Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Islam Mystery?

YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 8:32:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

What confuses me about Islam is why we can't just go pound all militant Islamits into the ground right now and be done with them.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 8:35:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 8:32:01 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

What confuses me about Islam is why we can't just go pound all militant Islamits into the ground right now and be done with them.

of course this will not happen because of the politics in the world. We will tolerate militant islamic acts of terror. Those jihadist really mean well for the world, they only want to make everybody serve Allah, and what's wrong with that? We can tolerate the confusion the cause by their acts of terror. Islam is peace. We can peacefully let them commits acts of terror. Islam is all peace. There is nothing to be confused about. Just be quiet and hope they don't come knocking on your door to see if you can name Muhammed's mother in law.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 8:46:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 8:32:01 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

What confuses me about Islam is why we can't just go pound all militant Islamits into the ground right now and be done with them.

- The odd thing is, I never heard a muslim or a decent christian saying let' kill the christians & be done with them! Only your kind have so much hate & intolerance to say such things, & you say: Islam is violent!? What absurdity! Not even those militant islamist call for killing others, they just want to expel western influence from Islamic countries.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,684
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 9:19:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 8:32:01 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

What confuses me about Islam is why we can't just go pound all militant Islamists into the ground right now and be done with them.

Because George Bush tried to do so by declaring a "War On Terror" however a decade later and little real progress was made (in fact it made things even worse), that's because the nature of terrorists in general is not the same as a centralized government.

This video accurately sums it up: https://www.youtube.com...
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,684
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2015 9:21:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 8:32:01 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

What confuses me about Islam is why we can't just go pound all militant Islamits into the ground right now and be done with them.

Actually I sent the wrong video I meant to send in https://www.youtube.com...
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:02:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

Some guy makes up a bunch of myths and superstitions based on earlier myths and superstitions. Nothing mysterious or odd about that.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:27:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

In the Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad (pbuh) told the Meccans they could pray to their gods for intersession. Muhammad was then chastised by Gabriel saying Satan had tempted his tongue to say things God does not want.

How do you trust a prophet of God to speak God's revelations, if that same prophet is tempted by Satan?
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 10:05:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"you say: Islam is violent!? What absurdity! Not even those militant islamist call for killing others, they just want to expel western influence from Islamic countries."

"they just want to expel western influence from Islamic countries" by going to Western countries and killing cartoonists? Yassine, I dearly hope that some day you will stop repeating those words of the ancient dead man five times a day and filling your mind with immorality and lust for innocent bloodshed as you cannot even see what your are actually advocating as anything bad. That is the mark of Muhammadan idolators like you who blindly believe every single word of the idol as if it were God Itself talking to you which is absurd and only reflects the human failure to judge authority figures critically, as you and all Muhammadan idolators do, every day by swallowing religious lies and evil instructions that contain all the words the head-chopping, bomb-blowing up, machine-gunning Muhammadan Reavers need to wreak carnage for their "God is Great" trash religious ideas of sick and twisted evil armed and dangerous men totally out of control.

Get control of your sick and twisted evil men before speaking about Muhammadism to anyone. That's my advice--which you can't hear because of the Muhammadan noise droning in your head everyday.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 10:17:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Imagine any intelligent Western man deliberately filling his head five times a day with one ancient man's ideas and then going out and repeating all the ancient dead man's ideas and his instructions for forming religious fascist dictatorships where self-appointed men dictate to all what goes down using the ancient dead man's ideas to do so. Not in the West do men fall for such ridiculous ideas that knowledge is contained only in one man's head. But no so in intellectually backward regions and nations where long standing traditions of fascist dictatorships are the norm and so is not asking any questions that might offend the ruling men. Used to be the norm in the West but we socially evolved protections against armed and dangerous self-appointed male dictatorships so we don't have to put up with violent men using terror to rule others. Not so in Muhammadan ruled areas of the world where such democratic ideas are still not welcomed at all by Muhammad's dictatorship ideology.

This is the real mystery then, how can Muhammadans still be so dumb after exposure to the West's obviously superior ways of dealing with fascists dictatorships. This isn't the 7th Century but the 21st so how is possible that modern men, even Muhammadans, can still believe and act out absurdly violent ideas about God and government, leftovers from the Dark Ages violent societies, in our times? Do you not care about truth or justice or being good people? The mark of idolators is that they only care about what the idol tells them to care about, nothing else. And if the idol didn't tell them to think critically but just accept what is written in the past then you get social conflict when people believing in 7th Century ideas meet 21st Century reality.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:47:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:27:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
How do you trust a prophet of God to speak God's revelations, if that same prophet is tempted by Satan?

- Nice, finally a good question :)

- I am gonna assume you know the alleged story & so I won't have to repeat it. I am also gonna assume you know a little bit about Narrations (Hadith & such) , if you don't understand what I am saying, please don't hesitate to ask (though I'll include some explanations).

- I am gonna begin with a short response in form of an introduction to engage in the discussion which hopefully will continue, that is if you want it to continue. So here it goes:

1)- The Story is an Account reported mainly by al-Waq'di (d. 822) & at-Tabari (d. 923) , the allegation that it was also reported by Ibn Ishaq' (d. 768) is unconfirmed (since it is not mentioned in the original Sirah of Ibn Ishaq' , nor on his successor Ibn Hisham's (d. 833) Sirah, it was only mentioned in a narration by at-Tabari where Ibn Ishaq' is featured in the chain of transmission). There are others who also mention the story, namely: al-Bazzar (d. 905) , Ibn al-Munthir (d. 930) , & Ibn Mardawayh (d. 1105).

2)- The original Account about Surat an-Najm which does not include the 'Satanic Verses' was reported by many Scholars of Hadith, namely: al-Bukhari (d. 870), Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d. 855), Abu Dawud (d. 889) , at-TarmiIthi (d. 892) , bn Khuzayma (d. 923) , Ibn Hiban (d. 965) , al-Hakim (d. 1012) & al-Bayhaq'i (d. 1066). Such as this narration here:
> Ibn 'Abbas (a Companion) reported: "The Prophet (pbuh) performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat-an-Najm, and all the Muslims and pagans and Jinns and human beings prostrated along with him." [^al-Bukhari #1071]
=> You notice there is no mention of Satanic Verses or the added other details in that Story.

3)- A standard Narration consists of 5 elements:
* Matn: the actual Text of the Narration.
* Sanad: the chain of authority (of transmission).
* Mudraj: the comments of the narrators as notes or further explanations.
* Nas: the testimonies, either for or against the narrators, so that the authenticity of a narration of a particular narrator can be verified.
* Takhrij: the final Ruling on the Hadith: either Mutawatir (Authentic) / Or / with a Sanad that is: Sahih (Sound, Authenticated), Hasan (Good), Da'if (Weak) / Or / Mawdu' (Forged). <<< After a critical study of both the Text & the Chain of Transmission of the Narration [ According to the science of Hadith Terminology: ruling a Narration as Sound (Sahih) requires 66 conditions to be met ,some of these conditions have to do with the Text, some with the Chain of Narration, some with the Narrators, some with the Narration" ]

(+) Eg: A >> B >> C >> D >> The Prophet said: "Seeking of Knowledge is a duty upon every muslim"; '& muslimah'; M + N + P + O; *X*.
> Such that:
* A, B, C, D are the groups of narrators in each Level of Transmission.
* "Seeking of Knowledge is a duty upon every muslim" is the Matn (the Text of the Hadith)
* '& muslimah' is the Mudraj (the commentary added by the Companion - Ibn 'Abbas in this case - to explain further, though it"s not part of the original Text)
* M + N + P + O. are the measured Testimonies on the Reliability of the Narrators.
* *X* is the Ruling on the Hadith: Mutawatir / Sound . .

4)- There are 4 kinds of Narrators (Rawi):
* Muhadith: Scholar of Hadith, whose methodology consists of reporting sound narrations based on the Sciences of Hadith Terminology & Biographical Evaluation. <<< In this category are those in (2) such as al-Bukhari & Ahmad Ibn Hanbal...
* Muarrikh: Historian, whose methodology is to report narrations without having to critically study them. (in which case the study of these narrations is done separately, either by the same person or another Scholar of Hadith). In this category is at-Tabari (from (1))
* Q'asassi: Story Reporter, whose methodology consists of reporting accounts without them being complete narrations (without complete chains of transmission). In this category is Ibn Ishaq' (from (1)) & Ibn Hisham
* Akhbari: Reporter, whose methodology consists of reporting accounts directly without necessary chains of narrations & without having to verify them. <<< In this category is al-Waq'di (from (1))
> A particular Narrator may be all of these (such as Ibn Kathir (d. 1373)) or just some (such as at-Tabari) or just one (such as Ibn Ishaq').
=> That is to say, a Book of Narrations is measured only by the Methodology it follows, not by the Narrators that compiles it.
=> The reason I am mentioning this is to point out that the Story including the Satanic Verses didn't survive in the actual books of Hadith, & it was only mentioned in books where the scrutiny -of the science of Hadith Terminology- wasn't applied (which we'll probably discuss later).

5)- The Story is mentioned by a number of Exegetists (namely at-Tabari & al-Waq'di) as an Occasion of Revelation (Sabab an-Nuzul) of this verse:
"And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses."
(22:52)
> In the original verse: 'Umniyah' can either mean Recitation or Wish. & so the verse can also be translated into:
"And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire"
=> & so, as some Exegetists suggest, the Occasion for the Revelation of such verse must be the Story in Mecca where the Prophet was allegedly tempted by Satan to concede the gods of Meccans as intercessors in accordance to his (the prophet's) wish of not wanting to push them away further & suffer persecution thereafter.

6)- The Tafsir (Exegesis: Science of Interpretation of the Qur'an, or Qur'anic Commentary) has four Aspects & is achieved through six Modes:
> Aspects of Tafsir:
- Outward Aspect (al-Wajh al-Dhahir).
- Linguistic Aspect (al-Wajh al-Gharib).
- Specialised Aspect (al-Wajh al-Mushkil).
- Concealed Aspect (al-Wajh al-Khafiy).
> Modes of Tafsir:
- Tafsir by Transmission (al-Maathur).
- Tafsir by Reasoning (al-Mandhur).
- Tafsir by Indication (al-Ishari).
- General Tafsir (al-'Am).
- Topical Tafsir (al-Mawdu'i).
- Linguistic Tafsir (al-Lughawi).

=> Only the Exegetists who follow the Outward Aspect (called Dhahiriyin) & the Mode of Tafsir by Transmission are liable to use the Story of the Satanic Verses (such as al-Waq'idi) . All other Aspects & Modes of Tafsir do not & can not allow such use.
=> The Outward Tafsir by Transmission is the weakest & most erroneous methodology of Tafsir, because it takes no critical effort whatsoever. An example of this type of Tafsir is at-Tafsir bil-Isra'iliyyat (Commentary based on Jewish & Christian sources), which are widely erroneous (take for example Noah's Ark, most the info the Exegetists took from Jewish sources to describe it turn out to be false, whereas in the Qur'an no such information are provided).
=> Point being: the fact that the Story of Satanic Verses was used by some Exegetists in no way speaks of its veracity (worse & crazier stories are mentioned by these very Exegetists) nor is it (the veracity) claimed by them.

- In the next part I am gonna talk about the Story of the Satanic Verses, its authenticity & its implications.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 3:01:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Nothing you say is true, Yassine, because you don't think critically but are a Muhammadan idolator who obeys your idol's words and hears nothing else, certainly not the truth about you and all Muhammadans swallowing without ever thinking it through the fact that ALL of your religious history of Muhammad's words are HEARSAY, not a scientifically documented chain of evidence at all in the transmission of Muhammad's words. So you can't tell anyone that Muhammad said this or that because you don't really know anymore than Pauline Christians know that Paul said this or that, no real historical documentation.

And that's just the historical part and doesn't touch the spiritual lack of evidence in anything of Muhammadism, nothing shows of Spirit, only the gullibility of fearful people afraid of Muhammadism armies and their knives and swords and now AK-47's and bomb materials.

I am a prophet of God, a real one and Jewish to boot. I can tell you that what Muhammad errored in judgment is so profound you won't understand it at all because you and all Muhammadans are not spiritually aware people. You only see political rules as "religion" and can't see the spiritual movement at all. Because your idol couldn't see it. Didn't understand the Divine Feminine speaking to him at all through the vision of the high flying geese, symbolizing the Triple Goddess bearing the Arabic form of their Canaanite names representing Asherah, Ishtar, and Anath. There is no Divine Feminine in Muhammadism and thus males in Muhammadism go berzerk and out of control easily as they have no feminine checks on their male territorial behavior that will kill for territorial control.

You can talk all you want to about how Muhammad thought Satan was speaking to him but Satan was speaking to him all through his visions as he wrote Satanic Verses throughout the Quran, hundreds of them urging Muhammadans to kill or hurt people. Work on recognition of real Satanic Verses which are easily to spot because they command violence towards your neighbors.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 6:30:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:47:41 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:27:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
How do you trust a prophet of God to speak God's revelations, if that same prophet is tempted by Satan?

- Nice, finally a good question :)

- I am gonna assume you know the alleged story & so I won't have to repeat it. I am also gonna assume you know a little bit about Narrations (Hadith & such) , if you don't understand what I am saying, please don't hesitate to ask (though I'll include some explanations).

- I am gonna begin with a short response in form of an introduction to engage in the discussion which hopefully will continue, that is if you want it to continue. So here it goes:

1)- The Story is an Account reported mainly by al-Waq'di (d. 822) & at-Tabari (d. 923) , the allegation that it was also reported by Ibn Ishaq' (d. 768) is unconfirmed (since it is not mentioned in the original Sirah of Ibn Ishaq' , nor on his successor Ibn Hisham's (d. 833) Sirah, it was only mentioned in a narration by at-Tabari where Ibn Ishaq' is featured in the chain of transmission). There are others who also mention the story, namely: al-Bazzar (d. 905) , Ibn al-Munthir (d. 930) , & Ibn Mardawayh (d. 1105).

2)- The original Account about Surat an-Najm which does not include the 'Satanic Verses' was reported by many Scholars of Hadith, namely: al-Bukhari (d. 870), Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d. 855), Abu Dawud (d. 889) , at-TarmiIthi (d. 892) , bn Khuzayma (d. 923) , Ibn Hiban (d. 965) , al-Hakim (d. 1012) & al-Bayhaq'i (d. 1066). Such as this narration here:
> Ibn 'Abbas (a Companion) reported: "The Prophet (pbuh) performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat-an-Najm, and all the Muslims and pagans and Jinns and human beings prostrated along with him." [^al-Bukhari #1071]
=> You notice there is no mention of Satanic Verses or the added other details in that Story.

3)- A standard Narration consists of 5 elements:
* Matn: the actual Text of the Narration.
* Sanad: the chain of authority (of transmission).
* Mudraj: the comments of the narrators as notes or further explanations.
* Nas: the testimonies, either for or against the narrators, so that the authenticity of a narration of a particular narrator can be verified.
* Takhrij: the final Ruling on the Hadith: either Mutawatir (Authentic) / Or / with a Sanad that is: Sahih (Sound, Authenticated), Hasan (Good), Da'if (Weak) / Or / Mawdu' (Forged). <<< After a critical study of both the Text & the Chain of Transmission of the Narration [ According to the science of Hadith Terminology: ruling a Narration as Sound (Sahih) requires 66 conditions to be met ,some of these conditions have to do with the Text, some with the Chain of Narration, some with the Narrators, some with the Narration" ]

5)- The Story is mentioned by a number of Exegetists (namely at-Tabari & al-Waq'di) as an Occasion of Revelation (Sabab an-Nuzul) of this verse:
"And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses."
(22:52)
> In the original verse: 'Umniyah' can either mean Recitation or Wish. & so the verse can also be translated into:
"And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire"
=> & so, as some Exegetists suggest, the Occasion for the Revelation of such verse must be the Story in Mecca where the Prophet was allegedly tempted by Satan to concede the gods of Meccans as intercessors in accordance to his (the prophet's) wish of not wanting to push them away further & suffer persecution thereafter.

6)- The Tafsir (Exegesis: Science of Interpretation of the Qur'an, or Qur'anic Commentary) has four Aspects & is achieved through six Modes:
> Aspects of Tafsir:
- Outward Aspect (al-Wajh al-Dhahir).
- Linguistic Aspect (al-Wajh al-Gharib).
- Specialised Aspect (al-Wajh al-Mushkil).
- Concealed Aspect (al-Wajh al-Khafiy).
> Modes of Tafsir:
- Tafsir by Transmission (al-Maathur).
- Tafsir by Reasoning (al-Mandhur).
- Tafsir by Indication (al-Ishari).
- General Tafsir (al-'Am).
- Topical Tafsir (al-Mawdu'i).
- Linguistic Tafsir (al-Lughawi).

=> Only the Exegetists who follow the Outward Aspect (called Dhahiriyin) & the Mode of Tafsir by Transmission are liable to use the Story of the Satanic Verses (such as al-Waq'idi) . All other Aspects & Modes of Tafsir do not & can not allow such use.
=> The Outward Tafsir by Transmission is the weakest & most erroneous methodology of Tafsir, because it takes no critical effort whatsoever. An example of this type of Tafsir is at-Tafsir bil-Isra'iliyyat (Commentary based on Jewish & Christian sources), which are widely erroneous (take for example Noah's Ark, most the info the Exegetists took from Jewish sources to describe it turn out to be false, whereas in the Qur'an no such information are provided).
=> Point being: the fact that the Story of Satanic Verses was used by some Exegetists in no way speaks of its veracity (worse & crazier stories are mentioned by these very Exegetists) nor is it (the veracity) claimed by them.


- In the next part I am gonna talk about the Story of the Satanic Verses, its authenticity & its implications.

I do not have time tonight but I certainly would continue the exchange. I understand the back story to the verse in the Quron is of historical dispute.

But the Sura 22:52 in the Quron continues...
http://quran.com...

And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.

This says Satan threw into the message misunderstandings, that these Satanic additions had to be abolished by Allah to make the verse precise.

And it continues further in Sura 22:53...
http://quran.com...
[That is] so He may make what Satan throws in a trial for those within whose hearts is disease and those hard of heart. And indeed, the wrongdoers are in extreme dissension.

This says that the additions to the message Satan adds are a test for the hard of heart.

So the Prophet (pbuh) is not just tempted to add in misunderstandings from Satan, and this temptation avoided... But that the additions by Satan are added, and it takes Allah to correct them. But more so then that, the additions are present in the verses as a test to the hard of heart.

So the additions are not possible satanic influences, but are present satanic influences.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 9:21:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What you Muhammadans don't get is the fact that it only took one instance of Muhammad changing his verses to conclude he could not tell the difference between Gabriel and Satan which means NONE of his words can be trusted, not a single one. Why? Because how do we know if Satan wrote all those nasty verses in the Quran that urge harming innocent people whose only "crime" is to disbelieve a man who cannot tell the difference between Satan and Gabriel..
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 12:21:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 6:30:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So the additions are not possible satanic influences, but are present satanic influences.

Sorry, I completely forgot about this discussion! I am gonna tackle as though I am in a debate, you"ll thank me later, :P .

- I admire your attempt to interpret the verse, though based on an English translation! However, as I stated before, any Method of Tafsir with the exception of the Outward Tafsir by Transmission is incompatible with the Story, & we"ll get to that later.

- All renown Scholars of Hadith with the exception of Ibn Hajar (d. 1449) reject the account of the Satanic Verses based on the fact that the narrations that mention it are all weak narrations, & thus not acceptable. As for Ibn Hajar, he accepts the Account based on the chains of transmission but rejects the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) spoke the Satanic Verses. << I"ll also get to that later.

- Although there are many other not-so-flattering incidents that would make Islamic critics even more happy, the Satanic Verses incident (SVI) seems to be the only one frequently mentioned, & the reason for that is because its veracity is supported by -some- muslim Scholars (namely Ibn Hajar & at-Tabari), while the other incidents are rejected by all Scholars.

Back to our subject, I am gonna try & make this discussion as light as possible:

- The Satanic Verses (SV):
Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-"Uzz"
and Man&#257;t, the third, the other?
These are the exalted ghar&#257;niq, whose intercession is hoped for.

Argument I:

- The original "SVI" that is agreed upon is narrated as follows:

* Narrated Abdullah bin Masud: The Prophet recited Surat an-Najm and prostrated while reciting it and all the people prostrated and a man amongst the people took a handful of stones or earth and raised it to his face and said, "This is sufficient for me. Later on I saw him killed as a non-believer."
[^al-Bukhari #1070]

* Narrated Ibn "Abbas: The Prophet I prostrated while reciting an-Najm and with him prostrated the Muslims, the pagans, the jinns, and all human beings.
[^al-Bukhari #1071]

* Narrated a-Muttalib Ibn Abi-Wada"a: "The Messenger of Allah recited Surat an-Najm in Makkah and prostrated, and those who were with him prostrated. I raised my head and refused to prostrate." (At that time al-Muttalib had not yet accepted Islam.)
[^an-Nisai #958]

> All these Narrations are authentic & are reported in the Six Canonical Collections of Hadith by different Companions, some of which (Abdullah Ibn Mas"ud + al-Muttalib) actually witnessed the incident. But, there is no mention or insinuation of any Satanic Verses. In fact, such insinuation would be incompatible with the said accounts, because:
1. The reports say that the Prophet (pbuh) recited Surat an-Najm (53), they don"t say that he recited only the SV, which allegedly figured in the first quarter of the Surat.
=> Which contradicts the accounts that say the Pagans prostrated right after hearing the alleged SV.
2. Surat an-Najm begins off with: "Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed." & it says right after where the SV are allegedly "revealed": "And there are many angels in the heavens, whose intercession will avail nothing except after Allah has given leave for whom He wills and pleases."
=> If indeed the SVI were true it would mean that Muhammad indeed strayed, erred, & spoke from his own inclination, which would be the greatest news for the Pagans of Quraysh, they"ve been trying to discredit him since the beginning, & this just might be the perfect opportunity on a silver platter. The question is: why didn"t they?! While the did raised hell at every other opportunity far less significant than this one.
=> Also, if the Pagans of Quraysh prostrated because they heard that their gods will serve as intercessors, they could not have all not realised that right after the alleged decreed intercession (by al-Lat & al-Uzza), the next verses deny any sort of intercession except under Allah"s Will. So, what did they all prostrate for?
3. The Surat ends with: "So prostrate to Allah and worship [Him]."
=> Suggesting that the Pagans prostrated after the Prophet (pbuh) recited the Surat because it ended with an order of "Prostrate to Allah" seems less far-fetched than the SVI.
=> In fact, this explanation is in itself very likely, because the order of Prostration to Allah was preceded in the Surat by a imminent Commination (Divine Vengeance), & it is known that Quraysh were very wary about these Threats as reported in many other instances, such as the one when Utbah Ibn Rabi"a (one of the chiefs of Quraysh) held the Prophet"s mouth & begged him to stop when he was reciting Surat Sajda (where there is promise of Divine Punishment) . . . etc. So, it"s perfectly understandable that the Pagans prostrated out of fear & awe of Divine Punishment.
4. These authentic Narrations suggest that all the present Humans & Jinns prostrated.
=> If the SVI were true, it"d be more or less understandable as to why the Pagans prostrated. The question is: why did the muslims prostrate?! Were they suffering from some sort of sudden amnesia forgetting everything the Prophet said beforehand that contradicts his alleged praise of the idols?! & even more so, why did the Jinn prostrate?! This just raises far more questions than it solves.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 12:23:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 6:30:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So the additions are not possible satanic influences, but are present satanic influences.

Argument II:

- There are 10 Narrations in total that speak of the SVI:
> 4 of them are authentic, & the rest are weak or extremely weak or forged.
> 8 of them are Mursal (a Narration the chain of transmission of which ends with a Successor as the source), & 2 of them are Muwq"uf (ends with a Companion -Ibn "Abbas in this case- as a source).

- Let"s leave out the weak & forged ones & concentrate on the authentic ones. According to the Scholars of Hadith, the 4 authentic Narrations are all Mursal, & according to Ibn Hajar: one of the 4 is a Mawq"uf Narration.
> The chain of transmission of the Mawqu"f Narration (authenticated by Ibn Hajar) that ends with a Companion as a source (Ibn "Abbas in this case) is as follows:
* Ibn Mardawayh < Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad < Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn Ali (d. 300) < Ja"far Ibn Muhammad < Ibrahim Ibn Muhammah Ar"ara < Abu "Asim Nabil < "Uthman Ibn al-Aswad < Said Ibn Jubair (the Successor) < Ibn "Abbas (the Companion).
1. Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn Ali (d. 300) is an unknown narrator (Majhul), technically speaking: his Reliability is unverified, which makes the Narrations a weak one, for the narrator could be a liar for all we know.
2. The Scholars of Hadith that responded to Ibn Hajar suspected that he confused Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn Ali (d. 300) with Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn Ibnrahim Ibn Ali (d. 381), a known Hadith Scholar, whose Reliability is attested to, though the two lived one Century apart!
3. Ibn "Abbas could not have possibly reported the SVI anyways, for reasons we"ll discuss later on.
=> C/C: the Narration is unsound as a Mawqu"f Hadith, & thus only its Mursal chain of transmission (other than the one mentioned above) is authentic, as the Scholars of Hadith postulated.

- As for the Mursal Narrations (with chains of transmission that end with a Successor), they are reported by Said Ibn Jubayr (46 - 95), Abi al-"Alya (93), Abu Bakr Ibn Abdrahman (94), & Q"atada (61 - 118) respectively (all Successors).
> Mursal Hadiths, according to the Science of Hadith Terminology, are Weak Hahiths, & that"s because:
C < B < A (a Successor) < (X) < The Prophet.
1. The group (X) is unknown, it may contain 1 person as it may contain up to 6 persons (the longest chain of transmission between a Successor & a Companion is 6 persons).
2. The Reliability of these unknown narrators is unverifiable, & so the dependability of such Mursal Narration is questionable. They could be any of the countless groups that constantly spread falsehood about Islam, or they could"ve just heard rumours about the incident, & reported it as fact, or they could be just liars, who knows.
3. Even in case there are 4 Successors who reported the account, they might"ve all got it from the same dubious sources. & this is not uncommon in narrations, especially those promoted by Shi"a & Jewish sources at the time (they travel across the country to spread false rumours). In Tarikh at-Tabiri (History by at-Tabari), about 500 narrations concerning the Fitna (period between 27 & 29 H) are forged, & they all go back to 6 individuals who are all accused of perjury & forging Hadith.
4. There is so much inconsistency in the story, that it"s unreasonable to even consider the authenticity of the account. & we"ll get to that in a sec.
=> C/C: The Mursal Narrations, even though they have sound chains of transmission, they are inconclusive & dubious. One: they are reports of an Event that happened over half a century before. Two: they are incompatible with the authentic Narrations, & inconsistent between themselves.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 12:24:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 6:30:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So the additions are not possible satanic influences, but are present satanic influences.

Argument III

- I am not gonna rewrite the 10 Narrations in this post (it would take too long to translate), I"ll just talk about their content, & the question the content raises:
1. They mention that the Prophet (pbuh) spoke the SV, & didn"t realise that they were not part of the Revelation & were from Satan, not until Jibril (the Angel) came to him over night & corrected him!
=> If there is one thing that is clear cut, unequivocal, unambiguous, strictly strait forward in the Qur"an, it is Tawheed: Oneness of God, all else is insignificant, all else is under the immediate act of God. So, how on earth couldn"t the Prophet himself not realise that the SV strictly contradict everything the Qur"an says & everything he stood for, & for a whole day?!
=> Why on earth would Jibril wait a whole day to correct Muhammad"s mistake in first place?!
2. They mention that "the believers prostrated trusting in their Prophet & did not suspect any fault from him".
=> Again, how on earth did Muhammad"s Companions not realise that what he just said pretty much negates everything he stood for up to that point?!
3. They mention that the Prophet was worried that if verses were to be Revealed against the beliefs of Quraysh, his people will shun him!
=> What kind of proposition is this!? Isn"t that the whole purpose of the Revelation!? & that"s exactly what he has been doing all this time, & they have indeed shunned him, & persecuted him, & tortured him & his Companions. How can one be worried about what is an everyday lived reality like it"s an exceptional situation!?
4. They mention that the Prophet was ready to compromise with his people in their beliefs!!!
=> How is that even plausible, while it"s known that one of his known characters throughout his life was his absolute uncompromising attitude when it comes to beliefs?!
=> How is it when Quraysh persecuted him, starved him & his people for years, banned him, tortured him & his companions, did all sorts of unimaginable measures to make him stop speaking against their gods, he didn"t compromise, not one bit, & now, when none of that is happening he is ready to compromise?!!
=> How is it that when Quraysh offered to make him the wealthiest, the most noble, the king, & offered him their most beautiful brides, he didn"t compromise, not one bit, & now he does?!
=> Why is it that when he was threatened for speaking against the gods of Quraysh, he said: "Even if they put the Sun on my right, & the Moon on my left, I am not backing down from my mission" & suddenly he is willingly backing down?!
5. & last but not least, if Revelation was indeed real, how on earth can God"s words be confused with Satan"s words, & not just by anyone, by the Prophet himself?!
=> The question here is not about the veracity of the Prophethood of Muhammad, as it is about the absurdity the SVI raises whether Muhammad is indeed a Prophet or not. In case he is, then the SVI wouldn"t make sense, in case he isn"t, meaning he is a fraud, then how can such a successful & powerful character not realise that he is contradicting himself?! Whereas any ordinary person would immediately realise that. & finally, in case it was Satan all along, then why is the SV an expiation?! Whatever way we look at it, it"s still an absurd account.

- Inconsistencies between these Narrations:

1. In one Narration: the Companions heard the SV & prostrated anyways \ In another: they didn"t hear them, only the Pagans did, & they all prostrated anyways \ & in another: they didn"t even prostrate.
=> How could the Companions prostrate while knowing the verses contradict the message of the Qur"an?! How is it possible that the Companions did not hear the verses, while the Pagans did, & they were all in the same space?! How is it that the Companions didn"t prostrate, while the authentic Hadiths say everyone prostrated?!
2. In one Narration: the Prophet recited the SV in the middle of the gathering of Quraysh \ In another: he was reciting them while praying, & some of Quraysh overheard him & spread the news \ In another: he was heedless for a brief moment & he corrected himself right after \ In another: he was talking to himself (not reciting the Qur"an) & Quraysh overheard him \ in another: Satan spoke the words through his tongue \ In another: Satan spoke the words but not through his tongue.
=> How can the Prophet recite a Surat publicly & not realise that some verses in it contradict their context & contradict his whole Message?! Even if that were true, how can a whole public not realise the contradiction, & prostrate anyways?! How can all Quraysh prostrate to something Muhammad recited in his own prayer, which is in itself absurd?! . . .
3. In one Narration: the Prophet didn"t realise what he spoke was not Revelation until Jibril came & corrected him \ In another: he recited them back to Jibril, & Jibril then realised Muhammad"s fault \ In another: it was Satan that tricked Quraysh in believing Muhammad recited the SV, & when he was asked about them, he said: "that"s not what I recited". \ In another it"s Jibril that says to Muhammad: "that"s not what I recited to you". . . etc.
=> Aside from the clear incompatible inconsistencies between these Narrations, all the versions are still questionable, even if taken separately, they are all absurd, collectively & individually.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 12:25:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 6:30:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So the additions are not possible satanic influences, but are present satanic influences.

Argument IV:

- On one hand:
"And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.
[That is] so He may make what Satan throws in a trial for those within whose hearts is disease and those hard of heart. And indeed, the wrongdoers are in extreme dissension.
And so those who were given knowledge may know that it is the truth from your Lord and [therefore] believe in it, and their hearts humbly submit to it. And indeed is Allah the Guide of those who have believed to a straight path."
(22:52)

1. These verses are most likely Medinian, or at least during the Hijra period (the last days of Meccan life), since they figure in al-Hajj (49): a Medinian Surat. & The SVI allegedly happened in Mecca, around the time of the Night Journey.
=> Interpreting these verses with the alleged SVI is a very long stretch, since they are at least 2 years apart! & the Narrations of the SVI somehow links them both in the same incident! Which is absurd, of course!
=> Also, that says a lot about Ibn "Abbas (the Companion) allegedly being the source of the SVI. That is, according to him, al-Hajj was entirely revealed in Medina, & so, how can he possibly report a Narration that puts some verses in Surat al-Hajj (the ones above) in an incident that took place in Mecca at least 2 years earlier!!!??
2. Still, just for the sake of argument. In the Transliteration: the word for "throw into" is "Alqa" which means add to, & not substitute.
=> Even if the interpretation of the verse is taken literally, it wouldn"t possibly suggest that the Prophet uttered other than Revelation, it would only suggest that Satan added new distortions to what the Prophet already spoke.
=> Also, if Allah did indeed abolish these additions, why are they still spoken?!
3. The additions, as the following verses suggest, are not spoken by the Prophet, for if that were the case, then why is it that "those who were given knowledge may know that it is the truth from your Lord and [therefore] believe in it"?! Now, they believe Satan too, & believe he spoke truth?!
=> The interpretation of the verses is much more relaxed than these absurd ways. The verses are just talking about the persuasion of Satan that he casts onto the weak hearts of people to either deny or distort the Revelation, such as is the doings of all peoples of all Prophets, & only those with knowledge & devotion can resist these persuasions, by the Will of God.

- On the other hand:
"And indeed, they were about to tempt you away from that which We revealed to you in order to [make] you invent about Us something else; and then they would have taken you as a friend.
And had We not made you stand firm, you would nearly have inclined to them a little."
(17:73-74)

1. These verse are Revealed in the same year as the alleged SV, for both Surat an-Najm (53) & Surat Israa (17) speak of the same incident: the Night Journey.
=> It"s more logical to put the SVI under the test of these verses instead.
2. Narrated Ibn "Abbas: "all that is, in the Qur"an, preceded by "Kada" ("about to") never took place".
=> First, that too says more about Ibn "Abbas NOT being the source of the SVI. For, how can he assert that whatever is preceded by "Kada" never took place, particularly: the fact that Quraysh tempted Muhammad to invent something in the Revelation, & at the same time report that such temptation did actually take place!?!?
=> Second, Ibn "Abbas is right, & that"s the Consensus, even among linguists. Whatever in Arabic is preceded by "Kada" didn"t/doesn"t actually take place, if it did take place, then there would be no Kada before it, since it negates it.
=> Third, this postulate is enforced by the next verse: "had We not made you stand firm, you would nearly have inclined to them a little" Which insinuate that he did not incline, not even a little.
3. These verses denies the fact that Muhammad was tempted even "a little" to invent in the Revelation.
=> How can there be other verses insinuating that Muhammad invented verses that aren"t just "a little" misguided, but speak against the very core of the Qur"an itself: Tawheed?!
4. The Prophet said: "There is none amongst you with whom is not an attache from amongst the jinn (devil)." They (the Companions) said: "Allah's Messenger, with you too?" Thereupon he said: "Yes, but Allah helps me against him and so I am safe from his hand and he does not command me but for good." [^Muslim #2814]
=> Here the Prophet"s saying refutes the allegation that he has been tempted by the Devil. Or else, how can none of the Companions realise that?!
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 12:30:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 6:30:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So the additions are not possible satanic influences, but are present satanic influences.

Argument V:

- The best support for SVI so far is the one given by Ibn Hajar, who established that at least one report of the SVI to have some truth behind it.
1. Ibn Hajar"s judgement is exotic to the general opinion of Hadith Scholars, who reject the Narrations, in both their chains of transmission, & their content.
2. Ibn Hajar"s main argument, that is: there is at least one authentic Mawq"f Hadith (the one narrated by Ibn "Abbas), turned out to be false, in both chain of transmission & content, as the great Scholars have established (see above arguments).
3. While Ibn Hajar did concede the veracity of the SVI, he denied the fact that the Prophet actually spoke the SV, & instead interpreted the incident as though someone else spoke the words (namely: Ibn az-Zab"ari) while the Prophet was regaining his breath while reciting. (long story). Because, even considering that the SV are real would raise a million questions that have absurd answers.
=> C/C: Ibn Hajar didn"t break from the Consensus of the Scholars of Hadith in asserting that the SV are a myth, even though he mistakingly considered the account a more or less real one.

- The only authoritative Scholar that actually thinks that the SVI is factual, is at-Tabari.
1. at-Tabari is not a Hadith Scholar in the sense of critical methodology, he is a known collector of Hadith, yet a known poor critic.
2. at-Tabari is known to chose Narration over Reason. This can be seen in many instances, such as his stand that the Earth is flat which was against the Consensus of muslim Scholars, during & before his time (that is, the Earth being round). Because, he chose Narrations (weak & forged in that case) over factual demonstrations.
3. at-Tabari"s Methodology in Tafsir is Outward by Transmission, & so if he dug a little deeper into a linguistic or more critical Modes of Tafsir, he"d have immediately realised that the SVI is nonsense. & all Exegetists that use a more advanced Mode of Tafsir criticise at-Tabari & his likes for their loose reasoning.
=> C/C: at-Tabari might be a knowledgeable Scholar & Historian, but we"ll just have to add this SVI to his tiny list of honest mistakes. Plus, a Consensus of the entirety of the muslim authoritative community minus one is still a Consensus.

- The only seemingly good argument I could find so far provided by westerners to support the SVI is:
> The SVI is so unflattering to muslims, & thus if it was reported by some of their sources, it could only mean that it actually happened.
1. The argument is self-refuting, otherwise, one has to establish that an unflattering incident (such as the SVI) will survive despite it being unflattering, & vis versa: if an unflattering incident survived it is necessarily true. & that"s a very hard, actually impossible, case to establish.
2. The argument ignores the fact that there are more unflattering incidents, such as the one where the Prophet allegedly prays to al-Lat wal-Uzza, or the one that he claims to be God, or the one with the orgy in his death bed, or the one where he claims to be immortal"etc. These are clearly forged reports made by the enemies of muslims, & thus completely rejected by the muslim community, & by any reasonable person. Yet, there were Christians in the Middle Ages that used these reports & exaggerated upon them ..etc.
3. The only reason the SVI is taking the spotlight & not other even more unflattering forged incidents, is the simple fact that it was endorsed by at-Tabari, & by Ibn Hajar (as to its chain of transmission, not its content).
=> C/C: the fact that an unfavourable incident is reported in muslim sources doesn"t speak of its degree of veracity, in fact, the opposite is more likely true. & the fact that the SVI was endorsed by singular individual muslim scholars doesn"t speak of its veracity either, & the opposite is in fact true. How is it more wise to dismiss the opinion of an entire authoritative community as opposed to one voice?!

- Another claim (not so much an argument) made by ignorant orientalists (& I am calling them that, because they always fill in the blanks they have with speculations instead of getting the proper knowledge on the subject) is that:
> The early community didn"t contest the SVI, it was only contested later when Theological Schools of Thought were established, & the SVI seemed like a bad idea.
1. That"s an utterly ignorant claim, & the opposite is more likely, more muslims adhered to the SVI (especially those affiliated with the Karamia) in the later centuries than early centuries. In fact, beside al-Tabari & al-Waq"di, the early community as a whole was not even concerned with the SVI, same as it wasn"t with all the BS claims beside it. It"s utter nonsense to think otherwise.
2. The SVI was not reported by any actual Hadith Scholars, nor considered by any Jurists (with the exception of at-Tabari), nor admitted by any Theologian in the early community, & they were by the thousands, some of which are the founders of the current Schools of Thought. The SVI can only be found in general history books, that are basically a bunch of narrations without critique (usually done separately) & Tafsir books under the Outward Mode of Tafsir by Transmission, other that these sources, the SVI is virtually inexistent, except if it is mentioned just to be discarded right afterwards.
3. If the SVI was a true fact, it would"ve influenced the Theological Schools of Thought, not the other way around! Thinking the opposite is a beginner"s mistake.
4. The SVI is a false account, amongst a number of other forged accounts, & they all play extremely insignificant to no role at all in the Islamic Sciences. The whole fuss is happening only in the minds of the adversaries of Islam, western & Christian particularly.

END.

- This took more space than I initially intended, I had to take my arguments to their full conclusions, the matter didn't seem trivial, so I had to take it seriously.
- If you succeed in reading through all this stuff, then I doubt we'll have much to talk about then :P x) .

Best of Luck.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 3:51:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

It's a plagiarism of Christianity, which was a plagiarism of Judaism and some polytheistic myths that preceded all of the monotheistic ones.
You can call me Mark if you like.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 12:35:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:51:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

It's a plagiarism of Christianity, which was a plagiarism of Judaism.

- That's a pointless argument, as it doesn't actually consist of a position against Islam. On the contrary, it speaks for it.

- Islam does not only claim to be the continuation of Judaism & Christianity, it claims to be the continuation & the final revelation of all God"s religions (such as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism"), & so according to Islam:
> There has been 124,000 prophets sent by God to all nations of the Earth from the time of Adam to the time Muhammad, all with the same message & that is: Islam (submission to the One God).
> There has been 315 messengers among those prophets. Messengers are those that bring new laws (such as Jesus or Moses), prophets are those that use the laws of the messengers before them.
> There has been 604 books of Revelation (such as Suhuf of Abraham, Torah of Moses, Zabur of David, Gospel of Jesus, & those of Hinduism. . . etc)

=> & thus, according to Islam: all God"s religions are essentially true & are from the same God. However, they were partially -or completely- corrupted & therefore can not represent the unaltered word of God.
=> It's not plagiarism if it all has the same author.

and some polytheistic myths that preceded all of the monotheistic ones.

- No, that's the myth.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 1:10:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 12:35:17 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:51:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

It's a plagiarism of Christianity, which was a plagiarism of Judaism.

- That's a pointless argument, as it doesn't actually consist of a position against Islam. On the contrary, it speaks for it.

- Islam does not only claim to be the continuation of Judaism & Christianity, it claims to be the continuation & the final revelation of all God"s religions (such as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism"), & so according to Islam:
> There has been 124,000 prophets sent by God to all nations of the Earth from the time of Adam to the time Muhammad, all with the same message & that is: Islam (submission to the One God).
> There has been 315 messengers among those prophets. Messengers are those that bring new laws (such as Jesus or Moses), prophets are those that use the laws of the messengers before them.
> There has been 604 books of Revelation (such as Suhuf of Abraham, Torah of Moses, Zabur of David, Gospel of Jesus, & those of Hinduism. . . etc)

=> & thus, according to Islam: all God"s religions are essentially true & are from the same God. However, they were partially -or completely- corrupted & therefore can not represent the unaltered word of God.
=> It's not plagiarism if it all has the same author.

and some polytheistic myths that preceded all of the monotheistic ones.

- No, that's the myth.

If I don't have reason accept the presumption that your God is real, I don't have reason to believe that one god (your god) came up with all those things. It is known for a fact that humans actually wrote down those things. Therefore, due to Christianity's claim that it builds on Judaism, and due to Islam's claim that it builds on the original teachings of Judaism, I am inclined to believe that Christianity plagiarized Judaism, and that Islam did as well, because humankind wrote down the teachings and there is no proof that a god of any sort came up with them.

Applying the same logic, I can conclude that Judaism plagiarized the religions that preceded and influenced it, because none of it was written by the same author.
You can call me Mark if you like.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 5:17:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 12:35:17 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:51:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

It's a plagiarism of Christianity, which was a plagiarism of Judaism.

- That's a pointless argument, as it doesn't actually consist of a position against Islam. On the contrary, it speaks for it.

- Islam does not only claim to be the continuation of Judaism & Christianity, it claims to be the continuation & the final revelation of all God"s religions (such as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism"), & so according to Islam:

Sorry, but there have other religions making the same claim that came after Islam.

> There has been 124,000 prophets sent by God to all nations of the Earth from the time of Adam to the time Muhammad, all with the same message & that is: Islam (submission to the One God).

LOL. That is a ridiculous lie. Only a complete moron would believe that.

> There has been 315 messengers among those prophets. Messengers are those that bring new laws (such as Jesus or Moses), prophets are those that use the laws of the messengers before them.

Prophets and messengers are merely mentally disturbed individuals.

> There has been 604 books of Revelation (such as Suhuf of Abraham, Torah of Moses, Zabur of David, Gospel of Jesus, & those of Hinduism. . . etc)

So what? That only means there were a fair amount of mentally disturbed religions folks, just like there is now.

=> & thus, according to Islam: all God"s religions are essentially true & are from the same God. However, they were partially -or completely- corrupted & therefore can not represent the unaltered word of God.

LOL. Islam is by far the most corrupted religion.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 9:46:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yassine, I've reported your posts for hate speech content as you are promoting a book that contains much hate speech and directs Muhammadans such as yourself to kill people who don't believe Muhammad's way. We don't want religious dictatorship or religious fascism to rule us so please stop posting bad religion beliefs and get away from your brainwashing that has ruined your ability to tell right from wrong. No sane believer in God would ever think and believe God wants people's heads chopped off if they don't agree with you. Go find real religion of God and stop promoting crimes against humanity done by religious fanatics.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 9:49:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If any Zionist posts here I will tell them the same thing. Judaism is racist to the core and the Talmud is filled with hate speech against Christians and Gentiles. We need to stop allowing these phony religions to get a pass on public forums without criticism of their very bad ideas about God and humanity.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 11:29:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 1:10:13 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/7/2015 12:35:17 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:51:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

It's a plagiarism of Christianity, which was a plagiarism of Judaism.

- That's a pointless argument, as it doesn't actually consist of a position against Islam. On the contrary, it speaks for it.

- Islam does not only claim to be the continuation of Judaism & Christianity, it claims to be the continuation & the final revelation of all God"s religions (such as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism"), & so according to Islam:
> There has been 124,000 prophets sent by God to all nations of the Earth from the time of Adam to the time Muhammad, all with the same message & that is: Islam (submission to the One God).
> There has been 315 messengers among those prophets. Messengers are those that bring new laws (such as Jesus or Moses), prophets are those that use the laws of the messengers before them.
> There has been 604 books of Revelation (such as Suhuf of Abraham, Torah of Moses, Zabur of David, Gospel of Jesus, & those of Hinduism. . . etc)

=> & thus, according to Islam: all God"s religions are essentially true & are from the same God. However, they were partially -or completely- corrupted & therefore can not represent the unaltered word of God.
=> It's not plagiarism if it all has the same author.

and some polytheistic myths that preceded all of the monotheistic ones.

- No, that's the myth.

If I don't have reason accept the presumption that your God is real, I don't have reason to believe that one god (your god) came up with all those things. It is known for a fact that humans actually wrote down those things. Therefore, due to Christianity's claim that it builds on Judaism, and due to Islam's claim that it builds on the original teachings of Judaism, I am inclined to believe that Christianity plagiarized Judaism, and that Islam did as well, because humankind wrote down the teachings and there is no proof that a god of any sort came up with them.

Applying the same logic, I can conclude that Judaism plagiarized the religions that preceded and influenced it, because none of it was written by the same author.

What is with this preoccupation that God be the one moving a pen to paper?

For thousands of years the tales were passed down orally and kept in social memory by bards and seanaki.

Did Washington write about all his engagements? Did the Native Americans fill volumes of painted deer hide about how to make a canoe, fish, and hunt?

Where is the blueprint for knapping a flint arrow head? Or the written record of how Damascus steel is made?

Did Lincoln pen the emancipation proclamation himself? But as an executive order it is attributed to him isn't it.

Who are you fooling? Written down by man you doubt God. Not written down at all you doubt God. Stone Commandments written by God you doubt God. It does not matter where you see the words or how they are written you will doubt.

But truth is in the meaning of the words not the transmission of them through the ages and people.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 3:54:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 1:10:13 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/7/2015 12:35:17 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:51:36 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 1/13/2015 5:32:48 PM, YassineB wrote:
- Is there any specific thing you find mysterious about the Religion of Islam?

- What is to you the most odd thing about Islam?

- What is to you the most confusing thing about Islam? <<< some of my friends say it's the Shi'a/Sunnah thing.

It's a plagiarism of Christianity, which was a plagiarism of Judaism.

- That's a pointless argument, as it doesn't actually consist of a position against Islam. On the contrary, it speaks for it.

- Islam does not only claim to be the continuation of Judaism & Christianity, it claims to be the continuation & the final revelation of all God"s religions (such as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism"), & so according to Islam:
> There has been 124,000 prophets sent by God to all nations of the Earth from the time of Adam to the time Muhammad, all with the same message & that is: Islam (submission to the One God).
> There has been 315 messengers among those prophets. Messengers are those that bring new laws (such as Jesus or Moses), prophets are those that use the laws of the messengers before them.
> There has been 604 books of Revelation (such as Suhuf of Abraham, Torah of Moses, Zabur of David, Gospel of Jesus, & those of Hinduism. . . etc)

=> & thus, according to Islam: all God"s religions are essentially true & are from the same God. However, they were partially -or completely- corrupted & therefore can not represent the unaltered word of God.
=> It's not plagiarism if it all has the same author.

and some polytheistic myths that preceded all of the monotheistic ones.

- No, that's the myth.

If I don't have reason accept the presumption that your God is real, I don't have reason to believe that one god (your god) came up with all those things. It is known for a fact that humans actually wrote down those things.

- Let me stop you right there, if you meant by 'Wrote' as in 'Transcribed', which is indeed a fact, though has nothing to do with Revelation at all. However, if you mean 'Wrote' as in 'Authored/Invented' the Revelations, then what evidence do you have that this indeed is a fact?!

Therefore, due to Christianity's claim that it builds on Judaism, and due to Islam's claim that it builds on the original teachings of Judaism, I am inclined to believe that Christianity plagiarized Judaism, and that Islam did as well, because humankind wrote down the teachings and there is no proof that a god of any sort came up with them.

- There is no proof that you know of probably, but there is certainly proof, strong & conclusive for that matter that you just don't know of.
- Plus, the claim of Plagiarism you so carelessly use is extremely oversimplified. We are talking here about whole independent Religions!!!!!

Applying the same logic, I can conclude that Judaism plagiarised the religions that preceded and influenced it, because none of it was written by the same author.

- What Logic, what you just said is anti-logical. This is a false generalisation based on a false analogy.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 5:58:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Uppdrag granskning (Mission: Investigation) is a Swedish television program focusing on investigative journalism. The program investigated extreme internet trolls and threats against journalists in the country. Over 84% of Swedish journalists reported threats within the first six months of 2014. The threats escalated to extreme levels against women in particular promising to cut them open, cut their throats, cut their vaginas, rape them and even torture them to death."

I've been leading a Zero Tolerance for Muhammadism for quite a while on Debate boards and everyday one reads in the paper why I urge Zero Tolerance for Muhammadism-- it is not a religion of God but some horrible theft of God's guidance given to Jews and Christians by a very jealous and crazy with revenge Arab meglomaniac who wanted to be another Moses and Attila the Hun all at the same time. Zero tolerance for the Quran as hate speech against non-Muhammadans. Report any Muhammadan poster's referring to the Quran as hate speech so we can get rid of this monstrosity of a religion that preys on mental instability of believers, especially young men, turning too many of them into killer apes, Reavers, instead of human beings.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2015 6:07:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
How much proof do we need that reading the Quran inspires the worst sort of human behavior in impressionable young people's minds. Everyday there's another Muhammadan attack on innocent people going on. EVERY single day. We have to have Zero tolerance for this crazy producing false religion of Muhammad who wanted his followers to make him THE ONLY MAN allowed to speak for God. How insane is that? That God would put all of God's eggs in one murderous thieving man's hands. Do any of you see God putting any natural species genes in a single individual? Takes two to make a baby, takes twelve to make a line of prophesy bearers, but takes only one to betray human trust to create an evil empire based on terrorism and fear installed in people that always comes down in the end. Always.