants. Yusuf Ali: 12:24 And (with passion) did she desire him, and he would have desired her, but that he saw the evidence of his Lord: thus (did We order) that We might turn away from him (all) evil and shameful deeds: for he was one of Our servants, sincere and purified. Transliteration: 12:24 Walaqad hammat bihi wa hamma biha lawla an raa burhana rabbihi kathalika linasrifa AAanhu alssooa waalfahshaa innahu min AAibadina almukhlaseena |
skynightblaze of FFI wrote: |
The only question is how does one obey Muhammad ? There are 2 possibilities :
1) Obey him in respect of quran i.e Allah 2) Obey muhammad in other aspects. Both the above possibilities are true..Obey muhammad would mean obeying quran because muhammad is considered as reliable source transmitting quran from God. 33:21 clearly says that muhammad has an excellent example in him and mankind should emulate him so it means that possibility 2 is also correct. |
Quote: |
I thought Gabriel was just a messenger who passed the message to Muhammad who then was responsible for whatever happen later.
So how did Gabriel end up having 'enemies'? Shouldn't it be Allah's enemies or Muhammad's enemies? |
Quote: |
i am just a simpleton. why did a god need to make things so complicated?
99.99% of muslims would not understand what the hell is going on with the quran. |
BMZ wrote: |
"Allah wants Muslims to follow Hadith too", says Skynightblaze Bin Shiva Lingam.
Note: Lord Shiva is the Hindu god, who lost his dick when the sages torn it out, after knowing that he had raped their wives. Salaams, mate BMZ |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
After this valuable information about the man made god of skyarseblaze Shive, I am thinking to make a funny movie starring him and his god Shiva using this music (Visions of Shiva): http://free-islam.com/mp3/02 - Visions Of Shiva - How Much Can You Take (Mindmix).mp3 What do you think? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
3) And an announcement from Allah and His messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the polytheists, and so is His messenger. So if you repent, it will be good for you; and if you turn away, then know that you will not cause failure to Allah. And give tidings to those who have disbelieved of a painful torture.
[Al Quran ; 9:3] Was this referring to two different announcements, one from the prophet and the other from Allah? No! Here lies the logic of saying Allah and His messenger, because even though it is the word of Allah[size=150], it is spoken by Muhammad and hence defined as his word too[/size]. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
Kafir pisscohot of FFI said to Ahmed (quoting Ahmed): In the midst of his long rambling, confusing post, this gem stood out:
The quran is defined as Muhammad's word too!!!! You are accurate but not in the way you think, Bahgat. Of course it's Muhammad's word, literally. ----------------- Ahmed says: Read this inmate, from your Bible: ????????????????????????????«يُقِيمُ لكَ الرَّبُّ إِلهُكَ نَبِيّاً مِنْ وَسَطِكَ مِنْ إِخْوَتِكَ مِثْلِي. لهُ تَسْمَعُونَ. حَسَبَ كُلِّ مَا طَلبْتَ مِنَ الرَّبِّ إِلهِكَ فِي حُورِيبَ يَوْمَ الاِجْتِمَاعِ قَائِلاً: لا أَعُودُ أَسْمَعُ صَوْتَ الرَّبِّ إِلهِي وَلا أَرَى هَذِهِ النَّارَ العَظِيمَةَ أَيْضاً لِئَلا أَمُوتَ قَال لِيَ الرَّبُّ: قَدْ أَحْسَنُوا فِي مَا تَكَلمُوا. أُقِيمُ لهُمْ نَبِيّاً مِنْ وَسَطِ إِخْوَتِهِمْ مِثْلكَ وَأَجْعَلُ كَلامِي فِي فَمِهِ فَيُكَلِّمُهُمْ بِكُلِّ مَا أُوصِيهِ بِهِ. وَيَكُونُ أَنَّ الإِنْسَانَ الذِي لا يَسْمَعُ لِكَلامِي الذِي يَتَكَلمُ بِهِ بِاسْمِي أَنَا أُطَالِبُهُ. وَأَمَّا النَّبِيُّ الذِي يُطْغِي فَيَتَكَلمُ بِاسْمِي كَلاماً لمْ أُوصِهِ أَنْ يَتَكَلمَ بِهِ أَوِ الذِي يَتَكَلمُ بِاسْمِ آلِهَةٍ أُخْرَى فَيَمُوتُ ذَلِكَ النَّبِيُّ. وَإِنْ قُلتَ فِي قَلبِكَ: كَيْفَ نَعْرِفُ الكَلامَ الذِي لمْ يَتَكَلمْ بِهِ الرَّبُّ؟ فَمَا تَكَلمَ بِهِ النَّبِيُّ بِاسْمِ الرَّبِّ وَلمْ يَحْدُثْ وَلمْ يَصِرْ فَهُوَ الكَلامُ الذِي لمْ يَتَكَلمْ بِهِ الرَّبُّ بَل بِطُغْيَانٍ تَكَلمَ بِهِ النَّبِيُّ فَلا تَخَفْ مِنْهُ????????????????????????????». 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require [it] of him. 20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. [Deuteronomy ; 18:18-22] Even the corrupt Bible warns us against the man made hadith. # 100 Dismiss yourself, inmate piss |
zanie wrote: |
016.066
YUSUFALI: And verily in cattle (too) will ye find an instructive sign. From what is within their bodies between excretions and blood, We produce, for your drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it. PICKTHAL: And lo! in the cattle there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of that which is in their bellies, from betwixt the refuse and the blood, pure milk palatable to the drinkers. SHAKIR: And most surely there is a lesson for you in the cattle; We give you to drink of what is in their bellies-- from betwixt the feces and the blood-- pure milk, easy and agreeable to swallow for those who drink. |
zanie wrote: |
According to the above verse, one who decides to drink milk will have no trouble in digesting it or appreciating its flavour. However this assumption ignores the fact that lactose intolerance is a common trait found in people with varying rates of prevalence depending on the location/race. |
zamie wrote: |
Why did muhammad assume that milk would be a suitable and digestible drink for all those who drink it? |
zanie wrote: |
Mr baggat, please reread the verse, as you've clearly not understood it. It says one who drinks will enjoy and easily digest it( pure and agreeable to those who drink it. .) |
zanie wrote: |
So, if one with lactoce intolerance were to drink milk, why would he not be included? The man with lactoce intolerance is just one man who so happens to drink it, just like the verse says.. |
zanie wrote: |
Secondly, you say that you love cow milk but have lactose intolerance. If you really had lactose intolerance, then you would know that it is not easily digested and agreeable to swallow...( pure and agreeable to those who drink it. .) I don't care how much you like it, but if one with lactose intolerance keeps drinking it, he will get very sick. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
zanie wrote: |
Thirdly, you are dumb enough to bring up taste. Not everyone likes milk, even people who are lactose tolerant may not like the taste.. My sister is one of those people, she hates the taste..
My bagget, if you are too stupid to think one could not like the taste of milk, perhaps you should look at these websites, or consider a food you don't like the taste of yourself. I can't believe that you would be so stupid to even mention taste, you have no idea how easy you make it for me to refute you. http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/2043416.aspx http://www.healthexpertadvice.org/forum/Other-General-Health-Care/I-hate-the-taste-of-milk-184666.htm You can google more websites yourself. for those who drink. This means that anyone who decides to drink milk, even if they are lactoce intolerant or hate the flavor, should for some reason like the taste and be able to digest it easily + use the goodness of milk for the cells.. However one with lcatoce intolerance and one who hates the flavour of milk could not do this. If you bothered to read the articles i linked in the first post, you would realise that cows were only domesticated about 10,000 years ago, and from this point onwards, milk has emerged as a drink one drinks except when a baby (cow milk) (Milk byproducts found inside stone age pottery from Turkey indicate processed milk was consumed in 6,500 BC, some thousands of years before it is thought that adult humans had evolved the ability to digest raw milk.[11][12]_-wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk hehe, so it's clear that even in the muslims world, man was not given the gift from allah to utilise cow milk, this function had to be developed through evolution. I'm a little confused, muslims don't believe in evolution do they? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||||||||||||
Salam all
The kafir enemy of Islam keep copy/pasting/parroting the following crap: Kafir enceladus of FFI parroted: From this site - http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/quranic.contradictions/index.html 2:131 - Allah asked, and Abraham cheerfully submitted himself to Allah (Abraham was the first Muslim?????????????????????¢??ibn Kathir.) Contradiction: 2:37 says Adam was the first Muslim. Contradiction: 6:14 says Muhammad was the first Muslim. Contradiction: 7:143 says Moses was the first Muslim. Contradiction: 26:51 says some Egyptians were the first Muslims. Quite a choice here as to who was the "first Muslim". Who was it? Why can the alleged-to-exist Allah not make up his mind who it was? Did he forget? - enceladus --------------------- Ahmed says: enceladus, don?????????????????????¢??t you have anything to say on your own? Well, copy/pasting the atheist?????????????????????¢??s crap is going to make you look dumb and ignorant as they are. Let me first clear an important point to you then I will tear your crap above apart: Obviously the confused kafirs/atheists/many Mushrik Muslims do not understand the difference between: مؤمن , Mu?????????????????????¢??min, i.e. Believer (in Allah) And: مسلم , Muslim, i.e. Submitter (to Allah) For someone to submit to Allah, he/she has to believe in Him first, because submission to Allah means accepting what He gives you or causes to happen to you every day in your life (you cannot miss a day), while belief is just a matter of declaring the belief in Allah (a few words, i.e. I believe in Allah). Submission to Allah on the other hand is not a matter of deceleration of being so, it is a matter of proving being so as you go through your affairs every day in your life until your last day. This means the following: Every Muslim (Submitter) must be Mu?????????????????????¢??min (Believer) But not every Mu?????????????????????¢??min (Believer) is Muslim (Submitter) This can be seen clearly through masses of people calling themselves Muslims while indulging in numerous sins with no shame, these so called Muslims cannot be submitters to Allah, because they do not accept His laws then obey, rather, they continue to violate it without any fear or shame, these people may only be believers in Allah but never Muslims. Similarly all so called ex-Muslims, they were never been Muslims; at best, they were believers who turned kafirs. See the following verses explaining the above important point which so many Muslims and kafirs misunderstand: وَإِذْ يَرْفَعُ إِبْرَاهِيمُ الْقَوَاعِدَ مِنَ الْبَيْتِ وَإِسْمَاعِيلُ رَبَّنَا تَقَبَّلْ مِنَّا إِنَّكَ أَنتَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ (127) And when Ibrahim and Ismail raised the foundations of the house (saying): Our Lord! Accept from us; indeed, You are the Hearing, the Knowing. [Al Quran ; 2:127] رَبَّنَا وَاجْعَلْنَا مُسْلِمَيْنِ لَكَ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِنَا أُمَّةً مُّسْلِمَةً لَّكَ وَأَرِنَا مَنَاسِكَنَا وَتُبْ عَلَيْنَآ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ (128) Our Lord! And make us submitters to You and from our descendants a submitting nation to You, and show us our way of worship and accept our repentance. Indeed, You are the Acceptor of repentance, the Merciful. [Al Quran ; 2:128] -> Here we have Ibrahim and his son Ismael already believers in Allah, they were raising the foundation of His house as read in 2:127, but in the next verse 2:128, we read that they asked Allah to make them Muslims: Our Lord! And make us submitters to You and from our descendants a submitting nation to You. This clearly proves without an atom weight of doubt that Islam (submission to Allah) is higher than Iman (belief in Allah) After getting this out of the way, let me look at the alleged Barbie contradiction in Quran
Yes we know, all kafirs on FFI are ignorant dumb bums who only copy crap by other which they do not even understand.
Firstly, you may shove ibn Kathir up Mushrik WittyBoy arse or Bin Lyin?????????????????????¢??s arse. What Ibn Kathir or others say is not verses from Quran, consequently, it cannot be an admissible evidence; now let me bring 2:131 in here and see if it said that Ibrahim was the first Muslim: إِذْ قَالَ لَهُ رَبُّهُ أَسْلِمْ قَالَ أَسْلَمْتُ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ (131) When his Lord said to him: Submit; he said: I submit myself to the Lord of the worlds. [Al Quran ; 2:131] Hmmm, are you that confused, kafir? 2:131 never said that Ibrahim was the first Muslim, all it said that Allah asked Ibrahim to be a Muslim: When his Lord said to him: Submit; and Ibrahim did: he said: I submit myself to the Lord of the worlds. Neither Allah nor Ibrahim said that Ibrahim was the first Muslim. Consequently your confusion is exposed and the evidence will be rendered inadmissible. Current score: Ahmed: 1 enceladus: 0
فَتَلَقَّى آدَمُ مِن رَّبِّهِ كَلِمَاتٍ فَتَابَ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ (37) So Adam received from his Lord words and He accepted his repentance; indeed, He is the Acceptor of repentance, the Merciful. [Al Quran ; 2:37] Hahahaha, how funny, thanks for the laugh, kafir. The verse above nevr talked about any of the following: 1- Never talked about Islam (submission to Allah) 2- Never said that Adam was the first Muslim 3- Never said who was the first Muslim. It only said: So Adam received from his Lord words and He accepted his repentance; indeed, He is the Acceptor of repentance, the Merciful. Current score: Ahmed: 2 enceladus: 0
قُلْ أَغَيْرَ اللّهِ أَتَّخِذُ وَلِيًّا فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَهُوَ يُطْعِمُ وَلاَ يُطْعَمُ قُلْ إِنِّيَ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أَكُونَ أَوَّلَ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَلاَ تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكَينَ (14) Say: Is it other than Allah I should take as a guardian, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, and He feeds (all) and He is not fed? Say: I am commanded to be the first who submit and not to be of the polytheists. [Al Quran ; 6:14] Hmmm, do you have a low IQ or something? The verse above never said who was the first Muslim, it only said that Muhammed was commanded to be the first Muslim, see: Say: I am commanded to be the first who submit and not to be of the polytheists. I.e. Muhammed was only commanded to be the first Muslim, the verse never ever said that Muhammed was the first Muslim. Remember that your stupid barbie argument is all about the Quran saying who is the first Muslim. Likewise the following verse, it only said that Muhammed was commanded to be the first Muslim, it never said that he was the first Muslim: وَأُمِرْتُ لِأَنْ أَكُونَ أَوَّلَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ (12) And I have been commanded to be the first (among you) of the submitters. [Al Quran ; 39:12] Current score: Ahmed: 3 enceladus: 0
وَلَمَّا جَاء مُوسَى لِمِيقَاتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ قَالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنظُرْ إِلَيْكَ قَالَ لَن تَرَانِي وَلَكِنِ انظُرْ إِلَى الْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرَانِي فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّى رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا وَخَرَّ موسَى صَعِقًا فَلَمَّا أَفَاقَ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَأَنَاْ أَوَّلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (143) And when Musa came to Our appointment and his Lord spoke to him, he (Musa) said: My Lord! Show me Yourself that I may look at You. He (Allah) said: You can not see Me, but look at the mountain, if it should remain stable in its place, then you will see Me. And when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He made it crumble and Musa fell down unconscious. And when he awake, he (Musa) said: Glory be to You, I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers. [Al Quran ; 7:143] Now, the verse above never talked about Islam (submission to Allah), rather it said that Musa was the first Mu?????????????????????¢??min, i.e. the first believer in Allah, see: he (Musa) said: Glory be to You, I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers. Musa never said that he was the first of the submitters. Consequently, your evidence cannot be admissible to serve you silly argument, this is because your silly argument is about who was the first Muslim (submitter), not who was the first Mu?????????????????????¢??min (believer) Current score: Ahmed: 4 enceladus: 0
إِنَّا نَطْمَعُ أَنْ يَغْفِرَ لَنَا رَبُّنَا خَطَايَانَا أَنْ كُنَّا أَوَّلَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (51) Indeed, we aspire that our Lord will forgive us our sins, because we were the first of the believers. [Al Quran ; 26:51] Again, the verse above never talked about Islam (submission), rather all t said that the magician claimed to be the first of the believers: we aspire that our Lord will forgive us our sins, because we were the first of the believers. The magicians never said that they were the first of the submitters. Consequently, your evidence cannot be admissible to serve you silly argument, this is because your silly argument is about who was the first Muslim (submitter), not who was the first Mu?????????????????????¢??min (believer) Current score: Ahmed: 5 enceladus: 0
See what I am talking about, your argument is about the first Muslim, not the first Mu?????????????????????¢??min, these are two different Arabic words with different meanings. 2:131 never said that Ibrahim was the first submitter (Muslim), rather it said that Ibrahim just submitted to (Aslam) Allah when he was commanded to do so. 2:37 never said that Adam was the first submitter (Muslim), in fact it never talked about Islam from the first place. 6:14 never said that Muhammed was the first submitter (Muslim), rather it said that Muhammed was commanded to be so. Likewise in 39:12, it never said that Muhammed was the first submitter (Muslim), rather it said that Muhammed was commanded to be so. 7:143 never said that Musa was the first submitter (Muslim), rather it said that Musa was the first of the believers (Mu?????????????????????¢??mins) 26:51 says never said that the magicians were the first submitters (Muslims), rather it said that they were the first of the believers (Mu?????????????????????¢??mins)
What should be alleged to exist is your brain, I doubt that you have any, what you have proven is only your stupidity and ignorance, consequently you have been slam dunked. But before I slam you, let me give you a lifeline: If you think that based on the above, then 7:143 & 26:51 contradict each other because: 7:143 said that Musa was the first of the believers 26:51 said that the magicians were the first of believers Then I say, you cannot really take a group of people and classify them as the first, unless we are talking some sort of sport, but in the matter of belief in Allah, it has to work individually, like an individual was the first of believers within a certain time frame, as in 7:143 which tells us that Musa was the first of believers. With the magicians though they were also required to believe in the message of Musa along the fact of believing that Musa is a messenger of Allah, something that Musa did not need to believe in, therefore the context of the magicians declaration can be easily taken as they were the first from the people of Firon to believe in Musa as a messenger and believe in Allah as the One and only God. You have been slammed, welcome to my slam dunk show: # 102 |
Quote: |
وَلَمَّا جَاء مُوسَى لِمِيقَاتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ قَالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنظُرْ إِلَيْكَ قَالَ لَن تَرَانِي وَلَكِنِ انظُرْ إِلَى الْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرَانِي فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّى رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا وَخَرَّ موسَى صَعِقًا فَلَمَّا أَفَاقَ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَأَنَاْ أَوَّلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (143)
And when Musa came to Our appointment and his Lord spoke to him, he (Musa) said: My Lord! Show me Yourself that I may look at You. He (Allah) said: You can not see Me, but look at the mountain, if it should remain stable in its place, then you will see Me. And when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He made it crumble and Musa fell down unconscious. And when he awake, he (Musa) said: Glory be to You, I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Now, the verse above never talked about Islam (submission to Allah), rather it said that Musa was the first Mu?????????????????????¢??min, i.e. the first believer in Allah, see: he (Musa) said: Glory be to You, I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers. Musa never said that he was the first of the submitters. Consequently, your evidence cannot be admissible to serve you silly argument, this is because your silly argument is about who was the first Muslim (submitter), not who was the first Mu?????????????????????¢??min (believer)
|
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote: |
Fight the unbelievers until all religion is for Allah?? |
The Cat wrote: |
Let us see how radiant is the knowledge of our tribal hatred-team concerning the Koran?
1) What is the Koranic DEEN, usually (but quite imperfectly) translated 'religion'? 2) What is the Koranic 'Islam'? What does it mean within the Koranic context? Is it written that often? 3) Who are the Koranic 'Muslims'? Are they called to follow hadiths or the previous scriptures? 4) What is the Koranic 'Shariah'? For it is mentioned 4 times, I'm sure you knew that. Come on, after all you've got to know what you're opposed to? |
AhmedBahgat begin_of_the_skype_highlighting???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? end_of_the_skype_highlighting wrote: | ||||
Dear The Cat What sort of reply was that? Don?????????????????????¢??t you know that you are dealing with the dumbest kafir on FFI? Yep the dumbest, his name is Ugly Bin Lyin, look at him, he does not only look like a dumb and filthy child molester, he is indeed a filthy child molester (according to his own admission on FFI) and the dumbest. Look how dumb he is in presenting his faggy argument, haha Ugly Bin Lyin brought to you a sentence from the whole Quran. Not even the whole verse, the ugly molester. How deceitful, yet that does not qualify him to be a conman, I reckon he might qualify to be a conwoman who will eventually turn to prostitution because she was too dumb to con anyone. Let me show how to slam dunk that filthy illogical cheating and deluded freak of a child molester: I searched the Quran and found that the sentence presented by the conwoman Ugly: Fight the unbelievers until all religion is for Allah. to appear in two verses: 2:193 & 8:39 We should see clearly and irrefutably that in both locations the command to fight the unbelievers was fighting the aggressors, not initiating the fight, and in both locations the fight was all about enforcing Allah possession of His house in Mecca. Let?????????????????????¢??s get the slam dunk going: 1- For 2:193, I will walk you through from verse 2:190 to verse 2:194 Clear commands to fight those who start fighting us, and to never start the fight: وَقَاتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يُحِبِّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ (190) And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight you; and be not transgressors, indeed, Allah does not love the transgressors. [Al Quran ; 2:190] -> See: fight in the way of Allah with those who fight you; and be not transgressors The war between Muslims and Kafirs because of the Kabba clearly started by the kafirs, i.e. the aggressors were the kafirs who started the war and expelled the Muslims from their land, and all because of the House in which they don?????????????????????¢??t even believe that it belongs to Allah alone and His worshippers: وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ كَذَلِكَ جَزَاء الْكَافِرِينَ (191) And kill them wherever you confront them, and expel them from wherever they expelled you; and discord (between yourself) is worse than murder. And do not fight them at the sacred mosque until they fight you therein; and if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the reward of the unbelievers. [Al Quran ; 2:191] -> See: expel them from wherever they expelled you. And do not fight them at the sacred mosque until they fight you therein; and if they fight you, then kill them. And if the kafirs stop their aggression on the Muslims and the House of Allah, then Allah may forgive them: فَإِنِ انتَهَوْاْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (192) But if they stop (fighting you), then indeed, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [Al Quran ; 2:192] -> See: But if they stop (fighting you), then indeed, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Then we come to the verse in question, which is confirming that previous verse, i.e. if the unjust and perpetrating kafirs stop causing discord to or fighting us because of our ownership of the House of Allah and how we worship Him around it (our religion), then we should not fight them any more: وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلّهِ فَإِنِ انتَهَواْ فَلاَ عُدْوَانَ إِلاَّ عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ (193) And fight them until there is no discord and the religion is for Allah, but if they stop, then there should be no transgression except against the unjust. [Al Quran ; 2:193] -> See: fight them until there is no discord and the religion is for Allah. And but if they stop, then there should be no transgression except against the unjust. The next verse also confirm that the Muslims were not who initiated the fight, rather the unjust kafirs: الشَّهْرُ الْحَرَامُ بِالشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ وَالْحُرُمَاتُ قِصَاصٌ فَمَنِ اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُواْ عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ (194) The sacred month for the sacred month, and for all violations are legal retribution; so whoever inflicts damage to you, then inflict damage to him in the same way he has inflicted damage to you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear. [Al Quran ; 2:194] -> See: so whoever inflicts damage to you, then inflict damage to him in the same way he has inflicted damage to you. From the above we can irrefutable conclude the following: A- The fight is because of the House of Allah and its ownership and how the rituals of worshipping Allah should be performed around it, i.e. the religion of Islam. B- The kafirs were the ones who started hostility by either causing discord between the Muslims or by starting to fight them. C- The Muslims are commanded to only fight those who fight or cause discord between them on their land. D- The Muslims are commanded to cease fighting if the unjust kafirs ceased fighting because of the religion of Allah (the religion they don?????????????????????¢??t believe in it from the first place) E- The damage the Muslims should do to the unjust kafirs must be equal to the damage the unjust kafirs did to the Muslims. 2- For 8:39, it is talking about the same as the above verses, in fact it even gave us some details concerning how the unjust kafirs started to cause discord and fight the Muslims to expel them from their place of worship (the House of Allah). I will walk you through from verse 8:30 to verse 8:40 Here is the unjust kafirs planning to restrain or kill or expel Muhammed: وَإِذْ يَمْكُرُ بِكَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ لِيُثْبِتُوكَ أَوْ يَقْتُلُوكَ أَوْ يُخْرِجُوكَ وَيَمْكُرُونَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللّهُ وَاللّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ (30) And when those who have disbelieved planned against you to restrain you or kill you or expel you; and they plan and Allah plans, and Allah is the best of planners. [Al Quran ; 8:30] -> See: And when those who have disbelieved planned against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you; And that was only because he delivered the message of their Lord to them: وَإِذَا تُتْلَى عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتُنَا قَالُواْ قَدْ سَمِعْنَا لَوْ نَشَاء لَقُلْنَا مِثْلَ هَذَا إِنْ هَذَا إِلاَّ أَسَاطِيرُ الأوَّلِينَ (31) And when Our signs are recited to them, they say: We have heard, if we will, we would have said like this; indeed, this is only legends of the former. [Al Quran ; 8:31] -> See: when Our signs are recited to them, they say: We have heard, if we will, we would have said like this; indeed, this is only legends of the former. They even showed arrogance and hostility to the delivered message: وَإِذْ قَالُواْ اللَّهُمَّ إِن كَانَ هَذَا هُوَ الْحَقَّ مِنْ عِندِكَ فَأَمْطِرْ عَلَيْنَا حِجَارَةً مِّنَ السَّمَاء أَوِ ائْتِنَا بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ (32) And when they said: O Allah! If this is the truth from You, then rain upon us stones from the sky or bring us a painful torture. [Al Quran ; 8:32] -> See: And when they said: O Allah! If this is the truth from You, then rain upon us stones from the sky or bring us a painful torture. But Allah will not punish them while the messenger is still delivering the message and while some of them recognise their mistakes and seek forgiveness: وَمَا كَانَ اللّهُ لِيُعَذِّبَهُمْ وَأَنتَ فِيهِمْ وَمَا كَانَ اللّهُ مُعَذِّبَهُمْ وَهُمْ يَسْتَغْفِرُونَ (33) But Allah would not castigate them while you are among them, and Allah will not castigate them while they seek forgiveness. [Al Quran ; 8:33] -> See: Allah would not castigate them while you are among them, and Allah will not castigate them while they seek forgiveness. This verse clearly explains that all those unjust kafirs doing was to hinder others from the House of Allah by considering themselves its guardians while the fact of the matter they are not its guardians: وَمَا لَهُمْ أَلاَّ يُعَذِّبَهُمُ اللّهُ وَهُمْ يَصُدُّونَ عَنِ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ وَمَا كَانُواْ أَوْلِيَاءهُ إِنْ أَوْلِيَآؤُهُ إِلاَّ الْمُتَّقُونَ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ (34) And why should Allah not castigate them while they hinder from the sacred mosque. And they are not its guardians; indeed, its guardians are only the pious but most of them do not know. [Al Quran ; 8:34] -> See: while they hinder from the sacred mosque. And they are not its guardians; indeed, its guardians are only the pious but most of them do not know. It was all about the House of Allah, it is never about fighting the kafirs on their land, see this discord the unjust kafirs were trying to do to the sincere worshippers of Allah at His house: وَمَا كَانَ صَلاَتُهُمْ عِندَ الْبَيْتِ إِلاَّ مُكَاء وَتَصْدِيَةً فَذُوقُواْ الْعَذَابَ بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَكْفُرُونَ (35) And their prayer at the house was not except whistling and hindering. So taste the torture because of that in which you used to disbelieve. [Al Quran ; 8:35] -> See: their prayer at the house was not except whistling and hindering. And they even tried to spend their wealth to hinder the sincere worshippers of Allah from worshipping Him at His house: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ يُنفِقُونَ أَمْوَالَهُمْ لِيَصُدُّواْ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَسَيُنفِقُونَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ حَسْرَةً ثُمَّ يُغْلَبُونَ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ إِلَى جَهَنَّمَ يُحْشَرُونَ (36) Indeed, those who have disbelieved spend their wealth to hinder from the way of Allah. So they will spend it, then it shall be upon them regret; moreover, they will be defeated. And those who have disbelieved will be, unto hell, gathered. [Al Quran ; 8:36] -> See: those who have disbelieved spend their wealth to hinder from the way of Allah. The whole affair at the House of Allah was to differentiate between the believers and the unbelievers: لِيَمِيزَ اللّهُ الْخَبِيثَ مِنَ الطَّيِّبِ وَيَجْعَلَ الْخَبِيثَ بَعْضَهُ عَلَىَ بَعْضٍ فَيَرْكُمَهُ جَمِيعاً فَيَجْعَلَهُ فِي جَهَنَّمَ أُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُونَ (37) So that Allah may distinguish the wicked from the good and place the wicked some of them upon others, and pile it together and put it into hell. Those are the ones who are losers. [Al Quran ; 8:37] -> See: So that Allah may distinguish the wicked from the good And the same is said in here, if the unjust kafirs stop their plans to hinder others from the house of Allah, then Allah may forgive them: قُل لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ إِن يَنتَهُواْ يُغَفَرْ لَهُم مَّا قَدْ سَلَفَ وَإِنْ يَعُودُواْ فَقَدْ مَضَتْ سُنَّةُ الأَوَّلِينِ (3 Say to those who have disbelieved that if they cease (hostility), what has passed will be forgiven for them; but if they return, then the precedent of the former (people) has already passed. [Al Quran ; 8:38] -> See: Say to those who have disbelieved that if they cease (hostility), what has passed will be forgiven for them; But if they return to be hostile again: but if they return, then the precedent of the former (people) has already passed. Then what will happen to then will be the same as what happened to the former people who rejected the message of their messengers then hindered others from believing in it Here comes the verse in question, in which we read the same thing we read in sura 2, we should fight the unjust kafirs who consider themselves the guardians of the house of Allah so they hinder others from worshipping Allah in it: وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلّه فَإِنِ انتَهَوْاْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ (39) And fight them until there is no discord and (until) all the religion belongs to Allah. But if they cease (hostility), then indeed, Allah is of what they do Seeing. [Al Quran ; 8:39] -> See, they want to manipulate the religion of Allah, the religion that has pilgrimage to the House of Allah to worship Him as main part of it, yet the kafirs want to hinder others from embracing this religion by hindering them from the house of Allah, i.e. the religion of Allah would have belonged to them, not to Allah, that is why we shoud fight them until the religion of Allah (the ouse of Allah and its rituals) only belongs to Him: fight them until there is no discord and (until) all the religion belongs to Allah. But if they cease (hostility), then indeed, Allah is of what they do Seeing. And again, if the unjust kafirs cease hostility, then it would only because Allah is our Guardian, and He will help His worshippers when they defend against the unjust kafirs because of the religion: وَإِن تَوَلَّوْاْ فَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ مَوْلاَكُمْ نِعْمَ الْمَوْلَى وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ (40) And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Guardian. Excellent is the Guardian and excellent is the Helper. [Al Quran ; 8:40] -> See: And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Guardian. Excellent is the Guardian and excellent is the Helper. And again, from the above verses, we can irrefutably conclude: A- The fight is because of the House of Allah and its ownership and how the rituals of worshipping Allah should be performed around it, i.e. the religion of Islam. B- The unjust kafirs did their best and spend their wealth in planning to restrain or kill or expel the messenger of Allah C- The messenger of Allah only delivered the message to them, he never started any hostility, it was the kafirs who always did especially seeing Muhammed trying to reclaim back the house of Allah as part of his mission. D- The Muslims are commanded to cease fighting if the unjust kafirs ceased fighting because of the religion of Allah (the religion they don?????????????????????¢??t believe in it from the first place) Here you have it The Cat, you should tell that Ugly, filthy dumb piece of shifty conwoman Bin lyin, that next time he presents a Quran argument, he should not bring a word or a sentence that suits his shifty arse, it is not going to work and will only proves his shiftiness and stupidity. Tell that punk that the fight the Quran is talking about is about an Islamic property on an Islamic land since the time of Ibrahim. And don?????????????????????¢??t forget to tell that ugly and dumb sharmoot of a filthy piece of stinky faeces that he has been mother slammed: |
skynightblaze wrote: |
To refute Bahgat who claims that 4:59 refers to obeying men of authority like police ,president etc and not men of authority in matter of religion here is the verse .. |
skynightblaze wrote: |
[004:083] When there comes to them some matter touching (Public) safety or fear, they divulge it. If they had only referred it to the Apostle, or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have Tested it from them (direct). Were it not for the Grace and Mercy of God unto you, all but a few of you would have fallen into the clutches of Satan. |
skynightblaze wrote: |
Now this verse is clearly telling us how men of authority are to obeyed. It clearly was some religious matter and hence the verse is saying that one should have contacted muhammad or the men of authority. So there is another verse asking muslims to refer to hadiths. |
skynightblaze wrote: |
@Bahgat
Men of authority during muhammads time were Abu Bakhr, Umar, Ali and Uthman. SO bahgat please shove that slam dunk up your bum. Btw Why do you call it a slam dunk? Keep the naming convention meaningful . You can say post no 105 or SLANG DUNG no 105 . |
BMZ wrote: |
Every bloody fool at FFI talks through translations of Qur'aan in English, Ahmed.
You are dealing with Ignorant Fools. Can you provide a link to the Slam Dunks at FFI, instead of giving the link to the idiots, who have been dismissed for life? The ex-Hindu kid is not really an ex. He is too embarrassed to say that he is a Hindu, a worshipper of the Pedophile Lord Brahma, who raped his own little daughter. Salaams, mate BMZ |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
The link of who has been dismissed for life is my signature on FFI Cheers |
Brendalee wrote: |
Ahmed, my friend, you have not slam dunked me. |
Brendalee wrote: |
NONE of your verses indicate that Mohammad knew anything about angels coming to Badr in advance of 8:43. The verse of 8:43 simply says that Allah showed Mohammad FEW enemy, when there were actually MANY. |
Brendalee wrote: |
Your verses talk about what Allah supposedly "did" (after some unspecified fact) or what Allah "may"/might do in future, and not one word about Mohammad having PRIOR knowledge of angels coming to Badr in his dream as per 8:43. |
Brendalee wrote: |
Incidentally,If your cited verses all apply to Badr, it clearly indicates that Allah cannot count. Did he send 1000 angels, or 3000 angels or 5000 angels? Were each and every one of these verses written SPECIFICALLY about Badr? Where do they say this? If they do not, then why do you cite them? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||||
Dear Brenda I did, my friend, you have irrefutably been slammed, but I admit that I did a mistake when I did not post the slam dunk logo so you realize you have been irrefutably slammed, but not to worry, I will do in this comment and also add it to my slam dunk show. Firstly I expect you to be far more intelligent than most dumb kafirs of FFI, so please don?????????????????????¢??t prove me wrong. It seems you have not read the verses, well another mistake that I did, that I did not walk you through word for word, but not to worry again, will do in this comment. You second reply to me proved beyond doubt that you either did not read the verses or you lack a bit of logic, so let me show you where you went wrong:
Well, the enemy numbers was compared with the Muslims numbers, regardless how much the kafirs numbers was, the Muslim numbers including the angels was far more, i.e. the kafirs number seen in the dream were indeed fewer than the Muslim numbers, i.e. 8:43 is 100% correct. You just need to stop your wishful thinking fallacies.
And that is where you got it wrong, yes Allah was talking about the past, i.e. the time of that verse was after the battle of Badr, as understood from this verse: وَلَقَدْ نَصَرَكُمُ اللّهُ بِبَدْرٍ وَأَنتُمْ أَذِلَّةٌ فَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ (123) And Allah has certainly made you victorious at Badr while you were weak. So fear Allah; (and) perhaps you give thanks. [Al Quran ; 3:123] However, Allah continued to talk about the past in the next verse, telling Muhammed?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? WHEN HE SAID TO THE PEOPLE DURING THAT TIME, see: إِذْ تَقُولُ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَلَن يَكْفِيكُمْ أَن يُمِدَّكُمْ رَبُّكُم بِثَلاَثَةِ آلاَفٍ مِّنَ الْمَلآئِكَةِ مُنزَلِينَ (124) When you said to the believers: Is it not sufficient for you that your Lord may provide you with three thousand angels sent down? [Al Quran ; 3:124] -> See darling : When you said to the believers , and what did Muhammed say to the believers at the time of Badr? Is it not sufficient for you that your Lord may provide you with three thousand angels sent down? I.e. Muhammed was trying to convince the believers to fight the kafirs despite that the kafirs outnumber them in humans and weapons. What Muhammed did not know was how many angels will be fighting with them, so he used the number 3000 angels for argument sake, that was another slam that been slammed years ago. I.e. it was Muhammed who used the number 3000, not Allah Muhammed not knowing how many angels will be fighting with them so what he was trying to do to simply tell the people that Allah can send thousands of angels to fight with you, this was obvious when Muahmmed used the number 5000 angels as another example for argument sake, see: بَلَى إِن تَصْبِرُواْ وَتَتَّقُواْ وَيَأْتُوكُم مِّن فَوْرِهِمْ هَذَا يُمْدِدْكُمْ رَبُّكُم بِخَمْسَةِ آلافٍ مِّنَ الْمَلآئِكَةِ مُسَوِّمِينَ (125) Yes, if you be patient and fear (Allah), and they (the enemy) rush to you in rage, your Lord may provide you with five thousand angels with marks. [Al Quran ; 3:125] -> See what Muhammed said again to the believers to encourage them to fight and beat their fear: Yes, if you be patient and fear (Allah), and they (the enemy) rush to you in rage, your Lord may provide you with five thousand angels with marks. Again, it was Muhammed using the number 5000 angels for argument sake, and not Allah That clearly means that Muhammed had prior knowledge that the angels will be fighting with them, he only did not know how many of them, but he knew that Allah can deploy thousands of them to help the believers. This was the good news that Muhammed received in his dream, seeing the kafirs outnumbered by the Muslims from among the humans and angels. This good news (the dream Muhammed saw) is mentioned in this verse, see: وَمَا جَعَلَهُ اللّهُ إِلاَّ بُشْرَى لَكُمْ وَلِتَطْمَئِنَّ قُلُوبُكُم بِهِ وَمَا النَّصْرُ إِلاَّ مِنْ عِندِ اللّهِ الْعَزِيزِ الْحَكِيمِ (126) And Allah did not make it except as good tidings for you, and to assure your hearts thereby. And victory is only from Allah, the Mighty, the Wise. [Al Quran ; 3:126] -> See: And Allah did not make it except as good tidings for you, and to assure your hearts thereby. And victory is only from Allah, Therefore, you are 100% wrong, and at best you have been infected with the wishful thinking virus from many infected dumb kafirs of FFI. Here is the new slam, darling: # 107
Well, the word Badr is mentioned there, miss Blinda وَلَقَدْ نَصَرَكُمُ اللّهُ بِبَدْرٍ وَأَنتُمْ أَذِلَّةٌ فَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ (123) And Allah has certainly made you victorious at Badr while you were weak. So fear Allah; (and) perhaps you give thanks. [Al Quran ; 3:123] And as I said for the other repeated Tom and Jerry crap about the number of angels who fought with the Muslims in Badr. Allah was clear in telling us the He sent 1000 angels to help the Muslims in Badr, the other numbers 3000 and 5000 were only used by MUHAMMED in his speech to the people FOR ARGUMENT SAKE ONLY. It was not Allah who said that He may send 3000 or 5000 angels. Salam, darling |
MesMorial wrote: |
It was applicable to Muhammad (SAW) at the time because he was the Messenger. That was his mission and he succeeded! You talk about SNB having a good point but the truth is he thought Muhammad (SAW) was meant to sanctify the verses. Now this shows how much the arguments are thought about.
Now google "sanctify and instruct" along with other key words like Muhammad, Quran, and bring me the verse. Do that or zip it :roll: |
skynightblaze wrote: |
I just want to clarify one thing . Whether muhammad wanted to sanctify the verses or people is of not great significance here.Lets assume that Muhammad was sent to sanctify the people and not the verses but still it doesnt answer the question at hand. |
skynightblaze wrote: |
Also whether you translate the arabic as he was sent to TEACH instead of INSTRUCT still doesnt solve the problem. |
skynightblaze wrote: |
The problem is simple i.e How in the world can muhammad TEACH(Instead of INSTRUCT) you modern muslims something about the quran when he is dead? |
Ignorant skynightblaze of FFI should have asked wrote: |
The problem is simple i.e How in the world can muhammad EXPLAINS you modern muslims something about the quran when he is dead? |
skynightblaze wrote: |
The answer lies in his sayings i,e hadiths .The point is this verse is even applicable today and hence as per this verse Muhammad is supposed to teach even you guys .Actually I wasnt supposed to participate. I made this post so that you and Brendalee can take over from here. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||||||||
Hello kid Did you have a good runaway escape? Can I ask ya, which desert you went for to burry your pinhead for a few days? How about I slam you then send you back to the same desert to burry your pinhead for another few days. Hadith woeshipper. The word is Yuzakikom, i.e. to purify you, i.e. purify the believers, not the verses, you confused. If it was about the verses, it has to be, Yuzakiha, i.e. to purify them (the verses), i.e. to refer to the plural feminine ?????????????????????¢??ayat (verses)?????????????????????¢??????????????????????, we must have a single feminine damir ?????????????????????¢??HA?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? at the end of the verb.
The word ?????????????????????¢??Yubain?????????????????????¢?? is neither ?????????????????????¢??Teach?????????????????????¢?? nor ?????????????????????¢??Instruct?????????????????????¢??, ignorant kid ?????????????????????¢??Yubain?????????????????????¢?? means ?????????????????????¢??to explain?????????????????????¢?? See how so far you are dumber than dumb. Let me prove now that you are the dumbest kafir of FFI after Ugly Bin Fagin.
Let me now rephrase your stupid question replacing your wishful thining word ?????????????????????¢??TEACH?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? with the right word:
Now, a typical wishful thinking person always does this: Asks a dumb question then answers it by himself with even a dumber wishful thinking answer. So let?????????????????????¢??s see how you answered the question for yourself:
Actually, if Brenda dares to take your illogical crap above which was only based on the false and ignorant notion that the Arabic word ?????????????????????¢??Yubain?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? i.e. ?????????????????????¢??TO EXPLAIN?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? means ?????????????????????¢??TO TEACH?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? or ?????????????????????¢??TO INSTRUCT?????????????????????¢??????????????????????, she would make a fool of herself as you just did. See punk, Muhammed did not explain the whole Quran in your man made rubbish books of hadith, in fact only 50 verses from sura 2 (286 verses) were talked about in your man made books of rubbish hadith, as well, complete surahs were never mentioned in your man made rubbish books of hadith. The fact of the matter that the man made rubbish books of crap hadith hardly talked about 20% of the whole Quran verses remains intact. Yet most of these explanations about 20% of the Quran found in these man made rubbish books are illogical and contradicting with different versions of the hearsays and/or other Quran verses that the man made rubbish books of hadith never talked about. What the above should mean? It can only mean that it was not the responsibility of Muhammed to EXPLAIN the Quran, otherwise he should have explained it all to the people back then, in fact the Quran tells us exactly what Muhammed should have explained from the Quran to the people. See: وَمَا أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ إِلَّا لِتُبَيِّنَ لَهُمُ الَّذِي اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ ۙ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ (64) And We have not sent down to you the book except that you may explain to them that about which they disagreed and as guidance and mercy for a people who believe. [Al Quran ; 16:64] -> Here is Allah telling us the Muhammed should have only explained the verses about which some Muslim disagreed, see: We have not sent down to you the book except that you may explain to them that about which they disagreed. This is the conclusive explanation to why Muhammed hardly explained 20% of the Quran in the past. Don?????????????????????¢??t also forget that the people of the past were not educated as the modern people are. In fact most people around Muhammed (including Muhammed himself) were illiterates, i.e. they did not know how to read or write. Another important and logical point is this, what the people disagreed upon 1400 years ago do not need to be the same upon which the believers disagree today concerning Quran. And how about that, What if the people disagree on today is not mentioned in the man made rubbish books of hadith, i.e from the 80% of Quran that these man made rubbish books never talked about. The answer is simple. It is only Allah who is in charge of explaining the whole Quran. This fact was stated so many times in Quran, let see: أُحِلَّ لَكُمْ لَيْلَةَ الصِّيَامِ الرَّفَثُ إِلَى نِسَآئِكُمْ هُنَّ لِبَاسٌ لَّكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ لِبَاسٌ لَّهُنَّ عَلِمَ اللّهُ أَنَّكُمْ كُنتُمْ تَخْتانُونَ أَنفُسَكُمْ فَتَابَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَعَفَا عَنكُمْ فَالآنَ بَاشِرُوهُنَّ وَابْتَغُواْ مَا كَتَبَ اللّهُ لَكُمْ وَكُلُواْ وَاشْرَبُواْ حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَكُمُ الْخَيْطُ الأَبْيَضُ مِنَ الْخَيْطِ الأَسْوَدِ مِنَ الْفَجْرِ ثُمَّ أَتِمُّواْ الصِّيَامَ إِلَى الَّليْلِ وَلاَ تُبَاشِرُوهُنَّ وَأَنتُمْ عَاكِفُونَ فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ تِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللّهِ فَلاَ تَقْرَبُوهَا كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ آيَاتِهِ لِلنَّاسِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ (187) It is made lawful for you on the night of fasting to approach your women; they are apparel for you and you are apparel for them; Allah knew that you used to act unjustly to yourselves, so He has accepted your repentance and pardoned you. So now, approach them and seek what Allah has ordained for you, and eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinguishable to you from the black thread at dawn; then complete the fast until the night. And do not approach them while you are seeking devotion in the mosques; these are the limits of Allah, so do not go near (violating) them. Thus does Allah explain His signs to the people that they may fear. [Al Quran ; 2:187] -> See: كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ آيَاتِهِ لِلنَّاسِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ , i.e. Thus does Allah explain His signs to the people that they may fear. يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَآ أَكْبَرُ مِن نَّفْعِهِمَا وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا يُنفِقُونَ قُلِ الْعَفْوَ كَذَلِكَ يُبيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمُ الآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَفَكَّرُونَ (219) They ask you about wine and gambling. Say: In them is great sin and benefits for the people, and its sin is greater than its benefit. And they ask you, what they should spend. Say: Pardoning (others). Thus does Allah explain to you the signs that perhaps you ponder - [Al Quran ; 2:219] -> See: كَذَلِكَ يُبيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمُ الآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَفَكَّرُونَ , i.e. Thus does Allah explain to you the signs that perhaps you ponder وَلِلْمُطَلَّقَاتِ مَتَاعٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ حَقًّا عَلَى الْمُتَّقِينَ (241) And for the divorced women, a lawful provision, a duty upon the pious. [Al Quran ; 2:241] كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ (242) Thus does Allah explain to you His signs that perhaps you understand. [Al Quran ; 2:242] -> See: كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ , i.e. Thus does Allah explain to you His signs that perhaps you understand. أَيَوَدُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أَن تَكُونَ لَهُ جَنَّةٌ مِّن نَّخِيلٍ وَأَعْنَابٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الأَنْهَارُ لَهُ فِيهَا مِن كُلِّ الثَّمَرَاتِ وَأَصَابَهُ الْكِبَرُ وَلَهُ ذُرِّيَّةٌ ضُعَفَاء فَأَصَابَهَا إِعْصَارٌ فِيهِ نَارٌ فَاحْتَرَقَتْ كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمُ الآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَفَكَّرُونَ (266) Would one of you like to have a garden of palm trees and vines beneath which rivers flow, for him therein are all kinds of plants produce; and ageing has struck him while he has weak offspring, then it (the garden) was hit by a whirlwind with fire so it burnt? Thus does Allah explain to you the signs that perhaps you ponder. [Al Quran ; 2:266] -> See: كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمُ الآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَفَكَّرُونَ , i.e. Thus does Allah explain to you the signs that perhaps you ponder. وَاعْتَصِمُواْ بِحَبْلِ اللّهِ جَمِيعًا وَلاَ تَفَرَّقُواْ وَاذْكُرُواْ نِعْمَةَ اللّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ كُنتُمْ أَعْدَاء فَأَلَّفَ بَيْنَ قُلُوبِكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُم بِنِعْمَتِهِ إِخْوَانًا وَكُنتُمْ عَلَىَ شَفَا حُفْرَةٍ مِّنَ النَّارِ فَأَنقَذَكُم مِّنْهَا كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ (103) And be united by the rope of Allah all together and be not divided. And remember the favour of Allah upon you when you were enemies, so He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favour, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah explain to you His signs that you may be guided. [Al Quran ; 3:103] -> See: كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ , i.e. Thus does Allah explain to you His signs that you may be guided. Did the Muslim listen to Allah self explanatory verse above that the Muslims should: be united by the rope of Allah all together and be not divided. Of course not, and it is because these evil man made rubbish books of hadith which divided and confused them into numerous sects. لاَ يُؤَاخِذُكُمُ اللّهُ بِاللَّغْوِ فِي أَيْمَانِكُمْ وَلَكِن يُؤَاخِذُكُم بِمَا عَقَّدتُّمُ الأَيْمَانَ فَكَفَّارَتُهُ إِطْعَامُ عَشَرَةِ مَسَاكِينَ مِنْ أَوْسَطِ مَا تُطْعِمُونَ أَهْلِيكُمْ أَوْ كِسْوَتُهُمْ أَوْ تَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ فَمَن لَّمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ ثَلاَثَةِ أَيَّامٍ ذَلِكَ كَفَّارَةُ أَيْمَانِكُمْ إِذَا حَلَفْتُمْ وَاحْفَظُواْ أَيْمَانَكُمْ كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ (89) Allah will not hold you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He will hold you to account for what you have intended of oaths. So its expiation is feeding ten needy from the average of what you feed your families, or their clothing, or freeing of a slave. But whoever cannot find (a slave) then fasting for three days; that is an expiation of your oaths when you swear. And keep your oaths. Thus does Allah explain to you His signs that you may give thanks. [Al Quran ; 5:89] -> See: كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ , i.e. Thus does Allah explain to you His signs that you may give thanks. وَيُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ (1 And Allah explains to you the signs. And Allah is Knowing, Wise. [Al Quran ; 24:18] -> See: وَيُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ , i.e. And Allah explains to you the signs. And Allah is Knowing, Wise. يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لِيَسْتَأْذِنْكُمُ الَّذِينَ مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ وَالَّذِينَ لَمْ يَبْلُغُوا الْحُلُمَ مِنْكُمْ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ ۚ مِنْ قَبْلِ صَلَاةِ الْفَجْرِ وَحِينَ تَضَعُونَ ثِيَابَكُمْ مِنَ الظَّهِيرَةِ وَمِنْ بَعْدِ صَلَاةِ الْعِشَاءِ ۚ ثَلَاثُ عَوْرَاتٍ لَكُمْ ۚ لَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَلَا عَلَيْهِمْ جُنَاحٌ بَعْدَهُنَّ ۚ طَوَّافُونَ عَلَيْكُمْ بَعْضُكُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ (5 O you who have believed! Let those whom your oaths possess and those of you who have not reached puberty ask your permission three times, before the dawn prayer (Fajr), and when you put aside your clothing at noon, and after the night prayer (Isha); (these are) three times of privacy for you. And there is no blame upon you nor upon them beyond these (three times), (when) some of you move around others. Thus does Allah explain to you the signs; and Allah is Knowing, Wise. [Al Quran ; 24:58] -> See: كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ , i.e. Thus does Allah explain to you the signs; and Allah is Knowing, Wise. لَيْسَ عَلَى الْأَعْمَىٰ حَرَجٌ وَلَا عَلَى الْأَعْرَجِ حَرَجٌ وَلَا عَلَى الْمَرِيضِ حَرَجٌ وَلَا عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَنْ تَأْكُلُوا مِنْ بُيُوتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ آبَائِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ إِخْوَانِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أَخَوَاتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أَعْمَامِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ عَمَّاتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أَخْوَالِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ خَالَاتِكُمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكْتُمْ مَفَاتِحَهُ أَوْ صَدِيقِكُمْ ۚ لَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ تَأْكُلُوا جَمِيعًا أَوْ أَشْتَاتًا ۚ فَإِذَا دَخَلْتُمْ بُيُوتًا فَسَلِّمُوا عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِكُمْ تَحِيَّةً مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ مُبَارَكَةً طَيِّبَةً ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ (61) There is no blame upon the blind, nor is there blame upon the lame, nor is there blame upon the sick, nor upon yourselves if you eat from your houses or the houses of your fathers or the houses of your mothers or the houses of your brothers or the houses of your sisters or the houses of the brothers of your fathers or the houses of the sisters of your fathers or the houses of your brothers of your mothers or the houses of the sisters of your mothers or what you possess its keys or (from the houses of) your friend. There is no blame upon you that you eat together or separately. And when you enter houses, then greet yourselves with a greeting from Allah, blessed and good. Thus does Allah explain to you the signs that perhaps you will understand. [Al Quran ; 24:61] -> See: كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ , i.e. Thus does Allah explain to you the signs that perhaps you will understand. Allah gave us so numerous self explanatory verses to guide us, make us grateful, make us give thoughts and make us remembers His signs. All these verses delivers great teaching and guidance to the people who in contrary abandoned the Quran favouring the rubbish man made statnic books of hadith. All the above is concluded and briefed in very short and self explanatory verses, see: إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا جَمْعَهُ وَقُرْآنَهُ (17) Indeed, upon Us is its collection and its reading. [Al Quran ; 75:17] فَإِذَا قَرَأْنَاهُ فَاتَّبِعْ قُرْآنَهُ (1 So when We read it, follow its reading. [Al Quran ; 75:18] ثُمَّ إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا بَيَانَهُ (19) Moreover, upon Us is its explanation. [Al Quran ; 75:19] -> See again, ignorant Mushriks and Kafirs: Moreover, upon Us is its explanation. Here you have it, ignorant hadith worshipping kafir kid, you have been slammed, now all you need to do is go to the same desert and burry your hadith worshiping pinhead in the same dune for a few days, but don?????????????????????¢??t forget to tell us the same excuse that you got a load of shit in your kiddy life that you wont be able to reply, as if we have no busy life. you punk # 108 |
zamie wrote: |
According to this koranic verse, allah is light.. |
zamie wrote: |
[24.35] Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp is in a glass, (and) the glass is as it were a brightly shining star, lit from a blessed olive-tree, neither eastern nor western, the oil whereof almost gives light though fire touch it not-- light upon light-- Allah guides to His light whom He pleases, and Allah sets forth parables for men, and Allah is Cognizant of all things. |
zamie wrote: |
According to this koranic verse, allah created light.
[6.1] All praise is due to Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth and made the darkness and the light; yet those who disbelieve set up equals with their Lord. |
zamie wrote: |
According to one of allah's 99 names, allah is light (AN-N????????R) |
zamie wrote: |
So if allah is not comparable and not like his creation, why is he light? Did allah not create light? |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||||||
Ahmed chose to slam dunk ?????????????????????¢??zanie?????????????????????¢?? the inmate:
You stupid and dumb inmate, not only according to Quran that Allah is light, but also according to Quran Torah is light and Quran is light; see ignorant: يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ قَدْ جَاءكُمْ رَسُولُنَا يُبَيِّنُ لَكُمْ كَثِيرًا مِّمَّا كُنتُمْ تُخْفُونَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَعْفُو عَن كَثِيرٍ قَدْ جَاءكُم مِّنَ اللّهِ نُورٌ وَكِتَابٌ مُّبِينٌ (15) O people of the Book! There has come to you Our messenger to explain to you much of what you have concealed of the book and pardoning much. There has come to you from Allah a light and an obvious book. [Al Quran ; 5:15] -> See, the Torah is light: O people of the Book! ?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦ There has come to you from Allah a light and an obvious book. يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ قَدْ جَاءكُم بُرْهَانٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكُمْ نُورًا مُّبِينًا (174) O people! there has certainly come to you a proof from your Lord, and We have sent down to you an obvious light. [Al Quran ; 4:174] -> See, the Quran is light: We have sent down to you an obvious light. الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِيَّ الأُمِّيَّ الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنْجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَآئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالأَغْلاَلَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَاتَّبَعُواْ النُّورَ الَّذِيَ أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ أُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ (157) Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Taurat and the Injeel, who enjoins them with what is lawful and forbids them what is evil and makes lawful for them the good and prohibits for them the bad and relieves them from their burden and the shackles which were upon them. And those who have believed in him and honoured him and supported him and followed the light which has been sent down with him, it is those who are the successful. [Al Quran ; 7:157] -> The Quran is light again: And those who have believed in him and honoured him and supported him and followed the light which has been sent down with him, فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَالنُّورِ الَّذِي أَنْزَلْنَا ۚ وَاللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرٌ ( So believe in Allah and His messenger and the light which We sent down, and Allah is, of what you do, Acquainted. [Al Quran ; 64:8] -> The Quran is light again: and the light which We sent down, This clearly means that to call anything a light, it may be a physical light or light in a metaphorical way. Now, because the Torah and Quran cannot be physical light, then describing them as light must be metaphorical. When you call something a light metaphorically, then there must be a reason for it, the most logical reason that it guides the people by taking them out of the darkness into the light, this was clearly stated for the Torah, the Quran and Allah: The Torah: وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا مُوسَىٰ بِآيَاتِنَا أَنْ أَخْرِجْ قَوْمَكَ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ وَذَكِّرْهُمْ بِأَيَّامِ اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِكُلِّ صَبَّارٍ شَكُورٍ (5) And We have certainly sent Musa with Our signs: Bring out your people from darkness into the light and remind them of the days of Allah. Indeed, in that are signs for every patient, grateful. [Al Quran ; 14:5] -> See: Bring out your people from darkness into the light The Quran: الر ۚ كِتَابٌ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ إِلَيْكَ لِتُخْرِجَ النَّاسَ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِمْ إِلَىٰ صِرَاطِ الْعَزِيزِ الْحَمِيدِ (1) Alif Lam Ra. A book which We have sent down to you that you might bring the people out of darkness into light, by the permission of their Lord, to the path of the Mighty, the Praised. [Al Quran ; 14:1] -> See: bring the people out of darkness into light, Allah: هُوَ الَّذِي يُصَلِّي عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَلَائِكَتُهُ لِيُخْرِجَكُمْ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ ۚ وَكَانَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَحِيمًا (43) He is the One Who responds to you, and His angels (ask Him to do so) that He may bring you out from darkness into the light. And ever is He, to the believers, Merciful. [Al Quran ; 33:43] -> See: that He may bring you out from darkness into the light. هُوَ الَّذِي يُنَزِّلُ عَلَىٰ عَبْدِهِ آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ لِيُخْرِجَكُمْ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ ۚ وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ بِكُمْ لَرَءُوفٌ رَحِيمٌ (9) It is He who sends down upon His servant clear signs that He may bring you out from darkness into the light; and indeed, Allah is, to you, Kind, Merciful. [Al Quran ; 57:9] -> See: that He may bring you out from darkness into the light; For Allah, however, it may be both, i.e. Allah has physical light on His Own or the light of Allah is metaphorical (i.e. through guidance to His light). The bottom line is this, if anything has a light (physical or metaphorical), then calling this thing a light cannot be a mistake as the ignorant inmate ?????????????????????¢??zanie?????????????????????¢?? is deluding himself. This was even obvious in the same verse he himself is using, see:
Let me bring the verse in here: اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۚ مَثَلُ نُورِهِ كَمِشْكَاةٍ فِيهَا مِصْبَاحٌ ۖ الْمِصْبَاحُ فِي زُجَاجَةٍ ۖ الزُّجَاجَةُ كَأَنَّهَا كَوْكَبٌ دُرِّيٌّ يُوقَدُ مِنْ شَجَرَةٍ مُبَارَكَةٍ زَيْتُونَةٍ لَا شَرْقِيَّةٍ وَلَا غَرْبِيَّةٍ يَكَادُ زَيْتُهَا يُضِيءُ وَلَوْ لَمْ تَمْسَسْهُ نَارٌ ۚ نُورٌ عَلَىٰ نُورٍ ۗ يَهْدِي اللَّهُ لِنُورِهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ ۚ وَيَضْرِبُ اللَّهُ الْأَمْثَالَ لِلنَّاسِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ (35) Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp is in a glass, the glass is like a shining planet lit from a blessed olive tree, neither eastern nor western, its oil almost gives light even if not touched by fire. Light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He wills. And Allah strikes examples for the people; and Allah is of everything Knowing. [Al Quran ; 24:35] -> See how the same verse exposes the ignorance of desperate kafir ?????????????????????¢??zanie?????????????????????¢??, the verse did not say Allah is light, rather Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth. I.e. His light is shining all over the heaven and earth, see: Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light ?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦. and Allah guides to His light whom He wills. I.e. Allah has light, not that He is light, and however, He might also have His Own light. We did not see Him, so we don?????????????????????¢??t know. So what is wrong if Allah has His Own light shining from Him? Did not He also have a throne that He created? But the problem with this ignorant kafir that He thinks that Allah said that He created light, see:
The verse above never said that Allah created light, let me bring the verse in here: الْحَمْدُ لِلّهِ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ وَجَعَلَ الظُّلُمَاتِ وَالنُّورَ ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ بِرَبِّهِم يَعْدِلُونَ (1) Praise be to Allah Who created the heavens and the earth and made the darkness and the light; then those who have disbelieved equate with their Lord. [Al Quran ; 6:1] -> See, the verse only says that the heaven and earth were created: خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ , created the heavens and the earth . But for the darkness and light, the verse said they were MADE, not created: جَعَلَ الظُّلُمَاتِ وَالنُّورَ , made the darkness and the light; this is very important because making the light and darkness is different to creating them. Making them may also implies that they might have been already there then Allah caused them to cover some area in His creation. This means that inmate kafir ?????????????????????¢??zanie?????????????????????¢?? is a dumb bum who does not know what he is talking about.
There is no such thing that is called 99 names of Allah in Quran. But you are still dumb because: - Naming a sura ?????????????????????¢??Light?????????????????????¢??, does not mean that Allah has the name light. - And even if Allah has the name ?????????????????????¢??light?????????????????????¢??, it does not mean that He is light. This is how dumb and illogical you are, inmate.
Show me the verse, inmate, where Allah said that He created light? Put up, or stfu and stay in your cell. # 109 |
Nosubmission wrote: |
The Qur'an verse makes it clear that Jesus' grandmother was THE WIFE of Imran, who was the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. |
Jesus worshiper Nosubmission wrote: |
The Qur'an verse makes it clear that Jesus' grandmother was THE WIFE of Imran, |
Jesus worshiper Nosubmission wrote: |
Imran, who was the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||||||||||
What is the story, Jesus worshiper? Looks like you are so eager to get mother slammed, why not, it's my slam dunk show: Let me break what you said above into two interconnected sentences:
True, see, when you talk Quran only, you talk the truth.
Hold on, Jesus worshiper; did the Quran say so, or you are just wishful thinking based on some man made books like the four Bibles and the hadith books? Of course the Quran never ever said that Musa had a father named Imran. It is only the devil who is molesting you by making you think that the two Imran(s) are the same, as he molested you and made you believe that Jesus is god. Well, your wishful thinking is not admissible as you should know, so let's refer to your man made rubbish books of sirah and hadith and I will let them mother slam dunk a dumb idol worshiper like you: The following images are extracts from the very famous book: قصص الانبياء لابن كثير, The stories of the prophets by Ibn Kathir. Download The first image is at the start of the story of prophet Musa, Ibn Kathir is telling us who was the fathers and grand father of prophet Musa:
And he is Musa bin Imran bin Qahith bin Azir bin Lawi bin Yaqoub bin Ishaq bin Ibrahim In the same book by Ibn Kathir, we read at the beginning of the story of Mary about her father Imran through two different accounts:
And Imran in here is Imran the father of Mary. And Muhammed bin Ishaq said: And he is Imran bin Bashim bin Amoon bin Misha bin Hazqia bin Ahriq bin Mothim bin Azazia bin Amsia bin Yawish bin Ahriho bin Yazim bin Yahfashat bin Esha bin Ayaan bin Rahba'am bin Dawoud And Abu Al-Qasim bin Asakir said: Mary bint Imran, bin Mathan bin Al-Azir bin Al-Youd bin Akhnaz bin Sadouq bin Ayazouz bin Al-Yaqim bin Ayboud bin Zariabil bin Yashafit bin Esha bin Eaba bin Rahba'am bin Solaiman bin Daoud Here you have it, you stupid and confused idol worshiper. TWO DIFFERENT IMRAN(S), i.e. if I take your unsupported allegation that Musa had a father named Imran, then he cannot be Imran the father of Mary. As for you being accustomed to follow corrupt man made books through your four man made bibles, you wont be able to reject the above compelling evidences from another man made book by Ibn Kathir. At the end of the day it was you who alleged that Musa had a father named Imran while failing to show us where the Quran said so. Therefore I brought to your pinhead what sources said so. Now, I dare you or any other stupid goon on FFI web site to parrot your non sense again concerning Mary and Harun. It has been proven that Imran the father of Mary cannot be your Imran the alleged father of Musa and Harun. As for Mary being called sister of Harun, this was slammed before many times. But if you want to be slammed again, just continue to bark and I will show what the same book above said about it to shut your barking up. You have been mother slammed: # 110 |
pussy Cat wrote: |
We find the most peculiar situation for Jesus is never defined by a human name in the whole Koran!
This curious situation can only underlines that Isa is Will over the manifest world... Allah's Yasha'a! |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Salam all
This subject of who is the Quranic father of Jesus by inmate pussy cat proves nothing but the confusion and ignorance of the enemy of Islam. When inmate pussy was writing in favour of Quran, the filthy FFI kafirs attacked him, but when he writes rubbish against the Quran seeking discord, the filthy FFI kafirs like sharmooot and arse licker Skenderbeg cheer of him. |
Quote: |
Remember: You grumbled: "O Moses, we cannot endure one and the same sort of food. Pray your Lord to bring for us the products of the earth green herbs, vegetables, corn, garlic, onions, pulses and the like." Moses replied: "What! would you exchange that which is meaner for that which is nobler? *77 Well, go and live in a town and you will get there what you demand." By and by, they became so degraded that disgrace and humiliation, misery and wretchedness were stamped upon them and they incurred Allah's wrath. That was because they began to reject the Revelations of Allah *78 and kill His Messengers without any just cause; *79 that was the consequence of their disobedience and their persistent transgression against the Law. |