www.free-islam.com

Bring it on - The Slam Dunk Show
- Tue 13 May, 2008 7:46 pm
Post subject: The Slam Dunk Show
Salam all

One goon on FFI posted the following to me:

truthseeker2 of FFI said:

I tell you what, seeing I must have posted way to many examples of error with the quran. I will post some here again, but this time I will keep it small as we all know that our friend here ahmed can not take that many at a time, as it probably confuses him. So here are a few for you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many angels were talking to Mary?

In Sura 3:42, 45 SEVERAL angels appear to Mary in the annunciation of the birth of Jesus.

Or was it in fact,

In Sura 19:17-21 only ONE angel appears to the virgin Mary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who takes people's souls at death?

Sura 32:11 The angel of death
Sura 47:27 The angels (plural)

or

Sura 39:42 "It is Allah that takes the souls at death"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many days did creation take?

Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 all clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days.

But we have

Sura 41:9-12, the detailed description of the creation procedure, add up to eight days.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which was created first, the heavens or the earth?

Sura 2:29 says the earth was created first and then heaven.

but

Sura 49:27-30 says the heaven was created first and then the earth was created.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heaven and earth ripped apart or called together?


Sura 41:11 states that in the process of creation heaven and earth were first apart and are called to come together.

& then we get

Sura 21:30 states that they were originally one piece and then ripped apart.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Allah forgive shirk?

Sura 4:48, 116
No

then we get

Sura 4:153, 25:68-71
Yes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moses and the Injil

Jesus was born more than 1,000 years after Moses, but in Sura 7:157 Allah speaks to Moses about what is written in the Injil (the book given to Jesus)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who brings the revelation from Allah to Muhammad?

Sura 2:97 - The Angel Gabriel
or was it
Sura 16:102 - The Holy Spirit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ezra the son of God

Surah 9:30 says the Jews believe that Ezra is the Son of God - the Messiah.
But!
This has never been a tenet of Judaism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now last but not least,
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Ahmed, I have tried to be brief here & I have not given anywhere near the amount I did last time. Now I know I have given you more than one as you asked, but I am sure than a man such as yourself who has such a vast knowledge of the quran & islam would have no problem in explaining all the above for us. If you do not wish to do them all in one go, you can do them one at a time in the order they have been posted.




I actually have no time with their repeated ignorance as I'm now getting ready to leave for a long work trip on the 4 of June, however I decided to start a slam dunk show and reply to all the above crap as my time allows, today I hit them with the first 3 slams
- Tue 13 May, 2008 7:47 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

Let me get the slams going, I would like to finish refuting the above crap before I go overseas

The next stupid allegation to expose is this:

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.



Hahahahahaahah

Again, I replied to the above ignorance many times:

Firstly, to define a day, we need a location somewhere in the universe

For example

Mercury day = 58.65 Earth days
Venus day = 243 Earth days
Earth day = 1 Earth days
Mars day = 1.03 Earth days
Jupiter day = 0.41 Earth days
Saturn day = 0.44 Earth days
Uranus day = 0.72 Earth days
Neptune day = 0.72 Earth days
Pluto day = 6.38 Earth days

Taken from: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/our_solar_system/planets_table.html

From the above we can say:

Mercury day = 58.65 days of what the humans on earth count as days

And sure the same for every planet

Indeed every planet day or star day is different to another hence it can be referred to (relatively) by referring to the equivalent number of earth days instead. But that is only if I tell you that the day I'm talking about equals to what number of days/years on another location in the universe, if I mention a day without telling you what it is equal to at another place then you won't know what day I'm talking about , with this in mind let me now go through your silly argument:

Here is the first Arabic verse you mentioned:

And they mock you to hasten on the punishment, and Allah will by no means fail in His promise, and indeed a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you count.
[The Quran ; 22:47]

وَيَسْتَعْجِلُونَكَ بِالْعَذَابِ وَلَن يُخْلِفَ اللَّهُ وَعْدَهُ وَإِنَّ يَوْمًا عِندَ رَبِّكَ كَأَلْفِ سَنَةٍ مِّمَّا تَعُدُّونَ (47)

-> Can you see the words عِندَ رَبِّكَ , Inda Rabaka, with your Lord, i.e. we have a location, i.e. Allah is talking g about the day that He chose to apply to Him and He also told us how long that day is by comparing it to the earth year, see what Allah said: وَإِنَّ يَوْمًا عِندَ رَبِّكَ كَأَلْفِ سَنَةٍ مِّمَّا تَعُدُّونَ , i.e. and indeed a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you count., see the words: of what you count. , i.e. of what the humans count as a year, i.e. an earthy year, from the above verse we can conclude:

1) 22:47 is talking about a day AT ALLAH END
2) Allah told us that this day AT HIS END = 1000 years of what the human count on earth as years
3) i.e. the day at Allah end = 1000 earth years

In the other verse you presented, Allah never told us that the day He is talking about is a day at His end, let's have a look:

He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count.
[The Quran ; 32:5]

يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ مِنَ السَّمَاء إِلَى الْأَرْضِ ثُمَّ يَعْرُجُ إِلَيْهِ فِي يَوْمٍ كَانَ مِقْدَارُهُ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ مِّمَّا تَعُدُّونَ (5)

-> See, Allah is only talking about a day in which He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him, i.e. He never told us that this is a day of His as He said in 22:47, i.e. we can not compare the two, however Allah told us that the day He is talking about in 32:5 is also equal to 1000 years of what the human count on earth: in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count., only the stupid dumb will take it as if Allah is talking about the same day He mentioned in 22:47.

From the above verse, we can conclude the following:

1) 32:5 is not talking about a day at Allah end, rather another day that He told nothing to where this day is, i.e. we can't know which day He is talking about other than the following:
2) The day 32:5 is talking about is the day required for Allah so: He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him, the verse never said that this day applies to Allah as we read in 22:47
3) It just happened that the two different days mentioned in 22:47 & 32:5 have the same length, which is equal to 1000 earth years

From the two verses we can conclude:

The length of the day at Allah end = the length of the day in which He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him = 1000 earth years

Now if we look at 70:4 we must conclude that the verse is talking about yet another day, which is different to the other two days mentioned in 22:47 $ 32:5

To Him ascend the angels and the Spirit in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years.
[The Quran ; 70:4]

تَعْرُجُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّوحُ إِلَيْهِ فِي يَوْمٍ كَانَ مِقْدَارُهُ خَمْسِينَ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ (4)


Now 70:4 has nothing to do with 22:47, nor 32:5 for the following two obvious reasons:

1) The verse never told us that the day mentioned is a day at Allah, i.e. A day with Allah
2) The verse never told us that it is equivalent to 50,000 OF WHAT THE HUMANS ON EARTH COUNT as years, it only said that such day in which To Him ascend the angels and the Spirit, is equal to 50,000 years: the measure of which is fifty thousand years., those years can be any year, a year on Mars, a year on Earth or a year on any other location in the universe, the verse message is only to inform us with the huge numbers of angels that Allah created using the time they need to ascend to Him which is very long.

Here you have it, the three verses are talking about 3 different days, but the goons want to take it as one day, this is because they are desperate to find just one error, and because they can't, they have to cook one, well their actions won't save them from being slammed:

# 2
- Tue 13 May, 2008 7:48 pm
Post subject:
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.


This one is one of the typical crap the kafirs spew trying hard to cook an error, however they always end up embarrassing themselves due to their lack of common sense, they are blinded with their kufr not to even see the simplest of logics and common sense

I?????????????????????¢??m sure many saw a building with possibly hundreds of offices inside, a person may have 1 or 2 or 3 or whatever number of these offices in this building allocated to him, now I can refer to the building in singular form to refer to the whole building if I want to say something about the building, or I can refer to the offices inside the buikding in plural if I want to say anything regarding the offices, and this is the common sense that the blind kafirs deliberately failed to see. Another example is a car park, to which I can refer to it in singular as a whole or refer to the individual car spaces inside in plural.

If you apply the above simple logic on Paradise then the Paradise will be the building and in it there should be many small paradises, and indeed this is exactly what the Quran told us because for any paradise resident, he or she may have many small paradises in the main paradise

The Quran referred to the Jannah (Paradise) using singular form in at least 75 verse, but as you can see that truthseekere is picking on two, I?????????????????????¢??m sure that he does not know how many times the Quran referred to the Paradise using the singular Arabic word (Jannah), that is the consequence of copy/pasting without knowing what the hell they are talking about, I will prove to you his stupidity later on inshalllah

What I will do is go through the verses he posted to support his ignorance then will provide more verses to support my argument that I explained above, by the end of my comment you should be assured to how stupid, ignorant and dumb truthseeker2 is:

These are the first verses he brought in:

As for) those who say: Our Lord is Allah, then continue in the right way, the angels descend upon them, saying: Fear not, nor be grieved, and receive good news of the garden which you were promised
[The Quran ; 41:30]

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا رَبُّنَا اللَّهُ ثُمَّ اسْتَقَامُوا تَتَنَزَّلُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ أَلَّا تَخَافُوا وَلَا تَحْزَنُوا وَأَبْشِرُوا بِالْجَنَّةِ الَّتِي كُنتُمْ تُوعَدُونَ (30)



Hasten to forgiveness from your Lord and to a garden the extensiveness of which is as the extensiveness of the heaven and the earth; it is prepared for those who believe in Allah and His messengers; that is the grace of Allah: He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.
[The Quran ; 57:21]

سَابِقُوا إِلَى مَغْفِرَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَجَنَّةٍ عَرْضُهَا كَعَرْضِ السَّمَاء وَالْأَرْضِ أُعِدَّتْ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ ذَلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاء وَاللَّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ (21)


-> In these verses and another 73 verses at least, Allah is referring to the Jannah as one entity, like the building or the car park

-> An important note in 57:21, that the paradise (the main and only one) is so huge that: a garden the extensiveness of which is as the extensiveness of the heaven and the earth, please take note of this as I will use it later in another verse

It is obvious to a child that when Allah is using the singular form regarding the Jannah, then it has to be in s for the main one and only paradise, however we know that any garden being on earth or any where else may consists of many small gardens inside, for example:

-> Someone on earth may have one big garden, inside such garden is two small gardens, one that has trees to produce Mangos, and another has trees to produce Oranges, now, if that person refers to it in singular form then he must be referring to the main and only big garden he has, but if he refers to it in dual form then we must know that he is referring to both small gardens inside his main garden, how hard is that to understand, man, the kafirs desperation is making them look really fool, let?????????????????????¢??s look at the following verses which is metaphoric story in the Quran about a rich and kafir man whose money did not save his two gardens from the curse of Allah:

32: And set forth to them a parable of two men; for one of them We made two gardens of grape vines, and We surrounded them both with palms, and in the midst of them We made cornfields.

33: Both these gardens yielded their fruits, and failed not aught thereof, and We caused a river to gush forth in their midst,

34: And he possessed much produce; so he said to his companion, while he disputed with him: I have greater wealth than you, and am mightier in followers.

35: And he entered his garden while he was unjust to himself. He said: I do not think that this will ever perish
[The Quran ; 18:32-35]

وَاضْرِبْ لَهُم مَّثَلًا رَّجُلَيْنِ جَعَلْنَا لِأَحَدِهِمَا جَنَّتَيْنِ مِنْ أَعْنَابٍ وَحَفَفْنَاهُمَا بِنَخْلٍ وَجَعَلْنَا بَيْنَهُمَا زَرْعًا (32)
كِلْتَا الْجَنَّتَيْنِ آتَتْ أُكُلَهَا وَلَمْ تَظْلِمْ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا وَفَجَّرْنَا خِلَالَهُمَا نَهَرًا (33)
وَكَانَ لَهُ ثَمَرٌ فَقَالَ لِصَاحِبِهِ وَهُوَ يُحَاوِرُهُ أَنَا أَكْثَرُ مِنكَ مَالًا وَأَعَزُّ نَفَرًا (34)
وَدَخَلَ جَنَّتَهُ وَهُوَ ظَالِمٌ لِّنَفْسِهِ قَالَ مَا أَظُنُّ أَن تَبِيدَ هَذِهِ أَبَدًا (35)

-> See how Allah is telling Mohammed to tell a parable to the people: And set forth to them a parable of two men, one of these men is very rich while the other is poor, the rich man has TWO GARDENS: see how it is said in dual: جَعَلْنَا لِأَحَدِهِمَا جَنَّتَيْنِ , Jaallna Li Ihdahuma JANATAYN, i.e. for one of them We made two gardens, Allah then described the two gardens to us be referring to both of them in dual: and We surrounded them both with palms, and in the midst of them We made cornfields., Allah then continued to tell us more info about the two gardens the rich man owned: Both these gardens yielded their fruits, and failed not aught thereof, and We caused a river to gush forth in their midst, see how Allah is referring to the both gardens in dual: الْجَنَّتَيْنِ , Al Janatayn, i.e. The two gardens, the two gardens yielded their produce which made the owner wealthy so he was showing it off to the poor man: And he possessed much produce; so he said to his companion, while he disputed with him: I have greater wealth than you,, obviously because he is rich, he had a lot of arse lickers licking his arse, see what he said next: and am mightier in followers., some time later the rich man entered HIS BIG GARDEN (SINGUALR) which has the two small gardens inside, see how it is said in th next verse: وَدَخَلَ جَنَّتَهُ , Wa Dakhal Jannathu, i.e. And he entered his garden see how the verse is referring to it in singular form, i.e. he entered the MAIN GARDEN, surely both gardens are enclosed in one fence which mean both small gardens constitute the one big garden he owns

From the above:

1) The rich man owned one big garden
2) Each garden produced its own produce, possibly one produced tomatoes and another produced eggplant, you know
3) We can refer to the main garden the man owns by using singular form : جَنَّهُ , Jannat, i.e. a garden
4) Or we can refer to the two small gardens inside the main garden by using dual form الْجَنَّتَيْنِ , Al Janatayn, i.e. The two gardens

Another clear example is the earth, we know well that the earth is not Al Jannah (The Garden), we also know that the earth has many gardens, this means the many gardens on earth can NOT constitute the earth because the earth is not the main garden rather parts of it are gardens, therefore when Allah described to us the gardens on earth that are produced by the rain, He must use the plural form, Jannat, He can never refer to it as singular because all these Jannat (gardens) on earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE A MAIN JANNAH (Garden), let?????????????????????¢??s have a look at a few examples:

And We send down from the cloud water abounding in good, then We cause to grow thereby gardens and the grain that is reaped,
[The Quran ; 50:9]

وَنَزَّلْنَا مِنَ السَّمَاء مَاء مُّبَارَكًا فَأَنبَتْنَا بِهِ جَنَّاتٍ وَحَبَّ الْحَصِيدِ (9)

-> See how the verse above is talking about the gardens on earth: And We send down from the cloud water abounding in good,, and what this rain will do: فَأَنبَتْنَا بِهِ جَنَّاتٍ , Fa Anbattna Bihi Jannat, i.e. then We cause to grow thereby gardens, it has to be plural because the earth is not one big garden rather parts of it are gardens

Another example goes like this:

14: And We send down from the clouds water pouring forth abundantly,
15: That We may bring forth thereby corn and herbs,
16: And gardens dense and luxuriant.
[The Quran ; 78:14-16]

وَأَنزَلْنَا مِنَ الْمُعْصِرَاتِ مَاء ثَجَّاجًا (14)
لِنُخْرِجَ بِهِ حَبًّا وَنَبَاتًا (15)
وَجَنَّاتٍ أَلْفَافًا (16)

-> See what happens on earth: And We send down from the clouds water pouring forth abundantly, this water will cause the following: That We may bring forth thereby corn and herbs, and وَجَنَّاتٍ أَلْفَافًا , Wa Jannat Alfafa , i.e. And gardens dense and luxuriant., again, in plural as the singular can not be valid when we talk gardens on earth, again because the earth does not make a one big garden, rather parts of it are gardens and parts of it so hostile environment that can not be inhibited

Another example as follow:

33: And a sign to them is the dead earth: We give life to it and bring forth from it grain so they eat of it.
34: And We make therein gardens of palms and grapevines and We make springs to flow forth in it,
35: That they may eat of the produce thereof, and their hands did not make it; will they not then be grateful?
[The Quran ; 36:33-35]

وَآيَةٌ لَّهُمُ الْأَرْضُ الْمَيْتَةُ أَحْيَيْنَاهَا وَأَخْرَجْنَا مِنْهَا حَبًّا فَمِنْهُ يَأْكُلُونَ (33)
وَجَعَلْنَا فِيهَا جَنَّاتٍ مِن نَّخِيلٍ وَأَعْنَابٍ وَفَجَّرْنَا فِيهَا مِنْ الْعُيُونِ (34)
لِيَأْكُلُوا مِن ثَمَرِهِ وَمَا عَمِلَتْهُ أَيْدِيهِمْ أَفَلَا يَشْكُرُونَ (35)

-> Again, we are talking about gardens on earth, see: And a sign to them is the dead earth: We give life to it and bring forth from it grain so they eat of it., but hey, for the blind kafirs, while they admit that it is a sign (a miracle), they reject that Allah is the one who caused it to happen such way, this is how blind they are, as if by accepting it, they will lose, what a bunch of ever losers, man, anyway, this rain will cause gardens to grow on earth: وَجَعَلْنَا فِيهَا جَنَّاتٍ , Wa Jaalna Fiha Jannat, i.e. And We make therein (in the earth) gardens, again, Allah is not referring to it in singular because the earth as one piece does not make one big garden, but see how all humans eat from the produce of all these gardens on earth as well trade in it and make their living yet most of them are kafiroon (disbelievers): That they may eat of the produce thereof, and their hands did not make it; will they not then be grateful?

In the following verse, Allah said it in more details:

And He is the One Who sends down from the sky water, then We bring with it plant of everything, then We bring from it green (leaf) from which We bring grain piled up; and of the palm-trees, of its sheaths come forth clusters (of dates which) are near (reach), and gardens of grapes and the olives and the pomegranates, alike and unlike; Look at its produce when it yields and ripens; indeed in there are signs for a people who believe.
[The Quran ; 6:99]

وَهُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَاء مَاء فَأَخْرَجْنَا بِهِ نَبَاتَ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ فَأَخْرَجْنَا مِنْهُ خَضِرًا نُّخْرِجُ مِنْهُ حَبًّا مُّتَرَاكِبًا وَمِنَ النَّخْلِ مِن طَلْعِهَا قِنْوَانٌ دَانِيَةٌ وَجَنَّاتٍ مِّنْ أَعْنَابٍ وَالزَّيْتُونَ وَالرُّمَّانَ مُشْتَبِهًا وَغَيْرَ مُتَشَابِهٍ انظُرُواْ إِلِى ثَمَرِهِ إِذَا أَثْمَرَ وَيَنْعِهِ إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكُمْ لآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ (99)

-> See how detailed it is this time: And He is the One Who sends down from the sky water, then We bring with it plant of everything, then We bring from it green (leaf) from which We bring grain piled up; and of the palm-trees, of its sheaths come forth clusters (of dates which) are near (reach), and gardens of grapes and the olives and the pomegranates, alike and unlike; Look at its produce when it yields and ripens; indeed in there are signs for a people who believe., what an amazing accuracy when we talk gardens on earth, it has to always be plural as I explained and proved many times so far

With the promised garden however, we can refer to it in two ways:

1) In singular form because the promised garden makes one and only big garden
2) In plural because the dwellers of the promised garden, each will have at least his/her own garden, in fact it is even possible that each dweller may have more than one garden inside the promised garden

The bottom line is this: the promised garden consist of nothing but many garden that will be owned by its dwellers, therefore in at least 65 verse in the Quran, Allah used the plural to refer to one garden by referring to many gardens inside

If the tiny earth whose main purpose is not the promised garden, have many gardens as we have seen in all the above verses, imagine the promised garden whose main purpose is to be the promised garden, a garden the extensiveness of which is as the extensiveness of the heaven and the earth;, it must have zillions of gardens, and its content must only be many gardens

From the above all the verses, it is obvious that when Allah uses the plural referring to the promised garden, he is using its content (the zillions of gardens) in plural to refer to it, in addition to that, a garden dweller may own many gardens in and in such case Allah is referring to many gardens that may be a reward to anyone who will prosper, let?????????????????????¢??s look at the following verse:

Blessed is He Who, if He please, will give you what is better than this, gardens beneath which rivers flow, and He will give you palaces.
[The Quran ; 25:10]

تَبَارَكَ الَّذِي إِن شَاء جَعَلَ لَكَ خَيْرًا مِّن ذَلِكَ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ وَيَجْعَل لَّكَ قُصُورًا (10)

-> See what the reward may be for the promised garden dwellers: Blessed is He Who, if He please, will give you what is better than this, gardens beneath which rivers flow, and He will give you palaces., see, NOT one palace RATHER MANY PALACES, i.e. MANY GARDENS MAY ALSO BE GRANTED

How clear is that.

Let me now have a quick look at the verses that talks about the promised garden in plural which mister copy and paste truthseeker2 referred to:

truthseeker2 wrote:
or is it in fact

In Sura 18:31, 22:23, 25:33, and 78:32 there are many gardens in Paradise.


أُوْلَئِكَ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتُ عَدْنٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهِمُ الْأَنْهَارُ يُحَلَّوْنَ فِيهَا مِنْ أَسَاوِرَ مِن ذَهَبٍ وَيَلْبَسُونَ ثِيَابًا خُضْرًا مِّن سُندُسٍ وَإِسْتَبْرَقٍ مُّتَّكِئِينَ فِيهَا عَلَى الْأَرَائِكِ نِعْمَ الثَّوَابُ وَحَسُنَتْ مُرْتَفَقًا (31)

[The Quran ; 18:31]
-> Is referring to the many gardens inside the promised garden


إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُدْخِلُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ يُحَلَّوْنَ فِيهَا مِنْ أَسَاوِرَ مِن ذَهَبٍ وَلُؤْلُؤًا وَلِبَاسُهُمْ فِيهَا حَرِيرٌ (23)

[The Quran ; 22:23]
-> Is referring to the many gardens inside the promised garden

The next versed should prove to everyone how dumb, confused and ignorant truthseeker 2 is:

YUSUFALI: And no question do they bring to thee but We reveal to thee the truth and the best explanation (thereof).

PICKTHAL: And they bring thee no similitude but We bring thee the Truth (as against it), and better (than their similitude) as argument.

SHAKIR: And they shall not bring to you any argument, but We have brought to you (one) with truth and best in significance.
[The Quran ; 25:33]

وَلَا يَأْتُونَكَ بِمَثَلٍ إِلَّا جِئْنَاكَ بِالْحَقِّ وَأَحْسَنَ تَفْسِيرًا (33)

-> Hahahahahah, see the verse above never mentioned any garden, this means that truthseeker2 is dumb and blind, he is nothing but an ignorant copier/paster, consequently he must be dismissed by all


حَدَائِقَ وَأَعْنَابًا (32)

[The Quran ; 78:32]
-> Is referring to the many gardens inside the promised garden, and also another Arabic word for gardens is used, , Hadaiq, i.e. Gardens

# 3

What a slam that is
- Wed 14 May, 2008 12:04 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

Today I?????????????????????¢??m very busy working on the DB that I have to install in London starting from the 4 of June inshaallah, therefore I only have time for one slam today, however if I feel like slamming them again, I may push myself and dunk another one or two

Let me first say, sorry about all the typos above, I will fix all inshaallah, the words in my head come way faster than my typing and I just miss many words trying to keep with the words hitting my thoughts.

Today I want a quick slam, a slam that requires one verse from me to dunk it and again expose the stupidity of the kafir enemy of Islam

Let?????????????????????¢??s see what kafir bound to hell truthseeker2 is spewing this time:

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)



As you can see above, for the dumb to create a contradiction in the Quran, he is comparing it with other crap called whatever, I thought that dumb truthseeker2 should know that to prove a contradiction in the Quran we need at least two verses, that are clearly contradicting each other, not a verse from the Quran and a passage from Harry Potter book, can you see the stupidity of such desperate kafir enemy of Islam, must be obvious to a even a child I say, anyway, as you all know that any hearsay hadith can not be admissible in any Quran discussion that I get involved in unless I?????????????????????¢??m attacking some of the hadith that I believe must be fabricated or at least manipulated,

Now, because that dumb used the hadith as seen in his stupid comment above, I have every right to dismiss his crap in the nearest rubbish bin along with him, but I?????????????????????¢??m going to be very nice this time and assume (for argument sake) that the hearsay hadith by Bukhari posted by confused truthseeker2 is another verse in the Quran that is contradicting the Quran verse 35:1

Let me now re-write his crap just to save his red face which is the result of his stupidity:

The following is nothing but an assumption

Ahmed is assuming that dumb truthseeker2 presented the following argument:

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. (another Quran verse)


Ahmed says:

Let me bring 35:1 in here and walk you through it:


All praise is due to Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, the Maker of the angels, messengers flying on wings, two, and three, and four; He increases in creation what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things.
[The Quran ; 35:1]

الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ جَاعِلِ الْمَلَائِكَةِ رُسُلًا أُولِي أَجْنِحَةٍ مَّثْنَى وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ يَزِيدُ فِي الْخَلْقِ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ (1)



-> Hahahaha, I can sense the mother of all slams coming, ok let?????????????????????¢??s start it in slow motion:

-> The verse starts by praising Allah: الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ , i.e. All praise is due to Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth,

-> Then it starts by telling us something about Allah جَاعِلِ الْمَلَائِكَةِ رُسُلًا أُولِي أَجْنِحَةٍ مَّثْنَى وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ , the Maker of the angels, messengers flying on wings, two, and three, and four; , the verse didn?????????????????????¢??t stop here, rather it continued to tell us about such creation by Allah

-> يَزِيدُ فِي الْخَلْقِ مَا يَشَاء , Yazeed Fi Al Khalq Ma Yashaa, i.e. He increases in creation what He pleases , i.e. some other angels may have more than 4 wings, possibly 5, possibly 100, possibly 600, possibly 1000000 wings, it all depends as the verse is telling us that Allah increases in the creation as He pleases and it happens that He was pleased to have Jibreel with 600 wings as the other ASSUMED QURAN VERSE IS TELLING , of course Allah can create an angel with 1000000 wings, isn?????????????????????¢??t He Capable over all things, and that is how the verse ended

-> See, إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ , surely Allah has power over all things.

The mother of all slams, it needs a new animation:

- Fri 16 May, 2008 9:17 pm
Post subject:
Salam All,

Let's have a look at the subject of today's slam:

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


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 the 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
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


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
- Sat 17 May, 2008 12:11 am
Post subject:
Salam All

Let's have a look at the next desperate attempt by the kafirs enemy of Islam in their quest to fabricate an error in the Quran:

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.


So if I speak about 3 groups in one incident then in another I speak about only two out of those three, it means that I contradicted myself, hahahahaha, see how desperate they are, well let me walk you through the verses he is using and you should realize how the dumb got it wrong

In the following verses Allah CLEALY tells us that on the J D we are going to be three groups:

7: And you shall be three pairs (groups)
8: Then (as to) the companions of the right hand; how happy are the companions of the right hand!
9: And (as to) the companions of the left hand; how wretched are the companions of the left hand!
10: And the foremost are the foremost,
[The Quran ; 56:7-10]

وَكُنتُمْ أَزْوَاجًا ثَلَاثَةً (7)
فَأَصْحَابُ الْمَيْمَنَةِ مَا أَصْحَابُ الْمَيْمَنَةِ (8)
وَأَصْحَابُ الْمَشْأَمَةِ مَا أَصْحَابُ الْمَشْأَمَةِ (9)
وَالسَّابِقُونَ السَّابِقُونَ (10)

-> Very clear from the above that all humans will be 3 groups: And you shall be three pairs (groups) , then in the next 3 verses, Allah told us the names of those three groups:

A) The companions of the right hand (56-8)
B) The companions of the left hand (56-9)
C) The foremost (56-10)


The next verses described to us who are the third group: The foremost, let's read their descriptions so we can have a clear perspective on who are they:

10: And the foremost are the foremost,
11: These are they who are drawn nigh (to Allah),
12: In the gardens of bliss.
13: A numerous company from among the first,
14: And a few from among the last.
15: On thrones decorated,
16: Reclining on them, facing one another.
17: Round about them shall go youths never altering in age,
18: With goblets and ewers and a cup of pure drink;
19: They shall not be affected with headache thereby, nor shall they get exhausted,
20: And fruits such as they choose,
21: And the flesh of fowl such as they desire.
22: And pure, beautiful ones,
23: The like of the hidden pearls:
24: A reward for what they used to do.
25: They shall not hear therein vain or sinful discourse,
26: Except the word peace, peace.
[The Quran ; 56:10-26]

وَالسَّابِقُونَ السَّابِقُونَ (10)
أُوْلَئِكَ الْمُقَرَّبُونَ (11)
فِي جَنَّاتِ النَّعِيمِ (12)
ثُلَّةٌ مِّنَ الْأَوَّلِينَ (13)
وَقَلِيلٌ مِّنَ الْآخِرِينَ (14)
عَلَى سُرُرٍ مَّوْضُونَةٍ (15)
مُتَّكِئِينَ عَلَيْهَا مُتَقَابِلِينَ (16)
يَطُوفُ عَلَيْهِمْ وِلْدَانٌ مُّخَلَّدُونَ (17)
بِأَكْوَابٍ وَأَبَارِيقَ وَكَأْسٍ مِّن مَّعِينٍ (18)
لَا يُصَدَّعُونَ عَنْهَا وَلَا يُنزِفُونَ (19)
وَفَاكِهَةٍ مِّمَّا يَتَخَيَّرُونَ (20)
وَلَحْمِ طَيْرٍ مِّمَّا يَشْتَهُونَ (21)
وَحُورٌ عِينٌ (22)
كَأَمْثَالِ اللُّؤْلُؤِ الْمَكْنُونِ (23)
جَزَاء بِمَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ (24)
لَا يَسْمَعُونَ فِيهَا لَغْوًا وَلَا تَأْثِيمًا (25)
إِلَّا قِيلًا سَلَامًا سَلَامًا (26)

-> Very clear from the above verses that this group that is called The foremost is a WINNING group, i.e. are destined to paradise , what we should pay more attention to from all the above description are the following ones:

A) These are they who are drawn nigh (to Allah) (56:11)
B) And a few from among the last. (56:14)


Allah then detailed to us the description of the first group The companions of the right hand, let's read their descriptions so we can have a clear perspective on who are they:

27: And the companions of the right hand; how happy are the companions of the right hand!
28: Amid thornless lote-trees,
29: And banana-trees (with fruits), one above another.
30: And extended shade,
31: And water flowing constantly,
32: And fruit in plenty
35: Neither intercepted nor forbidden,
34: And exalted thrones.
35: Surely We have made them to grow into a (new) growth,
36: Then We have made them virgins,
37: Loving, equals in age,
38: For the sake of the companions of the right hand.
39: A numerous company from among the first,
40: And a numerous company from among the last.
[The Quran ; 56:27-40]

وَأَصْحَابُ الْيَمِينِ مَا أَصْحَابُ الْيَمِينِ (27)
فِي سِدْرٍ مَّخْضُودٍ (28)
وَطَلْحٍ مَّنضُودٍ (29)
وَظِلٍّ مَّمْدُودٍ (30)
وَمَاء مَّسْكُوبٍ (31)
وَفَاكِهَةٍ كَثِيرَةٍ (32)
لَّا مَقْطُوعَةٍ وَلَا مَمْنُوعَةٍ (33)
وَفُرُشٍ مَّرْفُوعَةٍ (34)
إِنَّا أَنشَأْنَاهُنَّ إِنشَاء (35)
فَجَعَلْنَاهُنَّ أَبْكَارًا (36)
عُرُبًا أَتْرَابًا (37)
لِّأَصْحَابِ الْيَمِينِ (38)
ثُلَّةٌ مِّنَ الْأَوَّلِينَ (39)
وَثُلَّةٌ مِّنَ الْآخِرِينَ (40)

-> Again, very clear from the above verses that this group that is called The companions of the right hand is a WINNING group, i.e. are destined to paradise , however they are not identical to the other group called The foremost, in the above verses we do not read that the companions od the right hand will be drawn near Allah, there is also a distinct difference that the companions of the right hand are numerous company from among the later. while the foremost are few from among the last

-> From all the above a child can clearly see that both groups The foremost and The companions of the right hand are winners, it is like dividing the winning group into two winning sub groups, one is higher in reward than the other, i.e. The foremost group is higher in the reward than the companions of the right hand group

-> The foremost group as the verses above told us that they are few from the latest generations, this is very logical because as the humans progress further in the timeline and get more distant from the time when Allah messages were sent, they tend to think of these messages as the tales of the anceient, consequently they abandon it or even those who believe in it do not hold to it humbly, therefore only few from the latest generations who will belong to this winning group, unlike the companions of the right hand group, whose members will be numerous from the latest generations.

Allah then detailed to us the description of the second group The companions of the left hand, obviously this is a losing group let's read their descriptions so we can have a clear perspective on who are they:

41: And those of the left hand, how wretched are those of the left hand!
42: In hot wind and boiling water,
43: And the shade of black smoke,
44: Neither cool nor honorable.
45: Surely they were before that made to live in ease and plenty.
46: And they persisted in the great violation.
47: And they used to say: What! when we die and have become dust and bones, shall we then indeed be raised?
48: Or our fathers of yore?
49: Say: The first and the last,
50: Shall most surely be gathered together for the appointed hour of a known day.
51: Then shall you, O you who err and call it a lie!
52: Most surely eat of a tree of Zaqqoom,
53: And fill (your) bellies with it;
54: Then drink over it of boiling water;
55: And drink as drinks the thirsty camel.
56: This is their entertainment on the day of requital.
[The Quran ; 56:41-56]

وَأَصْحَابُ الشِّمَالِ مَا أَصْحَابُ الشِّمَالِ (41)
فِي سَمُومٍ وَحَمِيمٍ (42)
وَظِلٍّ مِّن يَحْمُومٍ (43)
لَّا بَارِدٍ وَلَا كَرِيمٍ (44)
إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ مُتْرَفِينَ (45)
وَكَانُوا يُصِرُّونَ عَلَى الْحِنثِ الْعَظِيمِ (46)
وَكَانُوا يَقُولُونَ أَئِذَا مِتْنَا وَكُنَّا تُرَابًا وَعِظَامًا أَئِنَّا لَمَبْعُوثُونَ (47)
أَوَ آبَاؤُنَا الْأَوَّلُونَ (48)
قُلْ إِنَّ الْأَوَّلِينَ وَالْآخِرِينَ (49)
لَمَجْمُوعُونَ إِلَى مِيقَاتِ يَوْمٍ مَّعْلُومٍ (50)
ثُمَّ إِنَّكُمْ أَيُّهَا الضَّالُّونَ الْمُكَذِّبُونَ (51)
لَآكِلُونَ مِن شَجَرٍ مِّن زَقُّومٍ (52)
فَمَالِؤُونَ مِنْهَا الْبُطُونَ (53)
فَشَارِبُونَ عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الْحَمِيمِ (54)
فَشَارِبُونَ شُرْبَ الْهِيمِ (55)
هَذَا نُزُلُهُمْ يَوْمَ الدِّينِ (56)


From all the above we can classify the humans into two major groups:

1) The winners

2) The losers (The companions of the left hand)

The winners group is divided into two sub groups:

A) The foremost

B) The companions of the right hand

It seems to me that the winning sub group (the foremost) will enter paradise with ease, while the companions of the right hand will enter paradise but possibly after paying some dues for their sins and possibly been forgiven later as Allah desires

Let's now see if the verses above are conflicting with some other verses as ignorant truthseeker2 is alleging:

17: Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
18: These are the people of the right hand
19: And (as for) those who disbelieve in our communications, they are the people of the left hand.
[The Quran ; 90:17-19]

ثُمَّ كَانَ مِنَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالصَّبْرِ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالْمَرْحَمَةِ (17)
أُوْلَئِكَ أَصْحَابُ الْمَيْمَنَةِ (18)
وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِآيَاتِنَا هُمْ أَصْحَابُ الْمَشْأَمَةِ (19)

-> See how stupid the ignorant kafirs and enemy of Islam are, the verses above never classifies the people into a number of groups, rather it is telling us who will belong to two of the three groups mentioned in sura 56, see how it is said in here: Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion. These are the people of the right hand , and And (as for) those who disbelieve in our communications, they are the people of the left hand., the verses above never discussed who belongs to the third group The foremost, for the dumb and stupid kafirs however, it means that the verses above classified the people into only two groups, hahahahah, in addition to being a case of stupidity, it has to be a case of desperation as well

The last lot of verses presnenetd by dumb truthseeker2 to which he alleged that they are conflicting with sura 56 are seen below, in here his clear cut stupidity will be assured, the verses below does not even mention any of the three groups nor it even told us who belongs to any group, let's have a look:

6: On that day men shall come forth in sundry bodies that they may be shown their works.
7: So. he who has done an atom's weight of good shall see it
8: And he who has done an atom's weight of evil shall see it.
[The Quran ; 99:6-8]

يَوْمَئِذٍ يَصْدُرُ النَّاسُ أَشْتَاتًا لِّيُرَوْا أَعْمَالَهُمْ (6)
فَمَن يَعْمَلْ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ خَيْرًا يَرَهُ (7)
وَمَن يَعْمَلْ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ شَرًّا يَرَهُ (8)

-> LOL, see what is said above: On that day men shall come forth in sundry bodies that they may be shown their works. So. he who has done an atom's weight of good shall see it. And he who has done an atom's weight of evil shall see it. , the verses above never talked about the foremost group, nor the companions of the right hand group, neither the companions of the left hand group, and most certainly the verses above never talked about who belongs to any of these groups, the enemy of Islam must be on drugs, but if they are sober then they must be very stupid

# 6
- Sat 17 May, 2008 6:45 pm
Post subject:
Hello all

The following crap by confused christian and idol worshipper truthseeker2 should be slam dunked using a debate that I had in the past with a confused Muslim, let's dunk it:

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



Salam brother The and all,

As I stated earlier, I have one comment to make, firstly I agree that Jibreel has the following 3 titles:

1) Al Ruh Al Ameen (a definite noun with an Al + adjective with an Al)
2) Ruh Al Qudus (a Muddaf without an Al + Muddaf Ilaih with an Al)
3) Al Ruh

The first two titles are two words each, yet the first two titles are totally different structure regarding grammar, bear in mind that Al Qudus in the second title actually means Allah, i.e. Ruh Al Qudus means Ruh of Allah, the first title however means the honest Ruh, the last one is one word only

I left the word Ruh above untranslated, this is because the word Ruh has two meanings in Arabic and I don't think any of these meaning apply to any of the above 3 titles:

A) Wahi (inspiration or revelation)
B) Soul

I will only discuss the first meaning as this is what is associated to the message sent to the prophets

A) An example to the first meaning of Ruh is clearly seen in the following examples:

He sends down the angels with the inspiration by His commandment on whom He pleases of His servants, saying: Give the warning that there is no god but Me, therefore be careful (of your duty) to Me.
[The Quran ; 16:2]

يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلآئِكَةَ بِالْرُّوحِ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ عَلَى مَن يَشَاء مِنْ عِبَادِهِ أَنْ أَنذِرُواْ أَنَّهُ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ أَنَاْ فَاتَّقُونِ (2)

-> See, يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلآئِكَةَ بِالْرُّوحِ , Yunazzal Al Malaika Bi Al Ruh, which means: He sends down the angels with the inspiration , in fact Allah elaborated to what Al Ruh is at the end of the verse, Give the warning that there is no god but Me, i.e. the prophets has been inspired by Allah to warn other humans that there is no God but Him, now what carried such inspiration to the humans are the angels as seen from the start of the verse: يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلآئِكَةَ بِالْرُّوحِ , Yunazzal Al Malaika Bi Al Ruh, which means: He sends down the angels with the inspiration , i.e. for Mohammed or any other prophet for that matter, all must have received the revelations via ANGELS according to 16:2, now if it is thought under Iman that Jibreel was the name of such creature who carried the inspiration to Mohammed then Jibreel must be an angel according to 16:2

Another example for the word Al Ruh to mean (The inspiration or the Revelation) is this:

Possessor of the highest rank, Lord of power: He makes the inspiration to light by His command upon whom He pleases of His servants, that he may warn (men) of the day of meeting.
[The Quran ; 40:15]

رَفِيعُ الدَّرَجَاتِ ذُو الْعَرْشِ يُلْقِي الرُّوحَ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ عَلَى مَن يَشَاء مِنْ عِبَادِهِ لِيُنذِرَ يَوْمَ التَّلَاقِ (15)

-> See, يُلْقِي الرُّوحَ , Yulqi Al Ruh, which roughly means: He makes the inspiration to lit, literally it means, He drops the inspiration, and again Allah elaborated to what is the inspiration, at the end of the verse: that he (any messenger) may warn (men) of the day of meeting., that Ruh (inspiration to warn other humans is carried by the Angels as we learnt from 16:2)

Now, if the ones who carry such inspiration from Allah are angels according to 16:2 then the following verse indicate that Al Ruh Al Ameen (As a title) is one of those angels:

193: Al Ruh Al Ameen has descended with it,

194: Upon your heart that you may be of the warners
[The Quran ; 26:193-194]

نَزَلَ بِهِ الرُّوحُ الْأَمِينُ (193)
عَلَى قَلْبِكَ لِتَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُنذِرِينَ (194)

-> Note that I left the words: الرُّوحُ الْأَمِينُ , Al Ruh Al Ameen untranslated, to highlight that in this verse it has to be the title for the entity that carried the inspiration down., can you see the link of the verb Na Za La, comes down between 16:2 and 26:193, from these two verses, Al Ruh Al Ameen must be an angel who carried the message down to the human prophet, can you also see the other link of the verb Na Za Ra, to warn between 26:194 and both 16:2 & 40:15.

Now, the following verse must confirm that Jebril is Al Ruh Al Ameen if compared with 16:193-194 above:

Say: Whoever is the enemy of Jibreel-- for surely He sent him down to your heart by Allah's command, verifying that which is before it and guidance and good news for the believers.
[The Quran ; 2:97]

قُلْ مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ عَلَى قَلْبِكَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ (97)

-> See: فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ عَلَى قَلْبِكَ , Fainnahu Nazzalahu Ala Qalbika, i.e. for surely He sent him (Jibreel) down to your heart, compare this with 26:193-194. Al Ruh Al Ameen has descended with it, Upon your heart that you may be of the warners, now consider 16:2 He sends down the angels with the inspiration , we have to conclude the following:

1) Jibreel is Al Ruh Al Ameen who carried the inspiration to Mohammed heart
2) Jibreel must be an angel

There is actually an alleged reason of revelation to 2:97, apparently the Jews went to Mohammed and told him that there is no prophet but whom Allah must send Angels to, so they asked him who was the angel sent to him, when he replied to them by saying: Jibreel, they were not happy and claimed that Jibreel is always sent by Allah to cause wars and killings, so they claimed that he (Jibreel) is their enemy and that is why 2:97 starts with: Say: Whoever is the enemy of Jibreel-- for surely He sent him down to your heart by Allah's command,, the Jews also told Mohammed that if it was angel Michael that was sent to him, they would have followed Mohammed because Michael is always sent with mercy, that is why you read in the next verse:

Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His messengers and Jibreel and Michael, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers.
[The Quran ; 2:98]

مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّلّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَالَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِّلْكَافِرِينَ (98)

-> See how both Jibreel and Michael are mentioned explicitly in this verse: Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His messengers and Jibreel and Michael, I believe the reason for that is to give those who boast about Michael and degrade Jibreel a lesson that both should be respected the same by us.

What you should know also that Ahl Al Kitab tradition gives the archangel Michael four tasks:

1) To fight against Satan.

2) To rescue the souls of the faithful from the power of the enemy, especially at the hour of death.

3) To be the champion of God's people, the Jews in the Old Law, the Christians in the New Testament; therefore he was the patron of the Church, and of the orders of knights during the Middle Ages.

4) To call away from earth and bring men's souls to judgment.

Jibreel is, in contrary with his name, the angel of the Power of God, and it is worth while noting the frequency with which such words as "great", "might", "power", and "strength" occur in the passages referred to Jibreel. The Jews indeed seem to have dwelt particularly upon this feature in Jibreel 's character, and he is regarded by them as the angel of judgment, while Michael is called the angel of mercy. They attribute to Jibreel the destruction of Sodom and of the host of Sennacherib, they also regard him as the angel who buried Moses, and as the man deputed to mark the figure Tau on the foreheads of the elect.

That is why the Jews preferred that Michael to be the angel sent to Mohammed instead of Jibreel. Jibreel is one of only two angels named in the Bible. His name means strong man of God or God is my strength as explained above. He appeared by name four times: twice to Daniel to interpret the meaning of his visions:

In Daniel 8, Jibreel explains the vision of the horned ram as portending the destruction of the Persian Empire by the Macedonian Alexander the Great, after whose death the kingdom will be divided up among his generals, from one of whom will spring Antiochus Epiphanes:

15: And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.
16: And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.
[Daniel ; 8:15-16]

In Daniel 9, after Daniel had prayed for Israel, we read:

21: Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
22: And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
23: At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
24: Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25: Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

[Daniel ; 9:21-27]
-> See, how the above is qualified by the Quran regarding sending the angels carrying inspiration to whomever Allah wills from the humans:

He sends down the angels with the inspiration by His commandment on whom He pleases of His servants, saying: Give the warning that there is no god but Me, therefore be careful (of your duty) to Me.
[The Quran ; 16:2]

يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلآئِكَةَ بِالْرُّوحِ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ عَلَى مَن يَشَاء مِنْ عِبَادِهِ أَنْ أَنذِرُواْ أَنَّهُ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ أَنَاْ فَاتَّقُونِ (2)


Jibreel was also mentioned once to announce John the Baptist's birth to his father Zacharias:

11: And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
12: And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13: But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
14: And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15: For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
16: And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
17: And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
18: And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
19: And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
20: And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.
[Luke 1:11-20]
-> Again, the above Bible story is qualified by the Quran:

Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That Allah gives you the good news of Yahya verifying a Word from Allah, and honorable and chaste and a prophet from among the good ones.
[The Quran ; 3:39]

فَنَادَتْهُ الْمَلآئِكَةُ وَهُوَ قَائِمٌ يُصَلِّي فِي الْمِحْرَابِ أَنَّ اللّهَ يُبَشِّرُكَ بِيَحْيَى مُصَدِّقًا بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَسَيِّدًا وَحَصُورًا وَنَبِيًّا مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَ (39)


Jibreel is mentioned for the last time in the Bible to announce the birth of Jesus to Mary:

26: And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27: To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29: And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31: And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36: And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37: For with God nothing shall be impossible.
38: And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
[Luke 1:26-38]
-> And again the same story is qualified by the Quran:

When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah).
[The Quran ; 3:45]

إِذْ قَالَتِ الْمَلآئِكَةُ يَا مَرْيَمُ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُبَشِّرُكِ بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنْهُ اسْمُهُ الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَجِيهًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ وَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبِينَ (45)


From all the above compelling Bible and Quran evidences, there is no doubt that Jibreel is an angel who is sent carrying the inspiration to whomever Allah wishes from the humans

One point I would like to reply to, brother The claimed the following: # if u say god has sent angels as rasool to humankind, then it is perhaps contradicting 17:95!

Let me bring 17:94-95 to explain what brother The missed:

94: And nothing prevented people from believing when the guidance came to them except that they said: What! has Allah raised up a mortal to be a messenger?

95: Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger.
[The Quran ; 17:94-95]

وَمَا مَنَعَ النَّاسَ أَن يُؤْمِنُواْ إِذْ جَاءهُمُ الْهُدَى إِلاَّ أَن قَالُواْ أَبَعَثَ اللّهُ بَشَرًا رَّسُولاً (94)
قُل لَّوْ كَانَ فِي الأَرْضِ مَلآئِكَةٌ يَمْشُونَ مُطْمَئِنِّينَ لَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْهِم مِّنَ السَّمَاء مَلَكًا رَّسُولاً (95)

-> I believe what brother missed is verse 17:94 which clearly says that the people rejected to believe because a human messenger was sent to them: And nothing prevented people from believing when the guidance came to them except that they said: What! has Allah raised up a mortal to be a messenger?, now for Mohammed to refute such claim, Allah ordered him to say: Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger., i.e. IF THERE HAS BEEN ANGELS ON EARTH WHO ARE REQUIRED TO BELIEVE VIA SUCH TEST THAT IS ENFORCED ON THE HUMANS THEN AN ANGEL MESSNGER WILL BE SENT TO THEM, 17:95 is no way denying that Allah sends Angels to the human messengers, because 16:2 told us that Allah uses the angels to carry His inspirations to the humans whom He chose to be messengers to the rest of humans


Finally, I will leave you with some conjectures regarding the angels:

The Angels
Angels were created as messengers of God. The current Injeel reveals that God created nine orders of angels:

Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Archangels, and Angels.

Out of this order come the familiar seven Archangels which include: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Raguel, Sariel, and the fallen Lucifer.

The Eighth Choir - The Archangels, The seven angels that stood before God in Revelations are considered to be the Archangels. Although it is agreed that there were seven Archangels, there has been some debate on who the seven were. Most accounts name, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, the remaining three are generally chosen from Metatron, Remiel, Sariel, Anael, Raguel and Raziel. The Archangels were the divine messengers between the humans and God. Of the nine choirs the Archangels are probably best known to us. They are the battlers of the Sons of Darkness.

Lucifer, whose ambitions were a distortion of God's plan, is known to us through the various religious teachings as the fallen angel, with the use of many names, among which are Iblis, Satan, Belial, Beelzebub, Shaitan and the Devil. This does not contradict the Quran in anyway because it seems Iblis as a Jinn was given the rank of an angel, that is why he was up there when Allah ordered the angels to prostrate to Adam and he failed to do so because he was from among the Jinn.

Historical and Literary References: Gabriel's Name means "Hero of God." Angel of Revelation and Chief Ambassador to humanity. Apart from Michael, Gabriel is the only other Angel mentioned by Name in the Old Testament. He was said to sit on the left hand side of God. In many religious, writings Gabriel has appeared as a messenger and deliverer to humanity of blessed events. Mohammed claimed that it was Gabriel (Jibreel in Islamic) who dictated to him the Koran. In Christian beliefs, Gabriel was the Angel who appeared to Mary to inform her that she would conceive and give birth to Jesus. In addition, Gabriel also appeared before Zacharias to announce that his son will be called John (the Baptist).

# 7
- Sat 17 May, 2008 8:15 pm
Post subject:
Salam All,

The alleged Samaritan error was destroyed in 1999 by a group of knowledgeable Muslim brothers from http://www.islamic-awareness.org/ , they also kept updating it for more than 6 years, it is another mother of all slams, I really appreciate their excellent work, for me is more than enough to dunk the following allegation:

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.


The above crap is actually two allegations in one, therefore it is going to be double slam, ignorant truthseeker2 is wondering how the calf mooed as well he is alleging that the Samaritans did not exist as a people until at least 1000 years after the time of Moses

Let's dunk the second one first:

Source


The "Samaritan" Error In The Qur'an?

By:

M S M Saifullah
Abdurrahman Robert Squires
Abdullah David
Elias Karim
Muhammad Ghoniem

First Composed: 1st May 1999
Last Updated: 26th November 2006

1. Introduction
According to the Christian missionaries and apologists, comparisons between the Qur'anic and Biblical narrations expose serious errors within the Qur'an. The Qur'anic narrations are said to be either 'absurd' or 'historically impossible'. Take for example the story of Moses as related in the Qur'an: the Qur'an mentions a certain Haman who was associated with the Court of Pharaoh - when in reality, say the missionaries, he was a counsellor of Ahasuerus who lived 1,100 years after Pharaoh; the Qur'an mentions that Pharaoh crucified or impaled his victims upon a stake, yet crucifixion was unknown in Egypt at that time.

Relying heavily on a single (prolific) Christian orientalist, the missionaries also state that the Qur'an, according to Surah 20, says the Israelites were led astray by a "Samaritan" - yet the Samaritan people did not exist until many centuries later. What evidence is presented to support these claims? Can the presuppositions of the Christian missionaries be taken seriously in the light of contemporary Samaritan scholarship? This paper proposes to examine the origin of the Samaritans as suggested by the Christian missionaries.

2. The "Samaritan" Error
The "Samaritan" error in the Qur'an can be traced to Judeo-Christian attitudes provided by a prima facie consideration of the Old Testament material. Even after the advent of critical biblical scholarship, it was supposed that the picture of the Samaritans as a people of mixed race and religion, as provided in II Kings 17, was for all intent and purposes an accurate one. A prime example comes from the 1898 edition of James Hastings' A Dictionary Of The Bible. In the article "Samaria, Territory Of" by C. W. Wilson, the description of the Samaritans is given as:

In 2 K 17:29 these colonists are termed 'Samaritans.' Josephus says... that they were called Cuthaeans in Hebrew, from Cuthah, the city of their origin... and he regarded the Samaritans of his day as their descendents. The Cuthaeans and others brought their national gods, an act which was believed to have brought on them the vengeance of God of the land.[1]

Descriptions of Samaritans worshipping an admixture of gods owe a great deal to later day Jewish polemics, in particular, that arising from Josephus' Antiquities as well as from the Old Testament itself. It is not surprising that the views concerning the Samaritans origins also positively influenced in a different way the anti-Islamic polemics in the West in the beginning of the 20th century CE. For example, while discussing the mention of al-Samiri in the Qur'an, Henri Lammens stated that:

"the most glaring anachronisms" is "the story of the Samaritan (sic) who is alleged to have made the Jews worship the golden calf..."[2]

That these claims have literally pullulated amongst the Christian missionaries is something of an understatement. For example, Anis Shorrosh says:

The Qur'an says the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites in the wilderness was molded by a Samaritan... In fact, the term Samaritan was not used until 722 BC, several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus.[3]

Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner, presumably quoting Shorrosh, say:

The Qur'an says that the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites at Mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan. The term Samaritan was not coined until 722 B.C., several hundred years after the Exodus, when the idol was crafted.[4]

Similar claims have been made by Mateen Elass who says:

As-Samiri is not a proper name as the definite article before the hyphen makes clear. Most Muslim scholars understand this term to mean "the Samaritan," but this is problematic since the Samaritans were not constituted as a separate people until after the deportation of the northern tribes of Israel under the Assyrian empire, some five hundred or more years after the golden calf incident.[5]

Gleason Archer in the section "Anachronism and Historical Inaccuracies in the Koran" finds difficulty in the explanation offered by Yusuf Ali for the word al-Samiri in the Qur'an. Archer says:

Yusef Ali suggests that Samariyyu may have been an Egyptian name meaning "stranger, foreigner," or possibly a Hebrew term derived from Shomer ("watchman") - in a valiant effort to avoid the charge of anachronism. Samaritan did not come into being as a race until after the 6th century B.C., and so there could have been no Samaritan around as early as 1445 B.C.![6]

Similar claims were also made by Abdallah Abd al-Fadi,[7] Robert Morey,[8] Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer.[9]
Jacques Jomier, however, offers a different form of argument concerning al-Samiri in the Qur'an. He says:

At the scene of the Golden Calf, a mysterious character appears: he is called the Samaritan (al-Sāmirī). It is hard to know what this word signifies. Some Westerners have seen a connection with the golden calves of Samaria, but this would take us several centuries beyond Moses. In the absence of other documents, one is very hesitant to subscribe such a hypothesis (cf. Qur'an 20. 85-95).[10]

According to Newman, the mention of al-Samiri in the Qur'an is the result of Muhammad's confusion of the "time periods" and transferring "Jewish teachings about Samaritans to a single person."[11]
Except for Jomier and Newman, almost all these claims can be traced back, whether directly or indirectly, to none but Tisdall the fountainhead of all Christian polemic against the Qur'an. Confident in his ability to truthfully exegete the Qur'an, the "Samaritan" issue appears to be a source of amusement for Tisdall, who notes rather derisively,

But since the city of Samaria was not built, or at least called by that name, until several hundred years after Moses' death, the anachronism is at least amusing, and would be startling in any other book than the Qur'an, in which far more stupendous ones frequently occur.[12]

It is interesting that Tisdall equated the Samaritans with the appearance of the city of Samaria to claim the anachronism. In the same vein, Christian missionaries have claimed that the Qur'an contains a historically impossible narration when it mentions the name al-Samiri which some translate as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95). They claim that:

The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (Sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term 'Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

And furthermore:
How can a Samaritan have led the Israelites astray at the time of Moses [about 1400 B.C.] when the city of Samaria was founded by King Omri in about 870 B.C. (see 1 Kings 16:24)? But "the Samaritans" as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the Northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II in after 722 B.C. with non-Israelites which then adopt a syncretism [mixture] between the religion of the Jews and their own polytheistic background. Hence, it is historically impossible that a Samaritan could have led the Israelites into idolatry in the time of Moses. This is another time compression of at least 500, but rather 700 years.

The problem with this claim is that the Samaritans were not known as a distinct ethno-religious group until around 722 B.C., when the term "Samaritan" was coined...

The claim of the Christian missionaries concerning the origin of the Samaritans rests on the events mentioned in II Kings 17. We will begin by discussing the claims of the Christian missionaries that II Kings 17 describes the origins of Samaritans. What do the scholars of Samaritan studies say about the claim that II Kings 17 accurately describes the origins of Samaritans? This will be discussed along with the usage of the terms "Samaritan" and "Samarian" in light of recent historical investigations. Finally, we will also consider recent scientific studies examining the principal characteristics of the Samaritan and Jewish genetic composition, in order to confirm if there is indeed any shared ancestry.

3. II Kings 17: The Source Of Samaritan Origins?
Before we go into the historical background of II Kings 17, a background relating to the events leading to sacking and exile of Israel in the 8th century BCE is necessary. About two centuries earlier a united Israel had reached its peak under the leadership of Saul, David and Solomon. However, after Solomon's death, a civil war broke out and the former united kingdom split into two kingdoms: Judah in the south with Jerusalem as its capital, and Israel in the north whose capital was eventually established in Samaria. The two kingdoms struggled for nearly two centuries before Assyria destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. The account in II Kings 17 implies that the Samaritans descended from peoples deported by the Assyrians from other parts of the vast empire during the mid-8th century BCE. The Assyrian ruler brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. Eventually the term "Cuthean", that is people of Cuthah, sometimes also referred collectively to denote new settlers, became the Jews' name for Samaritans and a word of contempt for these genetically and religiously impure people. This name was also adopted by Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities in his polemics against the Samaritans. Thus, according to the Jewish version of history, the Samaritans are a mixed race people, being a native or inhabitant of Samaria, a distinct territory or region in central Palestine. The question now is whether there is any truth in this version of the history.

SAMARITANS OR SAMARIANS?

As mentioned earlier, the traditional view of the origins of Samaritans is based on II Kings 17. The verse in question is II Kings 17:29 where the Hebrew word shomronim or shomeronim appears and is usually translated into English as "Samaritans" (underlined in the Hebrew text below).

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


But every nation still made gods of its own, and put them in the shrines of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities which they dwelt... (RSV)

The name shomronim that appears in II Kings 17:29 is associated with the worship of idols. However, the Samaritans do not address themselves by this name at all. They call themselves shamerin , that is "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah.[13] The Samaritans themselves make a clear distinction between their own ancestors and the inhabitants of Samaria. For example, in the part of the Samaritan Chronicle II which corresponds to I Kings 16 of the Hebrew Bible, the biblical account of the founding of Samaria by Omri is followed by a note which explains that the inhabitants of Samaria and its nearby cities were called "Shomronim after the name Shomron".[14] Thus the distinction between the people of Samaria and the Samaritans is clearly maintained in the Samaritan Chronicle II. Put simply, shomronim means the "inhabitants of Samaria" and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. In fact, a long line of Samaritan scholarship has already pointed out this fact, which, unfortunately, is ignored by the missionaries at their own peril. For example, about 100 years ago James Montgomery pointed out that the Samaritans:

.... call themselves by the ancient geographical apellative, Samerim, which they interpret however as meaning "the Observers", i.e., of the Law.[15]

Similarly, The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible confirms that:

... the Samaritans prefer to style themselves 'Shamerim' i.e., "the observant" - rather than 'Shomeronim' i.e., "the inhabitants of Samaria."[16]

The Encyclopaedia Judaica under the entry "Samaritans" says:

Little guidance is obtained from the name of the Samaritans. The Bible uses the name Shomronim once, in II Kings 17:29, but this probably means Samarians rather than Samaritans. The Samaritans themselves do not use the name at all; they have long called themselves Shamerin; i.e., "keepers" or "observers" of the truth = al ha-amet, both the short and long forms being in constant use in their chronicles. They take the name Shomronim to mean inhabitants of the town of Samaria built by Omri (cf. I Kings 16:24), where the probable origin of the word Shomronim is to be found).[17]

Contrary to the claims of the missionaries, the use of the term shomronim in II Kings 17 tells us nothing about the origins of the Samaritans because this word means "inhabitants of Samaria". Now that the issue of the names that differentiates the Samaritans from the inhabitants of Samaria is dealt with, let us now move to the claim of the missionaries which says that the Samaritans as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of foreigners in the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE.

II KINGS 17:18-24 - A HISTORICAL NARRATIVE OR A HISTORICAL ABSURDITY?

The narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 relates that the population of Israel in its totality was deported and exchanged to an alien population. However, the archaeological evidence shows that this narrative is incorrect. Estimates of the population in Israel show that in the Middle Bronze Age II [2000 - 1550 BCE] it was approximately 140,000 and in the Iron Age [1200 - 586 BCE],[18] during the period of divided monarchy, the population of northern kingdom of Israel reached nearly 600,000.[19] A survey of Judea, Samaria and the Golan carried out in 1967-1968 suggests a total of 560,000.[20] On the other hand, Roland de Vaux estimated the total population during this time to be around 800,000.[21]

The Assyrian ruler Sargon II was responsible for defeating the northern kingdom of Israel and sending them into exile. An Assyrian inscription from the time of Sargon II records that he deported 27,290 prisoners from Samaria,[22] suggesting a depopulation of the order of nearly 5% of Israel's population.[23] Hence 95% of the population remained. Also it can be claimed that the Assyrian kings in their royal inscriptions tended to exaggerate the number of exiles, as they considered a larger number to show the extent of their power and might.[24] If we accept this, then the total number of people exiled would be further reduced. We are essentially left with most of the population intact. Obviously there is a serious historical problem here with II Kings 17:18-24. Commenting on this historical discrepancy and how it undermines the Bible concerning the claim of the Samaritans' origins, A. D. Crown says:

This is a prima facie evidence that the greatest concentration of people remained in the province until at least sixth century B.C.E. Clearly the story of Samaritan origins in the Bible must be viewed with caution.[25]

A similar observation was made by Coggins about 30 years ago. Using the estimate of Roland de Vaux of 800,000 people in the northern kingdom of Israel and the inscription from the time of Sargon II, he says:

If this is at all accurate it would imply the deportation of between 3 and 4% of the population. Not much stress can be placed on the actual wording of the Assyrian annals, but they would suggest - and the circumstances of a siege would bear out - that the majority of the deportees would have been the inhabitants of Samaria itself, no doubt including many who had gone there as refugees during the siege.[26]

Such discrepancies were also mentioned by Frank Cross[27] and The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible.[28]
Coggins and others have suggested that most of the affected people would have been from the upper class, as they would be readily identifiable as potential leaders of resistance.[29] In place of those exiled, the settlers brought in would not have enjoyed the majority, as the native Israelites continued to enjoy being the overwhelming majority of the population. Clearly, the narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 claiming that the population of Israel in its totality was deported by the Assyrians and exchanged to an alien population is unsupported by the archaeological evidence.

How do the Samaritans portray themselves during the period of Assyrian rule? According to their Chronicles, the righteous remnants who belonged to "the community of the Samaritan Israelites, that is the tribe of Ephraim and the tribe of Manasseh, sons of Joseph, and a few other priests and a small number from the rest of the tribes of Israel" who "did not deviate from the way of the holy law, nor did they worship other gods. They did not behave as the nations did, and did not forsake the chosen place Mount Gerizim Bethel, but they continued to worship the Lord their God...".[30] As Coggins pointed out, even if this idealization is discounted in the Samaritan Chronicles, it is clear that the "religious features of later Samaritanism show no sign of any syncretism brought about by a mixture between native Israelites and those whom the Assyrians brought into the country".[31]

Unlike the claim of the Christian missionaries, there is nothing to suggest in the Samaritan Chronicles that they adopted a syncretism between the religion of the Jews and their own polytheistic background. On the contrary, the Chronicles clearly affirm their monotheism during the Assyrian rule. It must be emphasized that the Samaritans' devotion to the Torah was already recognized from the fact that it alone constituted their canon of Scripture. This is further emphasized by the word shamerin - the keepers of the Torah. This very name implies a group which maintained the traditional ways and was suspicious of change.

AN APPRAISAL OF THE MISSIONARY VIEWS

The Christian missionaries and apologists have had some difficulty in coming to terms with Samaritan scholarship. Although this is partly due to basic errors in comprehension, more seriously, it is primarily due to the fact that contemporary scholarship including the archaeological evidence undermines the veracity of the biblical account. Recognising these basic problems of method, the missionaries have attempted to synthesise their views on the Samaritans into one coherent account; resultantly we are left with nothing more than a mishmash of interpretations with little validity. For instance, consider the Christian missionary Andrew Vargo's "three views " of the Samaritan origins:

The Jewish view. The Samaritans are the descendants of the colonists that King Shalmaneser, of Assyria, brought from Cutha, Babylon, Hamath, and other foreign regions after he conquered Samaria in 722 B.C.. King Shalmaneser then deported the native population according to II Kings 17.

Samaritan view: The Samaritans are remnants of the northern Israelite tribes who were left behind when their brethren were deported by the Assyrians.

Modern Scholars: The Samaritans are descendents of Mesopotamian tribes who were deported by the Assyrians and Babylonians to Samaria.

He claims that "all three explanations of the origins of the Samaritans are correct, at least to some degree". It is hard to see why all the three "explanations" can be true to "some degree" at the same time. Simple logic dictates that if the "Samaritans are remnants of the northern Israelite tribes" then they could not have been simultaneously "the descendants of the colonists" resettled by the Assyrian rulers. Furthermore, Vargo claims on behalf of unnamed and unknown "modern scholars" that the Samaritans are "the descendents of Mesopotamian tribes who were deported by the Assyrians and Babylonians to Samaria". In fact, we have not come across this view at all in modern scholarship on the Samaritans. What we know is that modern Samaritan scholarship has firmly rejected equating shomronim in II Kings 17:29 with Samaritans. Shomronim means the "inhabitants of Samaria" and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. Moreover, it was seen that there are serious historical problems with II Kings 17:18-24 which severely undermines the biblical account concerning the claims of the Samaritan origins.
To complete the argument what does modern scholarship say about II Kings 17 being the alleged source of the Samaritans' origins? Let us start with A Companion To Samaritan Studies published in 1993. One can consider it as a dictionary 'desk reference' for Samaritan studies. As for II Kings 17 and the origins of the Samaritans, it says:

Older scholarship took 2 Kings 17 as a reliable account of the origins of Samaritanism and in many translations that is the only place where the word Samaritans is found in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. KJV, RSV). The idea that this passage can give us information about the Samaritan origins is now abandoned though it is undeniable that at an early date the text of understood in this sense. Thus Josephus (Ant. 9:291) states that the heterodox community formed after the Assyrian capture of Samaria was the direct forerunner of the Samaritan or Cuthaean community of his day. Egger has shown how many of Josephus' references to the Samaritans cannot properly be understood of the Samaritan religious community. Josephus' work is a clear example of anti-Samaritan polemic at work extrapolating materials from one setting to another as part of his condemnation of the Samaritans.[32]

Similar conclusions were also reached by Lester Grabbe. He says:

The origins of the [Samaritan] community and cult are still uncertain. The origins according to interpretations of 2 Kings 17 (pagan foreigners brought in) and Josephus (dissident Jerusalem priests) are the product of considerable bias and cannot be taken at face value.[33]

Writing in 2002, Anderson and Giles in their book The Keepers: An Introduction To The History And Culture Of The Samaritans say that II Kings 17 cannot be considered an objective account of Samaritan history:

The Cutheans are simply the inhabitants of the north, not the Samaritan sect. Sargon's deportation of the indigenous Israelite population probably affected primarily the aristocracy within the city of Samaria. The people groups brought into the region replacing the deportees remained a minority. The invectives of the 2 Kings account address this select few and not the general population, and certainly not a religious sect [i.e., the Samaritans] that had, according to the bulk of evidence, not yet attained a sense of self-awareness.
...
It is generally recognized that the account in 2 Kings 17 is not objective and unbiased history. The purpose of 2 Kings 17, as well as other passages in the Hebrew Bible (particularly in Chronicles and Ezra), is to highlight the primacy of Jerusalem over any potential rivals.[34]

After examining the evidence, Anderson and Giles conclude that the Samaritans did exist during the time of Assyrian invasion, not as a separate sect but as a part of the northern kingdom of Israel. In other words, Samaritans did not emerge after the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE.
After doing a detailed discussion on the alleged presence of the Samaritans in II Kings 17, Coggins concluded that:

The simple truth is, as it is hoped that the first main part of the study has shown, that there is no reference to the Samaritans in the Hebrew Old Testament. Some of the allusions in the work of the Chronicler may point to a situation which would later develop into Judaeo-Samaritan hostility, but that is most that can be said.[35]

The New Bible Dictionary under the entry "Samaritans" says:

... Samaritans are mentioned only in 2 Ki. 17:29, a passage which describes the syncretistic religion of those peoples whom the king of Assyria transported to the N kingdom of Israel to replace the exiled native population after the fall of Samaria (722/721 BC).

Several reasons argue strongly against the identification, favoured by Josephus and many others since, of this group with the Samaritans as they are more widely known from the NT..., some of whose descendents survive to the present day in two small communities at Nablus and Holon: (i) the word used (hamrm) seems merely to mean 'inhabitants of (the city or province of) Samaria (????????????????????????????¡ōmr????????????????????????????´n)', and this fits the context of 2 Ki. 17 best; (ii) there is no evidence that the later Samaritans inhabited Samaria. The earliest certain references to them, by contrast, all points clearly to their residence at Shechem..., whilst one of the Josephus' sources refers to them as 'Shechemites'...; (iii) nothing whatever that is known of later Samaritan religion and practice suggests the pagan influence of 2 Ki. 17 or Ezr. 4.[36]

It is worthwhile adding that modern biblical scholarship has recognized that antagonism between the kingdoms of Judah and Israel existed for many centuries which goes back to the period of the united monarchy. The account in II Kings 17 was written from a southern viewpoint and was quick to highlight the primacy of Jerusalem over any potential rivals. Independence from Jerusalem, an identifying characteristic of Samaritanism, draws unqualified criticism in the Hebrew Bible.[37] Modern Samaritan scholarship also realizes that there was no sudden break that separated Jews and Samaritans. Rather, the rift developed over a long period of time with certain events causing more hostility than others.[38] Perhaps it was after John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple on Mount Gerizim in 2nd century BCE, the two communities went separate ways.
To summarize, modern scholarship conclusively refutes the claim of Samaritan origins based on II Kings 17. The Christian missionary and apologist views, including Vargo's "Jewish view" and the views of his unknown and unnamed "modern scholars", can now be safely discarded.

4. What Do The Samaritans Say About Their Origins?
As we have seen from our discussion on II Kings 17, until the middle of the 20th century it was widely believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest in 722 BCE. Scholarship has moved ahead since then and in recent years research based on the study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (under "Samaritans") summarizes both past and the present views on the Samaritans' origins. It says:

Until the middle of the 20th Century it was customary to believe that the Samaritans originated from a mixture of the people living in Samaria and other peoples at the time of the conquest of Samaria by Assyria (722/1 B.C.E.). The Biblical account in II Kings 17 had long been the decisive source for the formulation of historical accounts of Samaritan origins. Reconsideration of this passage, however, has led to more attention being paid to the Chronicles of the Samaritans themselves. With the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available: the chronicles, and a variety of non-Samaritan materials.

According to the former, the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. They claim to have continuously occupied their ancient territory in central Palestine and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh and attracting some northern Israelites to his new cult there. For the Samaritans, this was the 'schism' par excellence.[39]

Furthermore, even to this day the Samaritans still claim descent from the tribe of Joseph:

The laymen also possess their traditional claims. They are all of the tribe of Joseph, except those of the tribe of Benjamin, but this traditional branch of people, which, the Chronicles assert, was established at Gaza in earlier days, seems to have disappeared. There exists an aristocratic feeling amongst the different families in this petty community, and some are very proud over their pedigree and the great men it had produced.[40]

Clearly, if the Samaritans trace their origins from the time of Joseph's descendants, then they were certainly in existence in the time of Moses. However, the Samaritan Chronicles, just like the books of the Hebrew Bible, especially the book of Kings, are late compilations.[41] Moreover, as observed earlier, the literature of both the Jews and Samaritans have their own inherent bias in them. They were written from their own point of view and thus exhibit to varying degrees a polemicizing of the events.[42] Nevertheless there are some indications that the Rabbis were aware of the Samaritans' ancient origins and conceded that they were of genuine Israelite stock. An interesting narration is found in Genesis Rabbah, part of which involves Rabbi Meir discussing the plausibility of the Samaritan claim to have a continuous ancestral link to the tribe of Joseph. The discussion proceeds as follows:

R. Meir met a Samaritan and asked him: 'Whence are you descended?' 'From Joseph,' he replied. 'That is not so,' he said. 'Then from whom?' 'From Issachar,' he told him. 'How do you know this?' he countered. - Because it is written, AND THE SONS OF ISSACHAR: TOLA, AND PUVAH, AND IOB, AND SHIMRON - the last name referring to the Samaritans.'[43]

Although disputing the Samaritan version of the account, Rabbi Meir concurs with their claim to be of genuine Israelite origin. Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, the Samaritans can in fact trace their lineage to a time that precedes the advent of Moses.

The problem of establishing the authenticity of the claims of the Jews and Samaritans concerning the origins of the latter is not as insurmountable as it seems. We have already seen that II Kings 17 has nothing to do with the Samaritan origins. On the other hand, the Samaritans claim that they have continuously occupied their ancient territory in central Palestine and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh. Perhaps the most crucial question now is whether the Ten Tribes, especially the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh from which Samaritans claimed to have directly descended, survived the Assyrians onslaught? The answer to this question has been dealt with in detail by Nathan Schur using information gleaned from the Hebrew Bible and corroborating it with the archaeological records. His observations can be summarized as follows.[44]

From the Assyrian and biblical records, it is clear that Sargon II moved settlers to the city of Samaria in 722 BCE. If all or most of the new settlers went to the city of Samaria, obviously most of the rest of the country was left basically untouched. This is confirmed by the Hebrew Bible itself in II Chronicles 30:1, 10 which says that King "Hezekiah [727-698 BCE] sent word to all Israel and Judah and also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh, inviting them to come to the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem and celebrate the Passover to the Lord, the God of Israel... The couriers went from town to town in Ephraim and Manasseh, as far as Zebulun, but the people scorned and ridiculed them. Nevertheless, some men of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves and went to Jerusalem." If the people of the northern kingdom of Israel had been completely replaced, as claimed in II Kings 17, there would have been no point to try and get them to come to Jerusalem for Passover. Moreover, the old tribal names would have lost their meaning. What is more interesting is that in the above passages the new foreign upper classes are not even mentioned, which can be taken to mean that their numbers and influence could not have been very sizeable. Ephraim's old attitude to Jerusalem seems to have been quite unchanged, and only members of the peripheral tribes agreed to come to Jerusalem and follow the lead of the king of Judah. It has been claimed that the disdainful attitude of Ephraim was due to a massive implant of foreign settlers, but if so, why call them by the Israelite tribal name? Furthermore Ephraim's attitude here is not much different from the traditional one of previous centuries. There is no need, therefore, to stipulate foreign settlers, though their presence, at least in the capital, is of course well established.

In the Book of Ezra further plantations of foreign settlers are mentioned from the times of Assyrian kings Esarhaddon [681-669 BCE] (Ezra 4:2) and Assurbanipal [669-627 BCE] (Ezra 4:10). However in the 12th year of Josiah [628 BCE], after his initial reforms in Jerusalem, he extended them also to the area of the northern kingdom, which he had occupied after the collapse of the Assyrian empire in the west. II Chronicles 34:6 mentions again the old tribes: "And so did he in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali ..." Thus a hundred years after the fall of Samaria and after the latest Assyrian settlements the old tribal names were still in use and no new, foreign ones had superseded them. It has to be assumed therefore that the old inhabitants were mostly still residing in their old homes and had not been displaced by new settlers.
This conclusion is strengthened by the attitude of Jeremiah. He is reported to have said in chapter 31 that Ephraim is still enjoying the love of God and prophesises its complete restoration jointly with Judah. Nowhere does he allude to Ephraim's having been supplanted by newcomers. The same goes for Ezekiel. He speaks in the same terms of Ephraim as of Judah. There, too, is no allusion to a strange people having displaced the original settlers.[45]

We lack information of what passed in Samaria during the time of the Babylonian rule. However, even in Judah no new settlers were brought in instead of those exiled to Babylon. The Babylonians do not seem to have taken over the Assyrian concept of replacing local populations by others - or might have lacked the power and resources to do so. Thus it does not seem likely that there were any further settlements in Samaria after those of Assurbanipal. If the old tribal framework was basically intact after the time of this last important Assyrian ruler, the resident Israelite population, with a slight admixture of foreign settlers in the main towns, cannot have changed its composition till the time of Persian rule and the initial Jewish return from Babylonian exile. After making this detailed argument, Schur concludes by saying:

Our conclusion is therefore that the Samaritan tradition is generally correct in claiming direct descent from the Ten Tribes of Israel.

This conclusion can be checked now also by archeological evidence. Except for the destruction of the towns sacked by the Assyrians, such as Samaria and Shechem, other places, where occupation was continuous, show no trace of a different material culture intervening in the later Assyrian period. In the 1967/8 survey ceramic remains of 81 sites were also examined in the province of Samaria, and no differences of nuances could be discovered between the Assyrian period on the one hand and the Persian on the other. The same results were obtained in the 1978/9 survey of the Dotan region, in the exploration of western Samaria and by further archeological excavations of the last 15 years in Samaria.[46]

Nearly similar conclusions were also reached by Frank Cross concerning the uninterrupted existence of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh before and after the Assyrian invasion, although he considers that the earliest form of Samaritanism to be an old Israelite religion.

Accordingly, the later Jewish tradition comes to call the Samaritans en bloc Kutians (kwtym), or sardonically, "lion-proselytes" in light of the anecdote in 2 Kings 17:25-28. For their part, the Samaritans of the later times claimed to be the remnants of Ephraim and Manasseh, authentic Israelites who alone preserve the ancient faith and service of the god of Israel unsullied by Judaean innovations.
In fact, neither of these two polemical positions can stand close critical scrutiny. On the other hand, there are very strong arguments to support the conclusion that the bulk of the men of Ephraim and Manasseh remained in the land; on the other hand, there is equally strong evidence... that Samaritanism in the form we find it in the Roman Age and later is not a survival of old Israelite religion, pure or syncretistic, but rather is essentially a sectarian form of Judaism.[47]

Thus, it can be said the Samaritan tradition is correct in claiming direct descent from tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Since the Samaritans trace their origins from the time of Joseph's descendants, then they were certainly in existence during the time of Moses. However, it is not known from the Samaritan Chronicles or the Hebrew Bible as to when the label shamerin was first used by the Samaritans to identify themselves as a distinct group. The Qur'an suggests that this label was already in place during the time of Moses.
The claims of the Samaritans about their Israelite origins were partially corroborated by a recent study involving genetics which we will now turn to.

5. A Genetic Perspective
The Samaritans are a distinct religious and cultural minority in the Middle East. They number slightly over 500 and they reside in Holon, a suburb of Tel Aviv and Nablus, near their holy site of Mount Gerizim.[48] The Samaritans, according to their origins, are divided into three large clans: children of Ephraim (the Danafi and Joshua-Marhiv families), the children of Manasseh (Tsdaka family), and the Priests (Cohanim). As for the priests, the Samaritan Chronicle tells us that in 1624 CE, the priestly house descended from Aaron became extinct, and that since then their sacred functions devolved upon the Levites. Thus the modern-day priestly Cohen lineage is from the tribe of Levi.[49]

Throughout the whole of their history, the Samaritans adhered to an endogamous marriage system that was practised not only within the limits of the community but also within the limits of the lineage. Female Samaritans who marry non-Samaritans are expelled from the sect, while the children of male Samaritans who marry non-Samaritans are regarded as Samaritans. Recent studies have shown that around 84% of marriages occur between cousins, producing the highest inbreeding coefficient recorded for any population.[50] This gives a good opportunity to study their genetic character and compare it with Jewish and non-Jewish populations.

Before we go into the issue of genetics, let us first clarify some terms used. A haplotype is the genetic constitution of an individual chromosome and is a contraction of the phrase "haploid genotype". A haplogroup is a large group of haplotypes. In human genetics, the haplogroups most commonly studied are Y-chromosome haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups, both of which can be used to define genetic populations. Both these haplogroups have their distinct advantages. The Y-chromosome has the advantage of being passed solely along the patrilineal line (i.e., only via father), while mtDNA is passed solely on the matrilineal line (i.e., only via mother). Hence these haplogroups can be used to study the lineage especially of those groups/sects who marry within their own groups/sects.

The haplogroups were used to study cohanim who are descended from Aaron. According to biblical tradition, after the Jewish exodus from Egypt, Moses' brother Aaron was selected as the first cohen. The designation was bestowed upon his sons, providing the basis for a firmly entrenched Jewish tradition in which a male cohen bestows the status upon his children. A daughter of a cohen can become a priest, but she cannot pass on the honour. The Y-chromosome passes solely from father to son, akin to the cohen status. If all modern cohanim were indeed descendants of Aaron, or a relative of him, their Y-chromosomes should have an ancient common origin. Skorecki and his colleagues have found that the cohanim indeed have some Y-chromosome features distinct from other Jews, implying that the cohanim do share some common ancestry.[51] This shared genetic material comes from an ancestor who lived several thousand years ago, roughly the time estimated for the beginning of the Jewish priesthood. This led to the development of a set of Y-chromosomal markers called the "Cohen modal haplotype" that might have been shared by Aaron. A similar study was used to support the claim of the Lemba clan, an endogamous group from southern Africa, that they were a tribe of Jews. One of the Lemba clans carries a particular Y-chromosome which is "Cohen modal haplotype," at a very high frequency, which is known to be characteristic of the paternally inherited Jewish priesthood and is thought, more generally, to be a potential signature haplotype of Judaic origin.[52]

What about the Samaritans? As we have noted earlier, the Samaritans have the highest inbreeding coefficient as they have an endogamous marriage system that is practised not only within the limits of the community but also within the limits of the lineage. The Samaritans claim that they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. If this is true, it should be reflected in their Y-chromosome haplogroup and it should have close relationship with the "Cohen modal haplotype". This is precisely what has been observed. Shen et al. concluded from Y-chromosome analysis that Samaritans descended from the Israelites; and mtDNA analysis shows descent from the foreign women. This effectively has validated both local and foreign origins of the Samaritans. Shen et al. say:

Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel.[53]

Furthermore, the authors say:

This study confirms the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture... [T]he data ... indicate that the Samaritan and Jewish Y-chromosomes have a much greater affinity than do those of the Samaritans and their longtime geographical neighbors, the Palestinians. However, this is not the case for the mtDNA haplotypes. In fact, Table 4 shows that distances of Samaritans to Jews and Palestinians for mtDNA are about the same. Further, the low mitochondrial haplotype diversity suggests that the rate of maternal gene flow into the Samaritan community has not been very high despite their tradition to regard children of male Samaritans born to females from outside as Samaritan... Based on the close relationship of the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes with the Cohen modal haplotype, we speculate that the Samaritan M304 Y-chromosome lineages present a subgroup of the original Jewish Cohanim priesthood that did not go into exile when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC, but married Assyrian and female exiles relocated from other conquered lands, which was a typical Assyrian policy to obliterate national identities. This is in line with biblical texts that emphasize a common heritage of Jews and Samaritans, but also record the negative attitude of Jews towards the Samaritans because of their association with people that were not Jewish. Such a scenario could explain why Samaritan Y-chromosome lineages cluster tightly with Jewish Y-lineages..., while their mitochondrial lineages are closest to Iraqi Jewish and Palestinian mtDNA sequences... Finally, the high degree of homogeneity in each of the four male Samaritan lineages, which holds with two exceptions even over 13 microsatellite loci..., underscores the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture that has effectively limited any male-driven gene flow between the four families.[54]

It is worthwhile adding that this scientific study only establishes the common ancestry of Jews and Samaritans patrilineages; it can't say when the split between them happened, although the authors of this study have speculated that it could have happened during the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel. We now know that this is not true as modern scholars have conclusively rejected II Kings 17 as a source for the origins of Samaritan and clearly not in "line with biblical texts" as Shen et al. have claimed. Despite this error, the scientific study clearly establishes the common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. As for the mitochondrial lineages of Samaritans, a different historical explanation needs to be sought.
Vargo did not like this evidence and he tried to dismiss it by saying:

All humans on this planet are descendents of people who were alive during the time of the Exodus, however, all of the ethno-religious groups, which developed over time, cannot/do not seriously claim to have been present at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses was receiving the law! Another problem is that there are many other groups which carry the Cohen modal haplotype. Among the Bantu speaking Lemba of southern Africa nearly fifty-two percent of males carry the Cohen modal haplotype! The Cohen Modal haplotype is also found in significant numbers among Italians and Kurds.

Obviously, the missionary has not taken the opportunity to read the paper carefully enough. The paper clearly says that the Samaritan Y-chromosome lineages cluster tightly with Jewish Y-lineages, the reason being the close relationship of the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes with the Cohen modal haplotype. The issue is not about just having the Cohen modal haplotype, it is about how closely the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes relates with the Cohen modal haplotype. Similarly, the Lemba tribe from sub-Saharan Africa carries a particular Y-chromosome which is a Cohen modal haplotype, at a very high frequency. This suggests a close genetic relationship between the cohanim and the Lemba tribe. The Cohen modal haplotype is also found in Kurds and Italians. Why should this be surprising? There was a Jewish Kingdom of Adiabene in ancient Kurdistan, where the royals and some of the common people converted to Judaism. Nebel et al. have studied the genetic landscape of the Middle East. Concerning the Kurds, they concluded that:

The dominant haplotype of the Muslim Kurds (haplotype 114) was only one microsatellite-mutation step apart from the CMH [Cohen modal haplotype]... The acceptance of Judaism by the rulers and inhabitants of the Kurdish Kingdom of Adiabene in the first century of the Common Era resulted in the assimilation of non-Jews into the community (Brauer 1993). This recorded conversion does not appear to have had a considerable effect on the Y chromosome pool of the Kurdish Jews.[55]

Perhaps Vargo is under the illusion that genetic information disappears if a Jew, who had a long illustrious lineage, converts to either Islam or Christianity. If this person marries with people from a different genetic stock, there will be some genetic changes but not profound. It is only when there is a lack of endogamy over a few generations, the genetic information slowly gets diluted. The case of the cohanim, the Samaritans and the Lemba clan in sub-Saharan Africa is different from the Kurds. Unlike Kurds, the cohanim, the Samaritans and the Lemba clan are tightly knit groups and marriages are usually endogamous (especially the last two groups) and hence the genetic information is preserved, from which one can make reasonable conclusions about their ancestry.

In other words, the conclusion of this study is that the origins of an endogamous community of Samaritans can be traced back to a common ancestor in the cohen or the Jewish priestly family which was paternally inherited. This study establishes a common ancestry for both Jews and Samaritans, the mixed descent of Samaritans which could be due to marriages with foreign women and corroborates the Samaritan claims of Israelite origins.

6. Conclusions
Until the middle of the 20th century it was commonly believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest (722 BCE). In a similar vein, the Christian missionaries and apologists have claimed that the Samaritans as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE. Based solely on the evidence of II Kings 17, the missionaries and apologists claim the Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) during the time of Moses is a historical contradiction.

Contrary to the claims of the missionaries and apologists, specialists in Samaritan studies have noted that the use of the term shomronim in II Kings 17 tells us nothing about the origins of the Samaritans. Shomronim means the "inhabitants of Samaria" and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. Furthermore, the narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 claiming that the population of Israel in its totality was deported by Assyrians and exchanged to an alien population is unsupported by archaeology. This historical discrepancy severely undermines the veracity of the biblical claim concerning Samaritan origins. Consequently, modern scholars have conclusively rejected II Kings 17 as a source for the origins of Samaritans.

In recent years, research based on a more careful study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. Specifically, with the publication of the Samaritan Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available. A historical analysis of this chronicle reveals that the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. The common ancestry of both the Jews and Samaritans was also established by recent genetic studies, going back to cohen or the Jewish priestly family. This study also validated both local and foreign origins of the Samaritans.

The missionaries and apologists, ignorant of the Samaritans' own version of their history as well as recent scholarly investigation and critical analysis, content themselves with repeating the claim made by William St. Clair Tisdall. Unfortunately, Tisdall was also not fully cognizant with the Chronicles of the Samaritans or the extant archaeological evidence; consequently, the missionaries and apologists make claims contrary to recent historical investigation. As we observed in this study, the Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) is consistent with modern investigations into the origins of the Samaritan sect.


Here you have it all, great work by the brothers from Islamic Awareness site. My sincere thanks to them for helping me dunk the following slam:

# 8
- Sat 17 May, 2008 8:36 pm
Post subject:
Salam All

As I stated in my previous comment that ignorant tristhseeker2 presented two arguments in one, here is his crap again:

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.


Obviously he is lying, he is not looking for an explanation rather he is looking forward to mock, this is evident from the masses of allegations he is copying and pasting at once, if he is really an honest man who is looking for an explanation, he wold have presented his question on its own not accompany it with masses of lies, ignorance and stupidity

Anyway, I?????????????????????¢??m going to also leave it to the brothers from Islamic Awareness to slam dunk his stupidity:

1. Introduction
Christian missionaries have claimed that the Qur'an contains a historically impossible narration when it mentions the name al-Samiri which some translate as the "Samaritan" (Qur'an 20: 85, 87 and 95). They claim that:

The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (Sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term 'Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

We have already discussed the origins of the Samaritans in the paper The "Samaritan" Error in the Qur'an. We had mentioned that until the middle of the 20th century it was commonly believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest (722 BCE). In recent years however, new research based on a more careful study of the Samaritan Chronicle has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. The Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas.

The Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as the "Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) is entirely consistent with modern investigations into the origin of the Samaritan sect.
This paper responds to a different allegation, that the Qur'anic story mentioned in surah 20: 85-95 was in fact based on Jewish myths and fables.

The Christian missionary Tisdall attempts to explain the origin of the "Samaritan" story in his book The Original Sources Of The Qur'an:

This legend also comes from the Jews, as is evident from the following extract which we translate from Pirq????????????????????????????ªy Rabbi Eli'ezer, ????????????????????????????§ 45, "And this calf came out lowing [the sound uttered by cattle; moo], and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Yeh????????????????????????????»dah says that Samma????????????????????????????ªl was hidden in its interior, and was lowing in order that he might deceive Israel." The idea that the calf was able to low must come from the supposition that, though made of gold (Exodus 32. 4), it was alive, since it "came out" (5. 24) of the fire. Here, again, we see that the figurative expression, when taken literally, led to the growth of a myth to explain it. The Muhammadan commentator in explaining the words "a calf in body" in the Qur'an as signifying that it had "flesh and blood" has only gone a step further, and he does this to explain how it was that the animal could low. Muhammad seems to have understood most of the Jewish legend correctly, but the word Samma????????????????????????????ªl puzzled him. Not understanding that this is the Jewish name of the Angel of Death, and perhaps misled as to the pronunciation, he mistook the word for the somewhat similar "Samiri", which means "Samaritan." Of course he made this mistake because he knew that the Jews were enemies of Samaritans, and he fancied that they attributed the making of the calf to one of the latter. He was doubtless confirmed in his belief by some indistinct recollection of having heard that Jeroboam, king of what was afterwards called Samaria, had "made Israel to sin" by leading them to worship the calves which he made and placed in Dan and Beth-el (I Kings 12. 28, 29). But since the city of Samaria was not built, or at least called by that name, until several hundred years later after Moses' death, the anachronism is at least amusing, and would be startling in any other book than the Qur'an, in which far more stupendous ones frequently occur.[1]

He believes that the story is entirely Jewish in origin, and furthermore, he also mentions the "amusing anachronism" in the Qur'an concerning the mistaken usage of the term "Samaritan". This "amusing anachronism" has already been refuted.

Now, concerning the Jewish origins of the story, Tisdall would like us to believe that Muhammad(P) lifted this material from a Rabbinical source called Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer. Tisdall presumably used Abraham Geiger's book, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? as his source.[2] Concerning the golden calf Abraham Geiger writes:

Muhammad says that the calf lowed as it come forth. With this is to be compared the Rabbinical statement: "There came forth this calf lowing and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Jehuda says that Samael entered into it and lowed in order to mislead Israel." In the Qur'an it is said that among the people of Moses there was a tribe which kept the truth. This seems to refer to the tribe of Levi and especially to their behaviour about the calf, although possibly it may refer also to their belief in Moses' mission to Pharaoh of which we have spoken before. In the biblical accounts a statement is made, which is explained by the Rabbis as follows: "From Exodus 32. 26, it is clear that the tribe of Levi was not implicated in the matter of the golden calf."[3]

Not surprisingly, Geiger also uses the rabbinical source called Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer[4] to support his theory that Muhammad(P) copied this story (or 'legend' as Tisdall prefers to call it) from Jewish sources. Similar claims have been made by Robert Morey[5] and N. A. Newman.[6]
Thus, Tisdall proposes that Muhammad(P) used the source Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer to compose the account found in surah 20:85-95.

2. The Case Against Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer
But Tisdall's explanation is probably the most inaccurate and inexcusable suggestion he has yet put forward. An examination of the another contemporary source of Tisdall's time reveals the answer. The Jewish Encyclopaedia published in 1905, in the same year as the publication of Tisdall's book, states under "Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer":

Josh was the first to point out that in the thirtieth chapter, in which at the end the author distinctly alludes to the three stages of the Mohammadan conquest, that of Arabia, of Spain, and of Rome, the names of Fatima and Ayesha occur beside that of Ishmael, leading to the conclusion that the book originated in the time when Islam was predominant in Asia Minor. As in ch. 36, two brothers reigning simultaneously are mentioned, after whose reign the Messiah shall come, the work might be ascribed to the beginning of the ninth century, for about that time the two sons of Harun al-Rasid, El-Amin and El-Mamun, were ruling over Islamic realm.[7]

Thus, according to Tisdall, Muhammad(P) composed the account found in surah 20: 85-95 using a source that had not yet been compiled until hundreds of years after his death! Long before Tisdall wrote The Original Sources Of The Qur'an, Jewish scholars had already mentioned that Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer post-dated Islam. But surprisingly the famous Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall was oblivious to this fact!
Abraham Geiger's book Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? has also been subject to recent criticisms by scholars such as Norman Stillman:

... it did tend to give exaggerated view of the Jewish contribution to the Qur'an. Many of the traditions that he cites are in oriental Christian as well as talmudic and haggadic literature. Our chronology of rabbanic literature is better today than in Geiger's, and many more texts - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian - have since being published. In the light of this we know now that in some instances what was thought to be a Jewish haggadic influence in an Islamic text might well be quite the reverse. The Pirqe de Rabbi Eli'ezer, for example, would seem to have been finally redacted after the advent of Islam.[8]

This view of late compilation of Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer (as well as Midrash Tanhuma!) is also echoed in Encyclopedia Of Islam:

Regardless of how the story [of al-Samiri] came about, the Kur'an appears to present the earliest record of this midrashic development; aspects of it which are found in the Jewish sources (e.g., Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer and Tanhuma) would seem to date from after the rise of Islam.[9]

Since Tisdall lifted most of his material from his master Abraham Geiger, it is not at all surprising to find that Tisdall's sense of poor chronology matches greatly with Geiger's. Other examples of Tisdall's poor and embarrassing scholarship are exposed in his discussions concerning the Prophet's(P) wives teaching him stories from the Bible, Salman the Persian and the story of Cain & Abel as possible Judeo-Christian sources of the Qur'an.

Finally, Stillman advises us in his conclusion:

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that one should be extremely cautious about assigning specific origins to the story discussed here - or for that matter, any other story in the Qur'an.[10]

Christian missionaries would of course choose to ignore this advice as "The Promotion Of Christian Knowledge" by any means is sometimes more important than accuracy and truth!

3. To Moo Or Not To Moo?
The Christian missionaries seem to also have a problem with the golden calf: Did the golden calf moo? They write:

Has Allah given a miracle to this false idol even though idolatery is so detested by him?
We will simply reply by saying that Christians themselves report the idols or statues of Virgin Mary performing "miracles" for believers. This has been reported in both Europe and Latin America. Does that now mean that their (Trinitarian) god has given these idols the power to perform miracles, even though idolatry is so much detested by God?

It is quite clear in the Qur'an that God will test people:

Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested? We did test those before them, and Allah will certainly know those who are true from those who are false. [Qur'an 29:2-3]

Some of these trials will expose the hypocrisy and falsehoods in the hearts of those who claim to believe; and for others it will strengthen their faith and resolve - for they are indeed the true believers. This whole life is but a test for the true believer. Just as the Children of Israel were tested, other nations were also tested. The people of Thamud for example were tested by the she-camel.
There's no such thing as a free ticket to Paradise!


What a slam

# 9
- Sun 18 May, 2008 6:51 am
Post subject:
Good morning all

Let's have a look at the next argument in truthseeker2 copy/paste job:

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)


Please note, because I finished the draft translation of sura 7, I will use Free-Islam translation, obviously the source where truthseeker2 copied his crap from is only picking one verse that never mentioned Musa, then he tells us that the verses is talking to Musa, let's see if they are truthful, I have to bring the adjacent verses so we can follow the context, but before I start, it seems to me that the enemy of Islam lack the knowledge of something that is used in the Quran intensively, it is called Iltifat, known as a method of Balagha in Arabic, simply it means chang8ing the speech to another perspective all of a sudden, however they will be words in the new sentence(s) that must indicate that the speech has been changed, the purpose of it is to say the least amount of words while still having maximum message, something that is seen in numerous verses in the Quran, it can even happen within the same verse, i.e. the first half of the verse is talking about something from some perspective, then the second half changes all of a sudden to talk about the same thing or something else from another perspective, this must cause the kafir enemy of Islam a lot of confusion, and I believe it is designed and implemented by Allah this way to make the kafirs who reject or fight His message more blind to the message and consequently they increase in their Kufr.

Let me walk you briefly through the verses starting from verse 7:155

And Musa chose from his people seventy men for Our appointment; so when the earthquake overtook them, he said: My Lord! If You had willed, You could have destroyed them before and myself (too); Would You destroy us for what the fools among us have done? It is not but Your trial, You misguide with it whom You will and guide whom You will, You are our Guardian therefore forgive us and grant us mercy and You are the best of the forgivers.
[Al Quran ; 7:155]

وَاخْتَارَ مُوسَى قَوْمَهُ سَبْعِينَ رَجُلاً لِّمِيقَاتِنَا فَلَمَّا أَخَذَتْهُمُ الرَّجْفَةُ قَالَ رَبِّ لَوْ شِئْتَ أَهْلَكْتَهُم مِّن قَبْلُ وَإِيَّايَ أَتُهْلِكُنَا بِمَا فَعَلَ السُّفَهَاء مِنَّا إِنْ هِيَ إِلاَّ فِتْنَتُكَ تُضِلُّ بِهَا مَن تَشَاء وَتَهْدِي مَن تَشَاء أَنتَ وَلِيُّنَا فَاغْفِرْ لَنَا وَارْحَمْنَا وَأَنتَ خَيْرُ الْغَافِرِينَ (155)

-> Clear from the above verse that it is talking about a story that happened sometime to prophet Musa, in the above verse the perspective of speech changed once, it starts by Allah is telling the story: And Musa chose from his people seventy men for Our appointment; so when the earthquake overtook them,, then Allah changed the perspective all of a sudden to Musa perspective: he said: My Lord! If You had willed, You could have destroyed them before and myself (too); Would You destroy us for what the fools among us have done? It is not but Your trial, You misguide with it whom You will and guide whom You will, You are our Guardian therefore forgive us and grant us mercy and You are the best of the forgivers..


And write for us in this world good and in the hereafter, indeed we are guided to You. He (Allah) said: My torture, I will strike with it whom I will, and My mercy encompasses everything; therefore I will write it for those who fear (Me) and pay the poor-due, and those who in Our sings believe.
[Al Quran ; 7:156]

وَاكْتُبْ لَنَا فِي هَذِهِ الدُّنْيَا حَسَنَةً وَفِي الآخِرَةِ إِنَّا هُدْنَا إِلَيْكَ قَالَ عَذَابِي أُصِيبُ بِهِ مَنْ أَشَاء وَرَحْمَتِي وَسِعَتْ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ فَسَأَكْتُبُهَا لِلَّذِينَ يَتَّقُونَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَالَّذِينَ هُم بِآيَاتِنَا يُؤْمِنُونَ (156)

-> The story from Musa perspective continued in this verse as follow: And write for us in this world good and in the hereafter, indeed we are guided to You., then the perspective changed all of a sudden to be from Allah perspective: He (Allah) said: My torture, I will strike with it whom I will, and My mercy encompasses everything; therefore I will write it for those who fear (Me) and pay the poor-due, and those who in Our sings believe., actually the word (Allah) is not in the Arabic text that is why I put it in brackets in my translation, so those who are not familiar with the Arabic Balagha Iltifat can follow the story through without being confused who is talking at such moment or without the need to think who is talking at such moment. Now, despite when the speech changed to Allah perspective, the verse never said Qal Allah, i.e. Allah said, rather Qal., ie Said, same when Musa was speaking in the previous verse, it was said Qal, i.e Said, and not Qal Musa, i.e. Musa said for the listeners, to know who is the speaker now as they read the story in the Quran, they should look for keywords to what is about to be said, in the previous verse it was clear that it had to Musa because in the following words we read My Lord, and in this verse it has to be Allah because we read in the following words about the mercy and the punishment and His signs, here it is again without the word (Allah): Said: My torture, I will strike with it whom I will, and My mercy encompasses everything; therefore I will write it for those who fear and pay the poor-due, and those who in Our sings believe., see how easy it is to identify who is the one talking without the verse telling us who is talking,

Now in the next verse the perspective changed BACK to where it started in verse 7:155, i.e. back to Allah telling us something as He did in the start of verse 7:155, let me remind with its start again: 7:155 is talking about a story that happened sometime to prophet Musa, in the above verse the perspective of speech changed once, it starts by Allah is telling the story: And Musa chose from his people seventy men for Our appointment; so when the earthquake overtook them,

And here is how the speech changed back:

Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel, he (the messenger) enjoins them with what is lawful and forbids them what is evil, and makes lawful for them the good and makes unlawful for the bad, and relieves them from their burden and the shackles which were upon them. And those who have believed in him and have honoured him and have helped him, and have followed the light which has been sent down with him, it is those who are the successful.
[Al Quran ; 7:157]

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)

-> Clearly the verse above is talking about prophet Mohammed and not prophet Musa, this is because Musa was not Ummi, but Mohammed was, see how the verses started from the perspective of Allah, i..e. Allah is telling us: Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet,, i.e. prophet Mohammed, who is also mentioned in Ahl Alkitab scriptures, Injeel and Taurat, see what else is said by Allah about Mohammed: whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel, he (the messenger) enjoins them with what is lawful and forbids them what is evil, and makes lawful for them the good and makes unlawful for the bad, and relieves them from their burden and the shackles which were upon them. And those who have believed in him and have honoured him and have helped him, and have followed the light which has been sent down with him, it is those who are the successful., Musa has absolutely nothing to do with the above verse, however I do understand that an ignorant copier/paster like truthseeker2 may understand it such way, now consider that he is a clear enemy of Islam too, then he must be locked on his ignorance

The next verse changed the perspective again, in the previous verse, it was Allah talking to all Quran readers, in the following verse, it is Allah talking to Mohammed alone and telling him what to say to other people, let's have a look:

Say: O people! Indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you all, to Whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, there is no god but He; He gives life and causes death therefore believe in Allah and His messenger, the unlettered prophet who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him so that you may be guided.
[Al Quran ; 7:158]

قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ جَمِيعًا الَّذِي لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ لا إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ النَّبِيِّ الأُمِّيِّ الَّذِي يُؤْمِنُ بِاللّهِ وَكَلِمَاتِهِ وَاتَّبِعُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ (158)

-> See how the perspective changed again to direct speech by Allah to Mohammed only: Say: O people! Indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you all, to Whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, there is no god but He; He gives life and causes death therefore believe in Allah and His messenger, the unlettered prophet who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him so that you may be guided.

In the next verse, the perspective changed again to Allah talking to all Quran readers, telling them about Musa and his people again:

And among the people of Musa is a nation who guides (others) with the truth, and by it they establish justice.
[Al Quran ; 7:159]

وَمِن قَوْمِ مُوسَى أُمَّةٌ يَهْدُونَ بِالْحَقِّ وَبِهِ يَعْدِلُونَ (159)


And the next verse continued as the previous verse, the same perspective, Allah is tellong all Quran readers about Musa and his people:

And We divided them into twelve tribes, nations; and We revealed to Musa when his people implored him for water: Strike the rock with your staff, so gushed forth from it twelve springs; each tribe knew its drinking place; and We shaded them with the clouds, and We sent to them manna and quails: Eat of the good of what We have provided you. And they did not do Us unjust but they did injustice to themselves.
[Al Quran ; 7:160]

وَقَطَّعْنَاهُمُ اثْنَتَيْ عَشْرَةَ أَسْبَاطًا أُمَمًا وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى مُوسَى إِذِ اسْتَسْقَاهُ قَوْمُهُ أَنِ اضْرِب بِّعَصَاكَ الْحَجَرَ فَانبَجَسَتْ مِنْهُ اثْنَتَا عَشْرَةَ عَيْنًا قَدْ عَلِمَ كُلُّ أُنَاسٍ مَّشْرَبَهُمْ وَظَلَّلْنَا عَلَيْهِمُ الْغَمَامَ وَأَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمُ الْمَنَّ وَالسَّلْوَى كُلُواْ مِن طَيِّبَاتِ مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ وَمَا ظَلَمُونَا وَلَكِن كَانُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ (160)


This should conclude the slam as well takes our slam tally to double digits:

# 10
- Thu 03 Jul, 2008 1:41 pm
Post subject:
Nice Work brother.
But I think you skipped few charges by the arrogant Christian.
- Thu 03 Jul, 2008 3:52 pm
Post subject:
Windsor wrote:
Nice Work brother.
But I think you skipped few charges by the arrogant Christian.


Salam mate

I did not actually skip it, this thread was posted on FFI and I told them that due to the masses of their argument, i will look for the ones that I have a reply ready for it on my laptop, the rest will be refuted later on inshalllah when I come back to Australia in about 6 weeks time

cheers
- Fri 10 Oct, 2008 4:49 pm
Post subject:
Salam All,

It has been a very long time since I wrote last in this thread, and as I promised that I will continue later inshaallah when I have enough time, I still do not have such time but I feel that I should continue regardless, therefore here is my 11th slam dunk

truthseeker2 wrote:
Does Allah forgive shirk?
Sura 4:48, 116, No
then we get
Sura 4:153, 25:68-71, Yes


The confusion of the FFI goons is the result of how ignorant they are to what Allah said about Himself in the Quran

Let me first bring the verses they are referring to, in here:

Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him, and He forgives what is less than that to whomsoever He desires; and whoever associates partners with Allah, indeed he forged a great sin.
[Al Quran ; 4:48]

إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاء وَمَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللّهِ فَقَدِ افْتَرَى إِثْمًا عَظِيمًا (48)

-> In the above verse, Allah is telling us: إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ , Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him,

As well in the next verse, He said the exact same:

Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him, and He forgives what is less than that to whomsoever He desires; and whoever associates partners with Allah, he indeed strayed into a distant misguidance.
[Al Quran ; 4:116]

إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاء وَمَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللّهِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلاَلاً بَعِيدًا (
116)

-> In the above verse, Allah is telling us: إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ , Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him,

I wonder why the goon truthseeker2 posted two references to the same exact saying by Allah in regards to His saying that He will never forgive that partners be associated with Him. Possibly the goon trying to tell us by Allah repeating it twice it means that it is a stress of His upcoming action regarding Al Mushrikoon. Hmmmm, fine mister goon, I accept that understanding which is: When a sentence is being repeated then it has to be a stress of what is going to happen that is stated in such sentence, therefore the more it is repeated the more the stress increase

Let's now look at the verses that suppose to contradict the above two verses:

The people of the Book ask you to bring down to them a book from the sky; indeed they asked of Musa a greater thing than that, as they said: Show us Allah publicly; therefore the lightning took them due to their injustice, then they took the calf after the clear signs had come to them, but We pardoned this; and We gave Musa a clear authority.
[Al Quran ; 4:153]

يَسْأَلُكَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ أَن تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْهِمْ كِتَابًا مِّنَ السَّمَاء فَقَدْ سَأَلُواْ مُوسَى أَكْبَرَ مِن ذَلِكَ فَقَالُواْ أَرِنَا اللّهِ جَهْرَةً فَأَخَذَتْهُمُ الصَّاعِقَةُ بِظُلْمِهِمْ ثُمَّ اتَّخَذُواْ الْعِجْلَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءتْهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ فَعَفَوْنَا عَن ذَلِكَ وَآتَيْنَا مُوسَى سُلْطَانًا مُّبِينًا (153)

-> Hmmmm, here is where the confusion of the goon comes clear, the verse above never said that Allah forgives shirk, IT NEVER DID, the verse above is talking about PUNISHMENT ON EARTH, you stupid

Well, the verse above is talking about the confused Jews who took the calf as a god (they shirked by committing one of the types of shirk) and Allah decided to give them another chance ON EARTH, yet they failed such chance, therefore those who failed when they have died, their SHIRK WILL NEVER BE FORGIVEN according to what Allah stated twice in 4:48 and 4:116

In fact what Allah did with the Jews (by giving them another chance or more) , who have shirked IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH MANY MUSHRIKOON WHO ARE LIVING WITH US NOWDAYS, like the cow worshippers in India, or the Hindus who sometimes worship elephants (again in India, sounds like India is a good place to breed Mushrikoon), or the devil worshippers, etc etc, we do not see the punishment of Allah coming down upon them the moment they shirked, this means they are still given chances to return to the path to which He is calling them, and the game will be over when everyone dies, only then Allah will never forgive your shirk, if you die a Mushrik

Let's look at the second verse that suppose to tell us that Allah will forgive shirk on the J Day:

68: And they who do not call upon another god with Allah and do not slay the soul, which Allah has forbidden except in the requirements of justice, and (who) do not commit fornication and he who does this shall find a requital of sin;

69: The punishment shall be doubled to him on the day of resurrection, and he shall abide therein in abasement;

70: Except him who repents and believes and does a good deed; so these are they of whom Allah changes the evil deeds to good ones; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

71: And whoever repents and does good, he surely turns to Allah a (goodly) turning.
[The Quran ; 25:68-71]

وَالَّذِينَ لَا يَدْعُونَ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ وَلَا يَقْتُلُونَ النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا يَزْنُونَ ۚ وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذَٰلِكَ يَلْقَ أَثَامًا (68)
يُضَاعَفْ لَهُ الْعَذَابُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَيَخْلُدْ فِيهِ مُهَانًا (69)
إِلَّا مَنْ تَابَ وَآمَنَ وَعَمِلَ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا فَأُولَٰئِكَ يُبَدِّلُ اللَّهُ سَيِّئَاتِهِمْ حَسَنَاتٍ ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا (70)
وَمَنْ تَابَ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَإِنَّهُ يَتُوبُ إِلَى اللَّهِ مَتَابًا (71)

-> See how stupid and illogical the goons of FFI are, the above verses confirmed without a doubt what I said regarding 4:153 above, which is, Allah is giving more chances to the people He chose not to die YET as Mushrikoon, but if they failed such chances given and died while shirking, then this is what will happen to them as 25:69 above is CLEARLY telling us: يُضَاعَفْ لَهُ الْعَذَابُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَيَخْلُدْ فِيهِ مُهَانًا , The punishment shall be doubled to him on the day of resurrection, and he shall abide therein in abasement; , but if any Mushrik who calls upon another god with Allah, managed to repent then his past shirk will be forgiven, because when he/she died, they were not Mushrikoon: and that is exactly what 25:70-71 are telling us: , Except him who repents and believes and does a good deed; so these are they of whom Allah changes the evil deeds to good ones; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And whoever repents and does good, he surely turns to Allah a (goodly) turning.

Obviously the confused goon slam dunked himself, which should be enough to constitute slam dunk # 11:

# 11
- Sat 11 Oct, 2008 5:29 pm
Post subject:
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.


A few years back, I collected one of the best refutation to such Tom and Jerry alleged contradiction, I could not remember the people who wrote such great refute, I thought it was by the brothers of Islamic Awareness but after searching their web site, could not find it, I also thought to be by the brothers of faithfreedom.com ( a web site that was created to reply to faithfreedom.org) but again could not find it, therefore I won't be able to confirm the source, but if that is an issue for the goons to reject it, then consider that the source is myself:

Why Zul-Qarnain of the Quran is not Alexander the great
Popular opinion amongst the Muslims and quite recently, within the mainstream evangelical Christians identify Zul-Qarnian (of the Quran) with Alexander the great. This claim, in the light of history needs to be analysed while keeping in view the sublime story of Zul-Qarnain found in chapter 18 of the Quran. Before we initiate a point-by-point examination of whatever data available on hand, we must bear in mind that Quran does not mention the title "Alexander the great," but rather Zul-Qarnain (two-horned one) which may also mean "period or century." (1) In addition, "who was he? In what age and where did he live? The Quran gives us no material on which we can base a positive answer." (2)

Evidence 1:
The story of Zul-Qarnain begins in the Quran with:

"And they ask you about Zul-Qarnain. Say: 'I shall recite to you something of his story.' Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything."
[The Quran ; 18:83-84]

وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنْ ذِي الْقَرْنَيْنِ ۖ قُلْ سَأَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْهُ ذِكْرًا (83)

إِنَّا مَكَّنَّا لَهُ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ سَبَبًا (84)

The most important point made in verse 84 is that Allah endowed upon Zul-Qarnain the worldly power and prestige to enable him to rule justly. If a man of God is under the divine protection, then naturally, under no circumstances, the forces of evil can overpower him. Let us now see if, from the following historical record of Alexander the great, we recognise Zul-Qarnain of the Quran, Encyclopaedia Americana teel us under the name Alexander:

Alexander: "Hearing of the river Indus, ...drove the army eastward across the Hindu Kush (327 B.C.). His army had understood the need to consolidate all the Persian dominion, but believed this new venture to be a madman's act. Actually, Alexander thought that he was entering the last peninsula of the earth: that beyond it lay the Ocean of the East. He reached the Indus with a growing following, a moving state of allied peoples and their families, while his remaining Macedonians laid down pontoon bridges, shored up roads over immense ranges, and fought battles when necessary. Passing from the friendly country around Taxila (near Attock), they encountered the hostile Paurava rajah at the Jhelum River where the Macedonian infantry had to fight against armoured elephants for the first time. Alexander and his spearhead could not approach the elephants, which terrified the horses. This shook the Macedonian veterans who mutinied en masse at the river Ravi. Deeply angered, because he believed the end of the land lay not far off, at Ocean, Alexander was obliged to retreat (326 B.C.)." (3)

From the above narrative, we can easily observe that Alexander's army considered this new venture to be a madman's act and running away from the battleground upon seeing elephants in the enemy's army. Both of these acts are in clear opposition to the verse 84 where Zul-Qarnain is given the utmost power:

"Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything."
[The Quran ; 18:84]

إِنَّا مَكَّنَّا لَهُ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ سَبَبًا (84)


When a man of God is given the power to rule justly upon the earth, he's also sustained by his followers who are ready and willing to follow their leader, and sacrifice themselves for the sake of God. No hardship, calamity or force can play any role against them. But, unfortunately, Alexander's cowardly actions, such as becoming angry just because he was unable to fight Paurava Raja's ((a Rajah) belonging to, or descended from Puru, a king of Lunar Dynasty) (4) army which consisted of elephants do not match that of a man of God.

Evidence 2:
Zul-Qarnain was indeed a believer in monotheism. In one of his voyages, as described in the Quran, he found some people, and said to them:

"as for him who believes in (Allah's Oneness) and works righteousness, he shall have the best reward (Paradise), and we (Zul-Qarnain) shall speak unto him mild words."
[The Quran ; 18:87]

قَالَ أَمَّا مَنْ ظَلَمَ فَسَوْفَ نُعَذِّبُهُ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِ فَيُعَذِّبُهُ عَذَابًا نُكْرًا (87)

On the other hand, we do not find Alexander being a believer in the Oneness of God, as the following record demonstrates it:

"Alexander eagerly assimilated the religious mysticism of the Nile and of Magian Persia. Not only did he protect these religions, but also as a sole ruler, he necessarily assumed the semidivine aspect of an Asian despot, wearing Persian attire at ceremonies and accepting prostration in his presence."(5) Furthermore, "Alexander's greatest work was the spread of Greek influence..." (6)

The comparison so clearly separates Alexander from Zul-Qarnain that no further explanation is needed.

Evidence 3:
In Zul-Qarnain's third voyage, he found a habitation between two mountains whose people asked for his help against the aggression of Gog and Magog - for which they were going to pay him a tribute. And in the words of the Quran, Zul-Qarnain replied to them:

"(the power) in which My Lord has established me Is better (than tribute.)"
[The Quran ; 18:95]

قَالَ مَا مَكَّنِّي فِيهِ رَبِّي خَيْرٌ فَأَعِينُونِي بِقُوَّةٍ أَجْعَلْ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ رَدْمًا (95)

The manner in which Zul-Qarnain responded, is a testimony in itself that he had no interest in the material gain of this world. His mission endorsed by God was to be just and kind to oppressed, and harsh with those who inflict hardship upon the helpless. In contrast, when we analyse Alexander in similar capacity, we get a picture opposite to what has been cited above for Zul-Qarnain:

"In Susa and Persepolis his (Alexander's) headlong pursuit won him the imperial treasure of some 180,000 talents in bullion and coin - so fabulous an amount that he demonetised the gold to equate it with the smaller Graeco-Macedonian silver coinage," (7) and "at Damascus the Persian army's treasure and supply train were captured, giving Alexander wealth for the first time." (8)

From these two historical records, can we picture Zul-Qarnain as he is depicted in the above Quranic verse? Obviously not!

Evidence 4:
So far, it has been established that Zul-Qarnain of the Quran was a believer in the Oneness of God. In the case of Alexander the great, following few historical accounts further confirm that he was not a monotheist:

"In the spring of 331 Alexander made a pilgrimage to the great temple and oracle of Amon-Ra, Egyptian god of the sun, whom the Greeks identified with Zeus. The earlier Egyptian pharaohs were believed to be sons of Amon-Ra; and Alexander, the new ruler of Egypt, wanted the god to acknowledge him as his son. The pilgrimage apparently was successful, and it may have confirmed in him a belief in his own divine origin."

"Shortly before he died, Alexander ordered the Greek cities to worship him as a god. Although he probably gave the order for political reasons, he was, in his own view and that of his contemporaries, of divine birth." (9)

Conclusion:
In the days gone by, access and availability to social, academic and scientific knowledge was either limited or non-existent. People of learning used to base their opinions on whatever information was on hand. There were also those who accepted matters as conclusive without having first analysed it from all the different angles. In the case of those Muslim commentators on the Holy Quran who identify Zul-Qarnain with Alexander the great, we simply cannot blame them for their erroneous interpretation. The time-domain they lived in and the resources available to them, they, accordingly, explained the Quranic text to the best of their ability. Despite the fact that they were all sincere and good hearted scholars, they were bound to incorporate within their work certain cultural elements of which they were part of:

"no other man has been claimed - in legends - by so many nations. Egyptian fable makes him god. Arabo-Persian tradition represents Is-kander as a hero-saint." (10)

The only common factor on which these scholars based their opinions is the expeditions carried by Alexander and Zul_Qarnain. Other than this, there are hardly any other characteristics that are common in both.

References:
1. Cyril Classe, The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, Harper & Row, 1989, p_32

2. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran, note 2428

3. Encyclopaedia Americana, Volume 1, p_540

4. Margaret & James Stutly, A dictionary of Hinduism, Ronledge & Kegan Paul, 1977

5. Encyclopaedia Americana, Volume 1, p_540

6. Encyclopaedia of Religion & Ethics, Volume 1, p_307

7. Encyclopaedia Americana, Volume 1, p_540

8. Ibid., p_539

9. Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopaedia, CDROM ver, by future vision multimedia inc., 1995 INFOPEDIA

10. Encyclopaedia Americana, Volume 1, p_540
---------------------------------------------------

Apparantly, Alexander the Great was also a queer, which means, he could have never been a man of God: Alexander the Great is a queer

And this should take us to the 12th slam:

# 12
- Sun 12 Oct, 2008 9:26 am
Post subject:
Salam all,

A goon of FFI tried to dispute slam dunk # 11, this is how he looks like in there and what he had to say in reply to slam dunk # 11:


Islamis__Tashit of FFI


Islamis__Tashit of FFI said:

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? 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. 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, just like BagHat never thinks things through very well, just like the majority of Muslims don't think things through very well. Seems like logic and reasoning to Muslims is like garlic is to a vampire.[/quote]

And this is how I replied to the Ugly:

Let me educate Ugly by giving him a Quran lesson:

Let's have a look at the following verse:

And a soul shall not die except with the permission of Allah, an appointed book; and whoever desires the reward of this world, We shall give him of it, and whoever desires the reward of the hereafter We shall give him of it, and We will reward the grateful.
[Al Quran ; 3:145]

وَمَا كَانَ لِنَفْسٍ أَنْ تَمُوتَ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ كِتَابًا مُؤَجَّلًا ۗ وَمَنْ يُرِدْ ثَوَابَ الدُّنْيَا نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا وَمَنْ يُرِدْ ثَوَابَ الْآخِرَةِ نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا ۚ وَسَنَجْزِي الشَّاكِرِينَ (145)


-> See mister Ugly, وَمَنْ يُرِدْ ثَوَابَ الدُّنْيَا نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا وَمَنْ يُرِدْ ثَوَابَ الْآخِرَةِ نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا, i.e. and whoever desires the reward of this world, We shall give him of it, and whoever desires the reward of the hereafter We shall give him of it,

I.e. those Mushrikoon, and btw you are a Mushrik too, this is because Allah told you to believe while Satan told you the opposite (not to believe) and as you know you chose to serve Satan after hearing both, i.e. you have Shirked, therefore a Mushrik like you wants the life of this world, and certainly you may have possibly done a few good deeds in the life of this world (I am sure though that most of your deeds are evil) anyway, for your good deeds that you did in this life while you are desiring this life only, you must be rewarded for such deeds using what you love and desire which is the life of this world, see again: and whoever desires the reward of this world, We shall give him of it,, and that must be you and the likes of you

However, you will have a serious problem after the life of this world finishes and I am sure that even an Ugly dumb bum like you knows that the life of this world must finish (death), your serious problem is as follow:

Whoever desires the reward of the hereafter, We will give him more of that reward; and whoever desires the reward of this world, We give him of it, and in the hereafter he has no portion.
[Al Quran ; 42:20]

مَنْ كَانَ يُرِيدُ حَرْثَ الْآخِرَةِ نَزِدْ لَهُ فِي حَرْثِهِ ۖ وَمَنْ كَانَ يُرِيدُ حَرْثَ الدُّنْيَا نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا وَمَا لَهُ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنْ نَصِيبٍ (20)

-> See your serious problem: وَمَنْ كَانَ يُرِيدُ حَرْثَ الدُّنْيَا نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا وَمَا لَهُ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنْ نَصِيبٍ, i.e. and whoever desires the reward of this world, We give him of it, and in the hereafter he has no portion., i.e. the Mushrikoon like you, who desires the reward of this life, are still alive so Allah fulfil His words which is to reward ya from it while you are still covered by the seal btw, then when you die, your Shirk will never be forgiven, i.e. in the hereafter he has no portion.

And as you know that on the hearafter, it's showtime

And that was the start of the second dozen of slam dunks:

# 13
- Sun 12 Oct, 2008 10:09 am
Post subject:
Ahmed is using his absolute right to reply to any of the life dimissals of FFI as he desires:

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:


I do not have to, Mental, however I chose to to do it this time and take the chance to make the 14th slam dunk:

charleslemartel wrote:
1. Why does Allah put a seal on the heart of a kafir at all?


The answer is in the verse before it you blind ignorant, let's have a look:

6: Indeed, those who have disbelieved, it is the same to them whether you warn them or you do not warn them, they do not believe.

7: Allah has set upon their hearts, and upon their hearing and upon their visions a veil, and for them, there is a great torture.
[Al Quran ; 2:6-7]

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ (6)
خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ وَعَلَى سَمْعِهِمْ وَعَلَى أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عظِيمٌ (7)

-> See: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ, i.e. Indeed, those who have disbelieved, it is the same to them whether you warn them or you do not warn them, they do not believe. , and because, those kafirs BOLDLY reject the mesaage, they earned the following: Allah has set upon their hearts, and upon their hearing and upon their visions a veil, and for them, there is a great torture.

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?


Haha, the coward kafirs always like to blame something else, blame yourself, punk: Indeed, those who have disbelieved, it is the same to them whether you warn them or you do not warn them, they do not believe.

# 14
- Fri 17 Oct, 2008 10:35 am
Post subject:
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?

"Kafaro" in 2:6 does not mean infidels. It means evildoers. See how goofy you look?
So those evildoers will not leave their evil doings even if prophet Muhammed. Thus God puts a seal on their heart from believing because Islam rejects persistent criminals and evildoers.
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.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
Entire communities of Jews and Christians converted to Islam at the time. Some of them even became scholars of Islam. Anyway Jews and Christians were insignificant in Arabia, unlike the Hanifs, Sabeans and Pagans, and so the Pagans would not have given a damn if the Jews and Christians had converted or not.
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,

This is more hilarious than the "Muhammed forgot..." or "Muhammed did not know that such and such...". They want us to believe that Muhammed "made mistakes..." when even his contemporary adversaries did not challenge him at them. Their intellectual terrorism won't work with us. Only a fool would believe such crap.
Or an anti-Islam infidel!
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.

Muslims were among the greatest contributors to the human civilization when you were a big zero! Nonexistent.
Quote:
Seems like logic and reasoning to Muslims is like garlic is to a vampire.

It seems hate, bigotry, ignorance and arrogance to you are like a piece of shit to a fly
- Fri 17 Oct, 2008 3:34 pm
Post subject:
Thank you brother Windsor for you input, I will copy your reply to their web site inshaallah:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AhmedBahgat wrote:

Why Zul-Qarnain of the Quran is not Alexander the great

# 12


Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Hello Ahmed.


Hello

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
I agree with you in that Zul-Qarnain is not the historical Alexander the Great.


So, why you are wasting my time and yours if you agree that Zul Qarnain is not Alexander the queer?

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
But who was Zul-Qarnain?


Well, he can be one of billions of people, however the hearsay hadith books tell us that he was a prophet of God and the Quran confirmed that.

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
How about the mythical Alexander the Great?


Who gives a fuk about such queer?, sounds like you do

well, it makes no difference now after you conceded that Zul Qarnain can not be the great queer Alexander

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
We who do not believe in the Qur'an look for an explanation.


Well, read this:

1) the Quran tells us that Zul Qarnain is a man of God
2) all the history records confirmed that Alexander was a queer who enjoyed sleeping with men and wamen
3) the Quran condemns the queers

from 1, 2 & 3, Zul Qarnain can not be Alexander the queer

For both of them wearing two horns hat, can not be conclusive that they are the same

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
There has to be a source for the Zul-Qarnain of the Quran story.


That's right, Allah who authored the Quran is the source

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.


So what?

Do you agree that alexander was a queer?

if you do then dismiss yourself and stop wasting my time and yours

My comment, is not about who is Zul Qarnain, my comment is to prove that Zul Qarnain can not be the queer alexander, and you conceded that

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
There has been some controversy among Islamic scholars.


Haha, fuk the Muslim scholars, 90% of them are confused fuks

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Alexander was identified in Persian and Arabic-language sources as "Dh????????????????????????????»-'l Qarnayn",


and any one in all humanity who wears a two horns hat may be called the same

what is your problem exactly?

I know

desperation is your problem and consquently I have to dismiss your crap:

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


Dismissed

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?


Holy crap, here is again the objective of my comment:

It is to prove that Zul Qarnain can not be the queer Alexander, and for Alexander to be queer, is enough to conclude the the two can never be the same, and that was slam dunk # 12 btw

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
I am waiting.


waiting for what exactly?

to be dismissed?
- Fri 17 Oct, 2008 3:35 pm
Post subject:
Ahmed decided to take charles mental of the life dismissal list

charleslemartel wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:


Well, read this:

1) the Quran tells us that Zul Qarnain is a man of God
2) all the history records confirmed that Alexander was a queer who enjoyed sleeping with men an waman
3) the Quran condemns the queers

from 1, 2 & 3, Zu Qarnain can not be Alexander the queer


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?


Show me what you have, mental

one at a time

if you post more than one argument, like confused truthseeker, I will dismiss ya

show us how smart and logical you are

back to you, mental
- Fri 17 Oct, 2008 3:38 pm
Post subject:
charleslemartel of FFI said:

Thanks for getting me off the life dismissal list; I am feeling quite happy :*).

Here I go, one at a time:

30:26 :

Yusuf Ali: To Him belongs every being that is in the heavens and on earth: all are devoutly obedient to Him.

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.

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.
----------------------------------

charleslemartel wrote:
Thanks for getting me off the life dismissal list; I am feeling quite happy :*).


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:
Here I go, one at a time:


Exactly, you know, that is a common tactic by the kafirs when debating Muslims, they think by posting masses of alleged contradictions that they will overwhelm the Muslims, and I know that such tactics may work with many Muslims, with me however, it means one thing only, an inevitable dismissal, the reason I replied to truthseeker2 masses of crap, I was simply bored.


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.


Let me bring the Arabic text and qualify the above translation as I have not reached sura 30 in my translation yet:

This is what I believe is far more accurate translation than Y A one:

And to Him belongs what is in the heavens and the earth, all are to Him obedient.
[The Quran ; 30:26]

وَلَهُ مَنْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ كُلٌّ لَهُ قَانِتُونَ (26)

-> You are picking on the bolded words: all are to Him obedient., and for you? should cover the jinn and the humans, which I totally agree with you

Then you brought the following verse that you think is contradicting 30:26

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.


Let me bring the Arabic text, as well, my translation (my web site is offline for relocation reasons, therefore this is my translation from the top of my head and may not be identical to what I have on my web site but will certainly be almost identical):

And when We have said to the angels: Prostrate before Adam, so they prostrated except Iblis, he refused and acted arrogantly, and he was from among the disbelievers.
[The Quran ; 2:34]

وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ أَبَىٰ وَاسْتَكْبَرَ وَكَانَ مِنَ الْكَافِرِينَ (34)


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.



Well, it seems you suffer from the same common virus that infect the minds of all kafirs who chose to criticize the Quran, while I applauded you for presenting a Quran only argument, as you know that I do not waste my time with any other Jerry Springer crap, your argument is still nothing but clear evidence of your infection of such virus, 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, i.e. Iblis had a choice to act arrogant and disbelieve, this must raise another logical and related question, why Iblis had a choice?, 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, 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.

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 you with many verses, I will just tell you what the Quran said which destroys your argument and will constitute slam dunk # 15

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

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.

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, 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
- Fri 17 Oct, 2008 3:39 pm
Post subject:
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Hello Again Ahmed


Hello

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.


Indeed you are, wasting both my time and yours, think about it again

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
If Zul Qarnain is such an import historical person then who was he?


I do not get it again, as I stated twice now, my reply is not to show who is Zul Qarnain, my reply was to prove that he could have never been alexander the quee, at the same time I do not care who was Zul Qarnain as long as I can coclude that he can not be a queer who takes it and give it in the anus

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
How do you prove that the Qur'anic Zul Qarnain narrative is truly historic?



Well, resorting to the same silly argument by the confised disbelievers, here is my logical reply again, i ONLY BELIEVE THAT THE QURAN IS TRUE, I can not however prove it, because the moment I do, it can not be belief any more and at such time the the beleief must cease and become a fact, logically speaking of course, therefore I can not prove anything in the Quran, nor that I need to explain to you my belief in it, neither that you need to explain your disbelieve in it to me.

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Alexander the queer was a historical person. I say that the Qur'anic Zul Qarnain narrative is fiction.



Fine, you can say and believe in what you say as you wish, makes no difference to me

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?


Can you see the signs of you defeat, you are confusing the subject which is if Zul Qarnain of the Quran (being fictiional of not) is the historical alexander the queer (being fictional or not), you are side tracked to who was Zul Qarnain? while atethe same time conceding that he was not alexander the queer (the subject in hand), now you are talking murkey water,

I have replied to such crap of murkey water tens of timees and really have no time to waste with the confused kafirs who will always be in denial


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.


Dismissed

Ahmed Bahgat wrote:
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.


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.


Fine, that is one of the possibilties, however you will be dumb to ignore other possibilities, one of such other possibilities that the story mentioned in the Quran is true

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
The writer of the Qur'an believed it. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


and another possibility that the Quran is from Allah (the One and Only God) and the story is 100% true, you will be really dumb if you discount such possibility

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Your Qur'an is stupid.


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
- Fri 17 Oct, 2008 10:14 pm
Post subject:
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.


Honestly, I careless if you call me Ahmaq or not, I am not a girlie like you who cries all the times

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.


In this verse, yes it covers the Jinn and the Humans, that is what i said, I never said that Kul means All, i.e. everything, Kul in Arabiic does not necessarily mean everything all the times.

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.


And I agreed on that, why you are crying?

charleslemartel wrote:
I am not bothered about "Why" of the Iblis's disobedience.


Did you not read my comment properly or what?

I said, the Quran clearly told us that the Jinn along with the Humans have been given a bit of choice to disobey

Therefore whatever Iblis did which looks disobedience, is covered under such bit of free choice given, are you dumb or what?

Again, I said the following, had the Quran not said so about the Jinn and the Humans then you would have had a point, however because the Quran said so, you have been slammed

charleslemartel wrote:
The fact of the matter is that Iblis is included in the word "All" who are supposed to be obedient to Allah,


You are saying so because you consider that the Quran saying All is a fact of a matter, which I accepted early, on the other hand you are ignoring the other fact of the matter that the Quran also said that the Jinn to whom Iblis belongs were given a bit of choice to disobey, again, are you dumb?

charleslemartel wrote:
and he disobeyed. Period.


And the Quran said that the Jinn to whom Iblis belongs were given a bit of choice to disobey, period.

You are really dumb, aren't you?

charleslemartel wrote:
Whys and Hows and Wheres and Whats and Whos only obfuscate the issue.


What non sense is that?

Again and again and bloody again, you are using the Quran against itself while ignoring the fact of the matter that Quran also said that the Jinn to whome Iblis belongs are given a bit of choice to disobey while at the end, they will be punished really bad

Wake up and talk sense or I will dismiss your crap

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?


What red herring you confused?, this is yet another sign to the defeat of the kafirs when they are slam dunked, they resort to their fantasy world of fallacies

Well, if you are smart enough then you should realize that you are basing your argument on what the Quran said against what the Quran said while ignoring what I presneted which is also what the Quran said, and what I presented is 100% related to your confusion, that you are not aware that the Quran said that the Jinn to whom Iblis belongs are given a bit of choice to disobey, THAT IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO SLAM DUNK YOUR CRAP, LOGICALLY SPEAKING AND SEND YOU BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD THINKING OF THE NEXT LOGICAL CONTRADICTION IN THE QURAN

Be a man and admit your defeat regarding the stupid argument you presneted

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.


You are certainly confused, here is why:

If one of my commands is to give person A a bit of choice to disobey me, then:

If person A obeyed such command by using his bit of free choice to disobey me, then person A is obedient to me all the way, hahaha, that must be slam dunk # 16:

# 16


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.


And if one of my command was to give person A a bit of free choice to disobey me and person A did just that, then perosn A is obedient to me all the way, I do not think that you are smart enough to understand such compelling logic

charleslemartel wrote:
What you are claiming here, I am sorry to say, is totally illogical.


No surprises in here, that is what I always get from the stubborn and confused kafirs after I expose them, can you see that I am still exposing you

Thanks for being part of my slam dunk show

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.


*Translation:*

I am defeated 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.


As well, you need to see slam dunk # 16 above

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.


Let's repeat slam dunk # 16 then:

You are certainly confused, here is why:

If one of my commands is to give person A a bit of choice to disobey me, then:

If person A obeyed such command by using his bit of free choice to disobey me, then person A is obedient to me all the way, hahaha, that must be slam dunk # 16

# 16

Thanks again for being part of my show

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.


Slam dunk # 16 above

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.


Slam dunk # 16 above

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.


Well, you do not just need to deal with slam dunk # 15, but slam dunk # 16 as well, you have been double slammed

Next
- Tue 21 Oct, 2008 4:38 pm
Post subject:
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.


Stop being a stubborn ignorant kafir, as I explained to you and to others many times, the Quran never said that the earth is flat, in fact what the Quran implies all the way is that the earth is round

For your murkey water claim, again you dumb, the Quran was telling to us a story as seen from Zul Qarnain persepctiv,

here is the sun rising from the land from the humans perspective you dumb:



Now try to reverse the animation as if it is sunset while there is a lake of murkey water at the horizon

And that must be slam dunk # 17

# 17

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
The Qur'an is a product of backward, tribal, and insane minds. It contains the worst ethics.


Dismissed


Zorasta_Russ wrote:
The majority of Muslims don't even know Qur'an. They are blind followers.


I agree for once with you, ignorant
- Wed 22 Oct, 2008 4:05 am
Post subject:
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.

So what? Do you know that nations before Islam received prophets from God?
Quote:
There has been some controversy among Islamic scholars.

There is no priesthood in Islam.
Quote:
Alexander was identified in Persian and Arabic-language sources as "Dh????????????????????????????»-'l Qarnayn",

That's wrong. He was always identified as Alexander the Macedonian. And even if some identified him as "Thul Qarnayn" it stemmed from Muslims' false belief that the Quranic "Thul Qarnayn" refereed to him.
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.

"Thul Qarnayn" does not mean the "Two Horned One". It means the "Ruler Of Two Peoples".
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?

The Quran did not retell anything, never mind a fictitious story. Thul Qarnayn was a historical figure and I will get back to that shortly.
Quote:
If Zul Qarnain is such an import historical person then who was he?

He was not an important historical person. Who said that?
Anyway, Thul Qarnayn is a person that predated prophet Adam, peace be upon him.
Quote:
How do you prove that the Qur'anic Zul Qarnain narrative is truly historic?

The mighty Thul Qarnayn was known in Arabian cultue long before Islam. People used to tell his amazing adventures to their children and so on.
Quote:
Alexander the queer was a historical person. I say that the Qur'anic Zul Qarnain narrative is fiction.

It is certainly not fiction. And prophet Muhammed was not as ignorant as you falsely want to make him out to be. He certainly could distinguish between what was fiction and nonfiction in his time. Sometimes I really laugh at the contradictions and inconsistencies of these clueless guys. sometimes they say that prophet Muhammed knew all about Greek and Roman science, as if he Aristotle! And sometimes they try to make him a clueless guy who did not even know the realities of his surroundings! And among all this the Muslim can only sit and laugh at their unjustified arrogance and ignorance.

As I said, Thul Qarnayn is a person that predated prophet Adam, peace be upon him.
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?

The Quran does not say that Thul Qarnayn found the sun setting in murky water. It says that when Thul Qarnayn was in murky water at sunset, he saw the sun disappearing or setting. That's the correct rendering of the verse.
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.

You cannot "ridicule" the Holy Quran. None can.
You can certainly live under the false illusion of being "great" and "big" when you think you are "ridiculing" the Quran, but it will only show your intellectual bankruptcy. Let's say an Arsenal fan takes a Tottenham t-shirt and pisses on it, and then says that he ridiculed Tottenham FC. Reasonable people would think that that person is great or good, they would laugh at him and his ignorance, and this perfectly matches you and your likes.
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.

Thul Qarnayn predated the Greek version by thousands of years. So your statement here falls flat on its face.
And even if that was not the case, you can never prove that the author of the Quran copied from Greece. This is even sillier than the usual "The Quran copied the Bible..." crap we hear from Christians.
Quote:
The writer of the Qur'an believed it.

As I explained above, the writer of the Quran believed in the original historical Thul Qarnayn, not in a stupid piece of literature written by a Greek author.
Quote:
Your Qur'an is stupid.

This is rich coming from a Zoroastrian retard Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing . Has this arrogant retard ever opened one page of his stupid scripture?
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.

The Holy Quran never said the earth is flat. There are clear verses in the Holy Quran saying that the earth is a sphere.
And it never says that the sun sets in murky water. I explained that above and here it is again;
"The Quran does not say that Thul Qarnayn found the sun setting in murky water. It says that when Thul Qarnayn was in murky water at sunset, he saw the sun disappearing or setting. That's the correct rendering of the verse."
Quote:
The Qur'an is a product of backward, tribal, and insane minds. It contains the worst ethics.

Prove it. The Quran is only scripture that conforms with modern secularism and democracy.
Quote:
The majority of Muslims don't even know Qur'an. They are blind followers.

And so are he majority of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, you included, etc... Most of them are blind followers who have never opened a page of their scripture. In my interaction with these adherents, I have found that Muslims in general have superior knowledge of their scriptures than those adherents have of their own.
- Wed 22 Oct, 2008 4:09 am
Post subject:
Quote:
Thank you brother Windsor for you input, I will copy your reply to their web site inshaallah:

You are welcome brother, but please do not post it on their forum, as I do not interact with those arrogant hateful ignorants.
- Wed 22 Oct, 2008 4:29 am
Post subject:
That charleslemartel is even more stupid than Zorasta_Russ.
Qanitoon does not mean obedient. It means here that we are programmed to follow the natural laws that God has set forth for us.
There are 2 kinds of Qanitoon;

1. Those obedient to God, such as Maryam;
"And [We have propounded yet another parable of God-consciousness in the story of] Mary, the daughter of Imran, [24] who guarded her chastity, whereupon We breathed of Our spirit into that [which was in her womb], [25] and who accepted the truth of her Sustainer?????????????????????¢??s words - and [thus,] of His revelations [26] - and was one of the truly devout." [66:12]
"Wamaryama ibnata AAimrana allatee ahsanat farjaha fanafakhna feehi min roohina wasaddaqat bikalimati rabbiha wakutubihi wakanat mina alqaniteena"

See the verse here says "wakanat mina alqaniteena", which means, she became one of the devout. It's very much like Satan who was a believer and then became a disbeliever when he refused to greet Adam. Thus, not everyone obeys the commandments of God. It's actually stupid to think so since are billions of disbelievers all over the earth!

2. Those who innately follow the laws of nature set by God, and this of course includes all of us. An example of this in the Holy Quran is the verse 30:26.
- Fri 24 Oct, 2008 6:25 am
Post subject:
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.


Salam all

Sorry for the delay, I have about 500 kg of hardware that I need to pack and send to the UK, tough job as you may imagine, anyway, this slam dunk is going to be swift as I have no time to mock around for the next 2 days at least

Zorasta confusion and ignorance is obvious, it seems he does not know the meaning of two words in 18:86, one is hard to know (yet easy to figure out) and the other should be known by a child, here is the two words that Zorasta knows nothing about them:

1) بَلَغَ , Balagh

2) مَغْرِبَ , Maghrib

Let me start with the tough word : Balagh

The word has two formats:

A) بَلَغَ , Balagh
B) بَلِّغْ , Ballagh

Can you spot the difference?

A) Well, the first word has a Fatha (aaaa) over the second letter (Lam), i.e. Balagh, and it may mean two things:

i) reach a place
2) reach a time frame

B) The second word has a Shadda (stress to double a letter) over the second letter (Lam), i.e. Ballagh, can you see the double L, and it should mean one thing only: to deliver something, this is not the subject of this debate but I will still show a Quran example of such word: Ballagh

O messenger! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; indeed Allah does not guide the unbelieving people.
[Al Quran ; 5:67]

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَاللّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ (67)

-> See: بَلِّغْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ, Ballagh Ma Onzil Ilaik, i.e. Deliver what has been sent down to you

If the marks are not written then the only way to know which one of the two is by examining what comes after it, in the verse above 5:67, what came after Ballagh is what has been sent down to you, and sure what has been sent down to you does not mean a place nor it means a time frame, therefore it has to be Ballagh with a Shadda on the second letter to mean To deliver

Let me now move to the first word (the one in question) that has a Fatha (aaaa) over the second letter (Lam), i.e. Balagh, which may mean two things as I said earlier:

i) reach a place
2) reach a time frame

Again, how we know which meaning of the two, again by checking the word(s) that come after it.

1) if the word(s) that come after Balagh is a place, then Balagh must mean, reach such place, let me show you an example from Zul Qarnain story:

Until when he reached between the two mountains, he found near them a people who could hardly understand a word.
[Al Quran ; 18:93]

حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ بَيْنَ السَّدَّيْنِ وَجَدَ مِنْ دُونِهِمَا قَوْمًا لَا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ قَوْلًا (93)

-> See : بَلَغَ بَيْنَ السَّدَّيْنِ , Balagh Bain Alsadayn, i.e. he reached between the two mountains, clearly the words: بَيْنَ السَّدَّيْنِ , Bain Alsadayn which came after Balagh, is a place, therefore the word Balagh must mean reaching such place

2) if the word(s) that come after Balagh is a time frame, then Balagh must mean, reach such time frame, let me show you an example from the Quran then we will look at the verse in question:

And when he had reached his maturity, We gave him wisdom and knowledge: and thus do We reward the doers of good.
[Al Quran ; 12:22]

وَلَمَّا بَلَغَ أَشُدَّهُ آتَيْنَاهُ حُكْمًا وَعِلْمًا ۚ وَكَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ (22)

-> See : بَلَغَ أَشُدَّه , Balagh Ashudahu, i.e. he reached his maturity, clearly the words: أَشُدَّه , Ashudahu which came after Balagh, is a time frame, therefore the word Balagh must mean reaching such time frame which is his maturity, the verse above is talking about prophet Yusuf

So far, everything should be clear as light, now before I move to the verse in question, I have to remind you all that the Muslims have 5 time frames of Prayer a day:

1) Fajir : Dawn
2) Zuhr : Noon
3) Asr : After noon
4) Maghrib : Sunset
5) Ishaa : Night

I am sure all the goons on FFI know that, let me now bring the verse in question and see for ourselves if the word Balagh mean reaching a place or reaching a time frame:

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.
[Al Quran ; 18:86]

حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِنْدَهَا قَوْمًا ۗ قُلْنَا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّا أَنْ تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّا أَنْ تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْنًا (86)


-> How clear is that, you ignorant goons, see: بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْس, Balagh Maghrib Alshams, i.e. he reached the setting of the sun, i. bloody e., reaching a time frame not a place, however at that time and depending on the place he was in, it just happened that in the horizon there is was a lake of murky water and the sun was setting behind it


BTW, the translation above is by Y A, who was not as dumb as the others who added the word place to the verse while it only mean reaching a time frame, and in our verse, it is the time frame of the sunset of the sun Maghrib Alshams

I have to say that this must constitute another mother of all slams:

# 18

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.
- Sun 26 Oct, 2008 7:47 am
Post subject:
piss the life dismissal of FFI in reply to my comment above

damn right you are, clown. Read the WHOLE sentence!

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.


I do believe the LIAR Ahmed just motherslamdunked himself again.

He said he's got high I.Q. - Idiot quotient?

No wonder he's so quick to dismiss sum.
-----------------------------------------------


Ahmed chose to reply to the life dismissal piss:

Near the lake of murky water you confused

that must be slam dunk # 19

# 19

-----------------------------------------------

piss the life dismissal of FFI then added:

thanks for confirming that it is a place.

your lie about it being a mention of 'time' rather than 'place' had been shot to hell, dumb!

Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
ONLY and ONLY when Ahmed thinks that he can refute your point, he WILL answer your post IRREGARDLESS of how many life dismissals he had given you. Very Happy
Now those who had been dismissed by him knows that he cannot answer their posts so they remained: dismissed!! Very Happy
-----------------------------------------------

So I replied:

One more reply to you, you confused then you are back into the life dismissal wing

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


Ahmed said:

I.e. you low iq human, the people were living near a lake of murky water and behind that lake the sun was setting and it seemed to Zul Al Qarnain as if it sets in the murky water as I have shown in the animation you blind

Also punk, the sun does not set at all, it never bloody did, it appears to us as if it sets, your own science is flawed, hahahahah,

Conclusion:

piss the life dismissal of FFI is back into the life dimissal wing

Slam dunk # 20 is achieved:

# 20
- Sun 26 Oct, 2008 7:49 am
Post subject:
Good morning all,

Hope you are enjoying my show so far, there still many actions to come, but today let me relax with dunking the 21st slam, the victim ths time is Ugly, I have ignored him too much and I think this is rude after he joined my show and while he is not on the LDL (Life Dismissal List), he is a good candidate to join the list though I have to say but because he got a lil of sense of humour, I am keeping him out the wing for a while.

I said earlier that Allah is telling us a story about Zul Qarnain and while the story is from Zul Qarnain perspective, i.e. from the perspective of what Zul Qarnain saw with his own eyes.

This is what Ugly had to say:

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?


He means by his lie, my lie, i.e. I lied when I claimed as such, the problem for such confused ugly kafir is simply this, I can never lie about the Quran, if I ever said something about it and proved wrong, then it was not still a lie, rather an ignorance on my side and I will never have a problem to admit that, but be careful because I am like Michael Schumacher, my mistakes in the Quran are going to be very little, again, it is because I use the Quran to explain itself.

Let?????????????????????¢??s now look at the following verses from Zul Qarnain story:

They ask you concerning Zul-Qarnain. Say: I will recite to you something of his story.
(The Quran ; 18:83)

وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَن ذِي الْقَرْنَيْنِ قُلْ سَأَتْلُو عَلَيْكُم مِّنْهُ ذِكْرًا (83)

-> Can you see the word "مِّنْهُ ", Minhu, i.e. from him, i.e. from his perspective.

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.
(The Quran ; 18:86)

حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِنْدَهَا قَوْمًا ۗ قُلْنَا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّا أَنْ تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّا أَنْ تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْنًا (86)

-> See how clear it is from Zul Qarnain perspective again: حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ, i.e. Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water , the verse never said something like this:

Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, it was setting in a spring of murky water

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.

This means we have reached the conclusion of slam dunk # 21st
# 21
- Sun 26 Oct, 2008 8:21 am
Post subject:
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.


again, you stubborn ignorant, the Quran describes life as we see it, remember when I slammed you in the past regarding your Tom and Jerry allegation about the flat earth?, in such ex show, I stated that the Quran never said that the earth is flat while it also never directly said that the earth is round but it implies that it is round, i.e. it suits what the people were seeing iand understainding in the past and in the present and will be in the future btw

Again, the Quran must be mostely based on what we see, all the other things that are mentioned in it which we cannot see, must be categroised under the title of "BELIEF" which is an important and vital requirement for any religion.

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.


I never did, I use logic that is based on valid possibilities using the exact Arabic words, I do refine the English translation because I found non that is accurate in year 2008

Did you notice that the tranlsation I brought to verse 18:83 is flawed?, it is indeed, and I overlooked it

The Arabic words قُلْ سَأَتْلُو عَلَيْكُم مِّنْهُ ذِكْرًا , Qul Saatlu Alaikum Minhu Zikra, should be translated as follow: Say: I will recite upon you from him a memorable

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.


Are you blind or something?, I did many times, and sorry I have no time to waste on such subject any more, I have slammed it enough and I am busy as I need to slam a few Muslims that I crossed the line with yeasterday, I have outlined my work and need about 5 hours to do so i have to dismiss your stubborn whining , but I may look at what you posted regarding the allegation of the flat earth then constitute a few slams for it and add it to this show
- Sun 26 Oct, 2008 10:56 am
Post subject:
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.
- Sun 26 Oct, 2008 11:02 am
Post subject:
Quote:
Now those who had been dismissed by him knows that he cannot answer their posts so they remained: dismissed!!

Is this true brother AhmedBahgat? I know that those hateful ignorants lie through their teeth, but is this true? And what arguments is that arrogant scumbag referring to?
- Tue 28 Oct, 2008 6:55 am
Post subject:
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.



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
- Tue 28 Oct, 2008 7:00 pm
Post subject:
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?


Sorry mate, i did not see your comment, I was actually made aware of your question by the goons on FFI web site,

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

Windsor wrote:
I know that those hateful ignorants lie through their teeth, but is this true?


Of course not

Windsor wrote:
And what arguments is that arrogant scumbag referring to?


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
- Fri 31 Oct, 2008 12:29 pm
Post subject:
Quote:
Sorry mate, i did not see your comment, I was actually made aware of your question by the goons on FFI web site,

Are they monitoring this thread? Laughing Laughing Laughing
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

I understand brother. You should not debate hateful arrogant ignorants. People watching may not know the difference!
Quote:
Of course not

That's what I thought too.
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

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.
- Fri 31 Oct, 2008 10:01 pm
Post subject:
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.


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

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
- Fri 31 Oct, 2008 10:04 pm
Post subject:
Here is one mate:

Zorasta_Russ of FFI said:

Ahmed isn't back with an answer yet but read this

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.

http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=727&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

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? If he was standing in the well at sunset and looking up would he see the sun?

Now who is changing Allah's word to get out of an absurdity? We who are the kuffar or this Muslim named Windsor? Notice from the quote above "To clarify my point even more, here is an equal restructuring of the verse;". Why would anyone have to restructure a verse? We who are the kuffar don't have to restructure any verse.

Notice how Ahmed pats his little buddy Windsor on the back.
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

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?

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
- Sat 01 Nov, 2008 5:48 am
Post subject:
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

Yes. Sometimes you become like forced to reply to arrogance and ignorance.
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

I despise such hate sites. Some arrogant and ignorant scumbags talking hate and expressing their pyschological and social complexities. I never visit them.

Peace.
- Sat 01 Nov, 2008 6:32 am
Post subject:
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?

Yes, you guessed it. You must be a genius!
Quote:
If he was standing in the well at sunset and looking up would he see the sun?

Yes. Also the Quran said he "found it", not he "looked up to it". What exactly is the problem here? And what would be the problem if it said he "looked up to it"? Have you never seen the sun in its red/orange colour at sunset? You are either stupid, or playing the stupid.
Quote:
Now who is changing Allah's word to get out of an absurdity? We who are the kuffar or this Muslim named Windsor?

I am not changing God's word and there is no absurdity whatsoever as I explained above. You who miscontextualize and misinterpret God's word to feel "good" and "big" about your complex self are the fraud who change god's word.
The title "kuffar" usually refers to criminals, not non-Muslims. You must be proud!
Quote:
Notice how Ahmed pats his little buddy Windsor on the back.

I am not anyone's little buddy with all due respect to brother AhmedBahgat who is a dear friend to me. An ignorant scumbag like you will never understand this.
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?

Early on I said you were either stupid or playing the stupid. Now I can say that you are really stupid along with the rest of your buddies over there.
My post was not intended at all to discuss the historicity of Thul Qarnayn. It only dealt with the sun-earth relationship in the Holy Quran.
Regarding the story of Thul Qarnayn. It was certainly a historical event, but we do not have evidence for it in historical records because it happened in prehistoric times. It predates the story of Adam and Eve.
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

Does this ignorant think that Thul Qarnayn was literally standing inside a well full of murky water? Please do not tell me that!
Obviously what the verse means is that he was standing at that well, and "at" is one of the meanings of the word "في" or "fi".
- Sat 01 Nov, 2008 6:40 am
Post subject:
Keep us updated with their "replies" mate. Laughing
- Sat 01 Nov, 2008 11:50 am
Post subject:
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.


Great, so when you come back, you will be greeted with slam dunk # 22

The Quran never directly said the earth is a ball, this is because the people wrong understanding then was that it is flat, and because the Quran is not a scientific book that was sent to prove the earth is a ball, the Quran message cold have never been jeopardized by discussing something that is not part of the message about Allah and the JD

However, the Quran has given us many signs that the earth is a ball, here is the most clear an obvious one that indirectly says, the earth is a ball:, but I will bring the most three common tranlsators, then prove them all wrong first:

YUSUFALI: He created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): He makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night: He has subjected the sun and the moon (to His law): Each one follows a course for a time appointed. Is not He the Exalted in Power - He Who forgives again and again?

PICKTHAL: He hath created the heavens and the earth with truth. He maketh night to succeed day, and He maketh day to succeed night, and He constraineth the sun and the moon to give service, each running on for an appointed term. Is not He the Mighty, the Forgiver?

SHAKIR: He has created the heavens and the earth with the truth; He makes the night cover the day and makes the day overtake the night, and He has made the sun and the moon subservient; each one runs on to an assigned term; now surely He is the Mighty, the great Forgiver.
[The Quran ; 39:5]

خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بِالْحَقِّ ۖ يُكَوِّرُ اللَّيْلَ عَلَى النَّهَارِ وَيُكَوِّرُ النَّهَارَ عَلَى اللَّيْلِ ۖ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ ۖ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ۗ أَلَا هُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْغَفَّارُ (5)


-> The key word in the Arabiv verse which is repeated twice is: َيُكَوِّرُ, Yukawir, all three tranlsators above are wrong in trnslating the word, I do understand however that the word is very tough to be translated, therefore I am not surprised that all three are wrong.

-> First of all, the word: َيُكَوِّرُ, Yukawir is a verb, and to undersstand the meaning of such verb we have to look at the noun form of it which is:

كرة , Kurah, a very common Arabic word which means a ball if you look at Google translation to this word you will notice that it is translated as football:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


Which is certainly wrong, football in Arabic is two words as follow:

كرة القدم , Kurrah Al-Qadam, literally means The ball of the foot:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


However the street language in such Arabic countries use just the word Kurah to refer to football ignorantly, not strangely that Google translation uses such street language, Google translation ignorance will be exposed if we add AL which means The to the word Kurah, i.e. Al-Kurah, which should mean The Ball:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


The bottm line is this:

The Arabic word كرة , Kurah means one thing only which is a ball which is generic for any ball.

If we want to explicitly refer to a specific ball then we have to use a second word with the word كرة , Kurah to explicitly inform the listener of which ball we are talking about, I have shown an example of the football word in which I stated it should be in Arabic as follow:

كرة القدم , Kurrah Al-Qadam, i.e. two words to mean football, i.e. foot-ball (literally)

Another example is the Earth, if I want to refer explicitly refer to it (using professional Arabic of course), then I have to use a second word with the word Al-Kurah as follow:

الكرة الارضية , Al-Kurrah Al-Arddiah, i.e. two words to mean the Earth, i.e. the earth-ball (literally) , Google translation will see it as The Globe:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


This means the verb َيُكَوِّرُ, Yukawir must mean to make something into a ball, I would say the best suited translation should be to warp around, if you can think of another and more suitable English word, I would welcome your feedback because I must take care of all such tough issues in my translation.

Now we have understood the meaning of the word َيُكَوِّرُ , Yukawir, let?????????????????????¢??s look at a more accurate translation than the three above to verse 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.
[The Quran ; 39:5]

خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بِالْحَقِّ ۖ يُكَوِّرُ اللَّيْلَ عَلَى النَّهَارِ وَيُكَوِّرُ النَّهَارَ عَلَى اللَّيْلِ ۖ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ ۖ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ۗ أَلَا هُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْغَفَّارُ (5)


-> Now, if the day and night are wrapped around each other, and because we are talking about the day and night on earth, then the verse indirectly and unquestionably means that the earth is wrapped around itself, i.e. the earth is a ball.

In fact if you look at your own words in your Barbie argument, you have used another form of the word Yukawir, to refer to the shape of the earth as a ball:

Zorasta Russ wrote:
الارض ليست كروية في القرآن، هي مسطحة


The first three words in what you said above are pronounced as follow: Al-Ard Laisat Karwiah, i.e. the earth is not a ball

Now, compare the word you have used Karawiah (adjective), and the word that is used in verse 39:5 Yukawir (verb), you should recognize that Yukawir must mean to wrap around

And this should constitute slam dunk # 22:
# 22
- Sun 02 Nov, 2008 7:42 am
Post subject:
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?


Did you read my comment, or you are just acting dumb after been taken by surprise?

The day is the day on earth

The night is the night on earth

The day and night will never exist without a location on a planet you fool

Therefore the day of the earth means the earth, and the night of the earth means the earth

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
There is no mention of the earth rotating in any Qur'anic verse.


Of course the Quran indirectly told us that the earth swims in an orbit, as well the Quran indirectly told us that the earth rotates around itself, this will be the subject of a double slams that will be added to this thread inshaallah

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Secondly night is not an object


Of course, it is, this is because the night won?????????????????????¢??t exist or even be defined unless we have a physical location on any planet, are you that dumb or what?

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
that can be wrapped over day


Of course it is wrapped around the day, this is because on one side of the earth there is night and the other side is day, i.e. the night of earth wraps around the day of earth and vise versa

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
and day is not an object


Of course, it is, this is because the day won?????????????????????¢??t exist or even be defined unless we have a physical location on any planet, are you that dumb or what?

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
that can be wrapped over the night.


Of course it is wrapped around the night, this is because on one side of the earth there is night and the other side is day, i.e. the night of earth wraps around the day of earth and vise versa

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.


See, you fool, you could not define night unless you say:

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.


I.e. you need to mention a location on any planet to be able to define the day and night on such planet, i.e. the day and night on any planet is indeed the object of that location on that planet

Hahahah, that must be a self slam, I must make an animation for that


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.


The word Kuwirat is a verb you ignorant, and it means exactly as Yukawir but in a past tense, i.e. made into a ball, or wrapped around

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,


I will take Y A translation as the most close to accurate one, this is because folded up, can means wrapped around, i.e. made into a ball,

However we have no issue regarding the sun, this is because the people can already see it with the naked eye that it is a ball, or at least round

The issue in hand is earth, and as I said many times, the people back then understood wrong that the earth is flat, the Quran however was not sent to directly fix their scientific ignorance, the Quran was only sent to fix their ignorance about God, therefore the message could not be jeopardized by talking about the round earth while no one back then can prove it, do you get it, mister smart?
- Tue 04 Nov, 2008 10:28 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

Today you will witness the first Bulk Slam Dunk

A confused freak on FFI raised the following Tom and Jerry argument:


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).


Ahmed says:

Hahahaha, what a stupid kafir he is. He is not the only stupid kafir on such thread though, look at what other stupid kafirs from FFI said in reply to the above crap:

skynightblaze wrote:
Very Happy Very Happy


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. Very Happy


charleslemartel wrote:
Very Happy Very Happy, 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 Very Happy


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. Smile)


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.



Well, I am not surprised how stupid all those freaks are, they always resort to the Tuty Fruity fallacy, you know the fallacy when you compare Apples with Oranges and say, oh yeh, they are the same.

Let me prove to you how stupid all those FFI freaks are, let?????????????????????¢??s look at the first verse:

The incomparable Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a child when He has no female companion, and He created everything, and He is with everything all-Knowing.

[Al Quran ; 6:101]

بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُنْ لَهُ صَاحِبَةٌ ۖ وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ (101)

-> The above translation is the proper translation by Free Islam, the verse is telling us the following: أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُنْ لَهُ صَاحِبَةٌ , Anna Yakun Lahu Walad Wa Lam Takun Lahu [b]SAHIBAH[/b], i.e. How could He have a child when He has no female companion , see the underlined word, Sahibah, i.e. a female companion, this is very important because the message for us is simply this:

We know of no human born on earth that did not come from inside a woman, i.e. a woman must carry such child for 9 months first, so for us (the humans), it is impossible for another human to be born on earth without been carried inside a woman for 9 month

To translate the word Sahibah, as consort is so stupipd by anyone because Sahibah is very explicit to mean a female companion

Even with Jesus, we know well that he lived a few months inside Mary before he was born.

We can not include Adam and his female companion because they were never born on earth

Let?????????????????????¢??s now look at the second verse that suppose to contradict 6:101


19: He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.,
20: She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me neither have I been unchaste?
21: 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
[The Quran ; 19:19-22]

قَالَ إِنَّمَا أَنَا رَسُولُ رَبِّكِ لِأَهَبَ لَكِ غُلَامًا زَكِيًّا (19)
قَالَتْ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لِي غُلَامٌ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ وَلَمْ أَكُ بَغِيًّا (20)
قَالَ كَذَلِكِ قَالَ رَبُّكِ هُوَ عَلَيَّ هَيِّنٌ وَلِنَجْعَلَهُ آيَةً لِلنَّاسِ وَرَحْمَةً مِّنَّا وَكَانَ أَمْرًا مَّقْضِيًّا (21)
فَحَمَلَتْهُ فَانتَبَذَتْ بِهِ مَكَانًا قَصِيًّا (22)


-> See, totally something else, this time, Mary is wondering that how come she may have a child while a man never touched her, in another word, how come she will carry a child for 9 months while no man touches her

Here is the fallacy of the confused goons of FFI explained:

1) They compare Allah with Mary, a God with a female human
2) The first verse 6:101 is telling us, how a God can have a child while He had no female companion to carry the child, while verse 19:20 is telling us how a female human will carry a child while no male human touched her

I.e they compare Apples with Oranges then concluding that both are the same, this will take us to the first Bulk Slam Dunk which is also slam dunk # 23

- Wed 05 Nov, 2008 8:35 am
Post subject:
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

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.
- Wed 05 Nov, 2008 6:06 pm
Post subject:
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


Salam brother

Thanks mate, I will have a look at it and let you know my feedback, I am sure the FFI goons watched it alread, and possibly I did, but I will let you know

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.



Great mate, please add as much valid info as you can, here is more info that I posted in there in reply to further questions regarding the same issue:
---------------------

charleslemartel wrote:
OK, so here it is for you to read:

Quote:
Criticism of the idiom
Various scholars have questioned the premise of the incomparable nature of apples and oranges, both in serious publications and in weblogs and spoofs (see below). These criticisms of the idiom, however, tend to assume that "you cannot compare apples and oranges" is a descriptive statement capable of logical or scientific counter-example, without addressing the possibility of interpreting the idiom as a normative statement (meaning something such as "it's not fair to judge apples and oranges by the same criteria").


[edit] "Legal" criticism and "mathematical" interpretation
Law professor Eugene Volokh argues that the idiom is inappropriate, because "we compare apples and oranges all the time! We compare them by price, by how much we like the taste, by likely sweetness and ripeness, by how well they'll go in a tasty fruit cocktail, and so on. In fact, every time we go to the store and buy apples rather than oranges ?????????????????????¢?? or vice versa ?????????????????????¢?? we are necessarily (if implicitly) comparing apples and oranges". He suggested that a better idiom would involve "two items that really are radically dissimilar" like "apples and democracy" or "oranges and the multiplication table". He believes that such "comparisons really would be hard to conduct". One of Volokh's readers noted that even such radically dissimilar nouns as apples and the multiplication table can be compared fairly easily, as when one compares the number of syllables in each word or the relative age at which children learn each concept; another reader noted that the idiom was still relevant in situations where someone criticized oranges for not being good apples.[1] Alexander "Sasha" Volokh argued that mathematically, only the properties of apples and oranges can be compared; the fruits themselves cannot be. Mathematically astute bloggers and readers forced him to partially retract his analysis, however.[2] Also, in his blog, Volokh admitted that his argument "was a joke".[3]


[edit] "Scientific" criticism

Oranges, like apples, grow on trees.At least two tongue-in-cheek scientific studies have been conducted on the subject, each of which concluded that apples can be compared to oranges fairly easily and on a low budget and the two fruits are quite similar. The first study, conducted by Scott A. Sandford of the NASA Ames Research Center, used spectrometry to analyze both apples and oranges. The study, which was published in the Annals of Improbable Research, concluded: "[...] the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future."[4]

A second study, written by Stamford Hospital's surgeon-in-chief James Barone and published in the British Medical Journal, noted that the phrase "apples and oranges" was appearing with increasing frequency in the medical literature, with some notable articles comparing "Desflurane and propofol" and "Salmeterol and ipratropium" to "apples and oranges". The study also found that both apples and oranges were sweet, similar in size, weight, and shape, that both are grown in orchards, and both may be eaten, juiced, and so on. The only significant differences found were in terms of seeds (the study used seedless oranges), the involvement of Johnny Appleseed, and color.[5]

The Annals rejoined that its "earlier investigation was done with more depth, more rigour, and, most importantly, more expensive equipment" than the British Medical Journal study.[5]


Far our Charles, do you really think that I will bloody spend any time reading the above crap that Apples are like Oranges?

Think not, pal

Apples are not like Oranges. Period

when we say something LIKE something, THEN WE HAVE TO MEAN LIKE IT IN ALL ASPECTS, not just one aspect that both are fruit, haha,

Look sir, it is like Sura LIKE IT

i.e. we need a sura like it in all aspects for us to consider it from the first place

The idiots however think that sura like means an Arabic text like the Arabic text of the Quran, hahahahah

We need a sura like it IN ALL APSECTS

one important aspect must be, IT HAS TO BE FROM A GOD, like the Quran is claimed to be from a God

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?


Well, try to use some of the IQ points you have, you only need 5 IQ points to understand the stupidity of the life dismissal kafir who raised such claim

the life dismissal kafir claimed that Allah contradicted Himself if we read verses 6:101 & 19:19-22

Now, after walking through the verses, I proved that the two verses are talking about totally different things

1) 6:101 is raising a very strong argument against the confused humans who attributed to Allah something that is too human, that thing that He has a child

Now we (the humans) know of no CHILD in the whole creation that was born without living first in a female human for some month,

So Allah had successfully cornered such confused humans, by telling them indirectly the following:

How come you say that I had a CHILD, while I do not have a female partner to carry such child for me?

I.e. Allah is using a humanly argument against the humans who attributed a human activity to Allah

2) verses 19:19-22 are talking about totally something else, they are talking about Mary question the messenger sent to her that how come she will carry a son while no MAN touched her

The answer that came next, is not the answer from Allah, rather the answer from the messenger, i.e. the one who said "IT IS EASY ON ME........." was the messenger sent, i.e. Allah made it easy for him to deliver to her what she needs to be pregnant, as Allah made it easy for all His messengers to do extraordinary things, like making it easy for Moses to split the sea or making easy for Jesus to heal the sick

So Allah made it easy for His messenger (an angel who was disguised in a human shape) to make Mary pregnant


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?


I never said so, and I won't speculate it either because the Quran never discussed such issue, the Quran only told us that an angel in the shape of a human was sent to her to make her pregnant

Certainly it can be achieved by many possible ways, in fact the humans can make other women pregnant while they never had intercourse, so why it will be hard on an angel who is supported by Allah?

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.


No you idiot, Allah \is asking the confused humans, HOW HE CAN HAVE A CHILD WHILE HE HAS NO FEMALE COMPANION

on the other hand you try to manipulated to redeem your embarrassment of supporting such idiotic claim by such life dismissal kafir

Allah never said what you claim that He cannot have a child without having a female companion, again, He is only cornering the confused humans who attributed something that so human to Him, by raising a human argument against them, this is because for the humans, THEY KNOW OF NO CHILD THAT IS BORN WITOUT BEING INSIDE A FEMALE COMPANION FOR A FEW MONTHS
- Wed 05 Nov, 2008 6:23 pm
Post subject:
More info brother Windsor:

quote="Zorasta_Russ"]I have to admit it Ahmed. This is a good one.[/quote]

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.



Exactly

And if you look at the grammar meaning fo the word "WALAD" which is a noun, it should mean "a child that is been delivered by his/her MOTHER", another form of it is MAWLUD, which is a noun on the wazn of "Mafool Bihi" to mean the exact same, i.e. "a child that is been delivered by his/her MOTHER", i.e. for the word WALAD we must have a female to deliever such child

In effect we have to conclude the following:

Verse 6:101 clearly denies that Allah has Walad, i.e. a child that has to be delieverd by a female god, who suppose to be the female companion of god

Had the verse used the word Ibn (son) instead of Waald, then we will have a huge contradiction in the Quran, because it will contradict with the verses you posted, that is because the wrong understanding will be: How Allah can have a son while he has no female companion, which in effect may mean, that he may have a daughter without a female companion, SEE

that is where the verses you posted comes in effect which clearly tells us the followinh about Allah:

Lam Yalid, i.e. He did not deliever a child (regardless with a female companion of not)

Lam Yulad, i.e. He was not delieverd from a female god

Thanks
- Thu 06 Nov, 2008 7:24 pm
Post subject:
Hey bro Windsor

This is a question for you by an FFI member whom I think is very decent:

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 Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy . Has this arrogant retard ever opened one page of his stupid scripture?
- Fri 07 Nov, 2008 4:48 pm
Post subject:
Quote:
Great mate, please add as much valid info as you can,

Peace brother AhmedBahgat, and apologies for being late to reply here. I was busy debating a Zoroastrian racist over the last 2 days.
And I thought Christians were the dumbest among the religious adherents!

I will add my replies over the weekend hopefully.
Peace.
- Mon 10 Nov, 2008 12:12 am
Post subject:
Salam all

Today you should witness one of the FFI freaks in action, I had a few encounters with such FFI goon, however I concluded that he is a clear cut jerk, but I decided not to life dismiss him because every now and then he comes and say something that is too stupid to be ignored, i.e. it must be replied to, taking the chance to show everyone how fool he is

The FFI goon is named Haik Monsieur, he claims to be an ex Muslims (which I believe is a lie), he also claims that he has most of the man made hadith books and many other man made sirah books (in Arabic), this means he also claimed to k now Arabic very well, which something that I doubted then proved so many times in front of all the other FFI goons

This is the confused, manipulated and manipukated (not a typo) freak who once said the following on FFI to one of the very knowledgeable Muslim brothers whom I rarely see on FFI (borther shindeiru):

Deceiver Haik Monsieur said to brother shindeiru on FFI:

Haik Monsieur wrote:
We in FFI have a schema and to accomplish it, I can?????????????????????¢??t let your arguments win.


See, how the freak is admitting his deception to humanity, i.e. THEY HAVE A SCHEME TO ACCOMPLISH, THEREFORE THEY CANNOT LET THE MUSLIMS ARGUMENTS TO WIN

This must mean the following: THEY HAVE A SCHEME TO ACCOMPLISH, THEREFORE THEY CANNOT LET THE MUSLIMS ARGUMENTS TO WIN, EVEN IF THE MUSLIM ARGUMENTS ARE WINNING

How dumb admitting their own deception, HM today replied to another kafir goon on FFI who raised a thread titled: Allah is the best deciever. , asking the following question:

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.


You can see how confused such goon named iamcp, can you see that the title of his thread is the kafir manipulated answer that is supported by Dr Ali Sina

If you read the comment of such confused goon iacmp, you would have expected that the thread should be titled something like:

Help needed explaining 3:53

Or something like:

Is Allah the best of deceivers?

But as you can see, he titled his thread as : Allah is the best deciever. , how clear is their deception, keep in mind that this was his own words: 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.

Now, Mister Haik took the stand to help confused iamcp and in the process he slam dunked his master Dr Ali Sina, this is how Haik replied:

H M of FFI said:

Hi iamcp,

Literally it means: "They plotted and Allah too plotted yet Allah is the best of plotters"

Oh.. each and every word?

"Wa Makaroo" = "They plotted"
"Wa makarallahi" = "And Allah too plotted"
Wallahu = "And Allah is"
Khair" = "The best"
Al Makireen" = "Plotters"

Anyway, the reference you gave is incorrect. It is Quran Chapter 3: 54. A small error and don't mind. [/color]
----------------------------------

Hahahahaha, this is exactly what the Muslims says in reply to Dr Ali Sina lie about 3:53, so I replied to H M

Ahmed said to H M

So you concede that it does not mean that He is the best of decievers

Looks like you have just slam dunked your master Dr A S
----------------------------------


We know that H M admitted his adamant deception before, now he is telling the truth witout even realizing it, so when I exposed him this is what he came up with:

H M of FFI said to Ahmed:

Ahmed, there is no slam dunk involved in here. And I don't want to adopt your style too.

Plot = Plan, Scheme, Conspire. These three are the meanings I would be happy to assing to it. In the context of Quran 3:54 Allah himself testifies as best of conspirers or planners. These are more harsh than what Ali Sina meant as deceiver. The only difference is you fail to get it right.
-----------------------------

Ahmed says:

Hahahaha, can you see how he suddenly changed his words and added the word conspire, you know to give it a bad meaning after accidentally slam dunking his master Dr Ali Sina, now all of you can see his scheme of deception that he himself admitted in action.

I replied to him as follow:

What a clear cut manipulated you are HM

The word Makar, means to plan something good or something bad

the word deceive only means to plan something bad

why don't you learn Arabic properly instead of making a dumb arse of yourself, well let me show you a verse then your self dumbness should be confirmed:


Firon said: Do you believe in Him before I have given you permission? Surely this is a plot which you have secretly devised in this city, that you may turn out of it its people, but you shall know:
[The Quran ; 7:123]

قَالَ فِرْعَوْنُ آمَنتُم بِهِ قَبْلَ أَن آذَنَ لَكُمْ إِنَّ هَذَا لَمَكْرٌ مَّكَرْتُمُوهُ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ لِتُخْرِجُواْ مِنْهَا أَهْلَهَا فَسَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ (123)

-> The verse above is about what Firon said to the magicians when they believed in Moses, see what he told them: لَمَكْرٌ مَّكَرْتُمُوهُ La Makr MakartumoHU, i.e. a plot which you have devised it, now if you try to interchange it with the meaning of deceive then we will have a serious logical problem, see the HU that I highlighted in the word MakartumoHU, this is a DAMIR that is referring to the plot, i.e. they planned a plot, now I have to ask you but only if you have a brain to be used in an answer: can you logically say , you deceive the deception?

Of course not, i.e. Ma Ka Ra means to plan, i.e. to plan something good or plan something bad

Now if Allah is planning something good, that can not be a deception

And that should be the 25th slam dunk:
# 25
- Mon 10 Nov, 2008 4:42 am
Post subject:
Peace brother AhmedBahgat

Regarding the having a son without a consort. First of all 6:101 says a "female companion" like AhmedBahgat explained above. In 6:101 God us talking about Himself having a physical son. To have a physical son you must have a female companion. You cannot have a physical son without a female companion. God here is communicating to us through our human understanding of having a son.

Now the next question arises, cannot God have a physical son without a female companion? Cannot He have a metaphoric/symbolic son (Adoption etc...)? The answer is sure yes He can, but He does not have such son or any other kind of son because it would be a disrespect to Him.
"For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a child." [19:92]

God here says that it is a disrespect to have any kind of child, physical or not and by whatever means possible, because it is not consonant with His majesty.

So what we have here:
1. God does not have a physical child becayuse He does not have a female companion [6:101]
2. God can have any physical (Without a female comapnion since He is omnipotent) or adopted child, but He does not because it is not consonant with His majesty and respect.

God is not a human and He does not function like a human or a male. "there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things)." [42:11]

Now to the second part:
Quote:
On on hand Allah say it is not possible (6:101), but at the same time he says it is easy (19:21).

Obviously we are dealing with an illiterate retard here. 6:101 says that it is not possible for God to have a physical son like us humans since He does not have a female companion (I explained that God can have a son, physical or adopted using other means, but it would be a disrespect to Him)
19:21 says it is possible for Maryam to have a physical son by God's authority and omnipotence. See the difference? There is no contradiction whatsoever.

Also note that God denies the possibility of have a physical son without a female companion. In 19:21 we already have a female (Maryam)!

To summarize my argument:
1. God does not have a physical son like us humans since He does not have a female companion.
2. So can God have a physical or any other kind of son (Adopted etc...)? Yes He can but it would be a disrespect to His majesty.
3. It's easy for God to make human females to have children without companions. Remember that you always need a female to bear the child, not a male.
4. There is absolutely no contradiction whatsoever within the above 3 statements.

And just a last reminder "Allah is Able to do all things." [2:20]
- Mon 10 Nov, 2008 5:44 am
Post subject:
Before proceeding to respond to the rest of those arrogant retards I just wanted to say this in response to a statement by the ignorant Zorasta_Russ regarding the Thul Qranayn story
Quote:
Why would anyone have to restructure a verse? We who are the kuffar don't have to restructure any verse.

The verse does not need restructuring because it is perfectly understandable. I just did so to make an ignorant like you understand it.
- Mon 10 Nov, 2008 7:17 am
Post subject:
Quote:
Very Happy Very Happy

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. Very Happy

Quote:
Very Happy Very Happy, On a serious note,

These people are stupid and these comments prove it. They know they are idiots who cannot write a meaningful post. This is their best.
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

He certainly can, but it would not be consonant with His majesty like I explained above.
I am stronger than the Christian "god" and I mean it! Just read the Tanakh and Psalms and laugh.
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

Wrong. If we assume for the sake of argument that it's Muhammed that authored the Quran, then you are full of ignorance and nonsense because the Quran denies that God may have any kind of son, whether with a female companion or not in 19:92.
Quote:
when Christians taught him the Gospels.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
1. Christians did not exist in Mecca or Medina at the time of prophet Muhammed.
2. The Quran rebukes the Gospels on many accounts.
3. This ignorant does not know that the Quran is similar in some stories to the Torah, not the Gospels. But his ignorance, arrogance and blindness would lead him to say such foolishness. The Quran is not remotely close to anything in those Gospels.

It's up to him to prove that Christians "taught" Muhammed anything at all. It's really laughable and proves his desperation. I love it when these retards bring in their arguments things like "Muhammed forgot..." or "Muhammed did not know..." or "Muhammed misquoted the Bible..." and they want us to believe their rubbish!
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.

Why is it odd at all? Adam was born out of nothing, which is more miraculous, yet he was a very normal human being like everybody else. Actually the says the same thing and compares the humanhood of Jesus to that of Adam in 3:59.
Obviously some are going say that Adam had to be created out of nothing since he was the first human, but this is irrelevant and still the fact remains that techincally Adam was a human being even though he was born without a father or mother. If Adam was a human, why consider Jesus more than a human? And why would a virgin birth make someone more than a human? What extra abilities would it give him really? Miracles? Moses had more impressive miracles than Jesus anyway.
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.

I did address that above. And again, Muhammed did not author the Quran. Nonne should say as if it is a fact.
Quote:
Perhaps Muhammad didn't or couldn't remember everything he said, so occasionally, he would accidentally contradict himself like he did here.

Only an ignorant like you would think that a prophet-status man would not remember everything in the book that he was preaching.
And as I said, I addressed that so called contradiction above.
Obviously this person is more deluded than the above three because the above three are ignorant and they expressed it intheir so called comments, but this ignorant is trying to pretend to be smart. That's so sad.
Quote:
Hello IAT
I have to hand it to you - you always seem to hit the nail on the head.
sum

This is not different than the first 3. More stupid.
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"

This is another stupid pretending to be smart. That site seems to be full of them.
Allah never says He cannot be 3 in 1 or 1 in 3. He says He is not 3 in 1 or 1 in 3. There is a huge difference retard. Allah is not trinity because trinity is a joke. It's nonsense and rejected from a philosophical view. That's why Paul the fraud discouraged Christian sheeps from learning philosophy, because any intelligent Christian would leave such a joke of a religion on the spot.
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. )

I am not sure if that is a Quranic verse or a Hadith as I do not remember both, but this is non sequitur at best. When I send my son to buy me something it does not mean I cannot do it. Angels record the goods and bads of people because these people will get these records of goods and bads on the Judgement Day.
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.

Yet another ignorant pretending to be a scholar. He is talking as if the Quran is full of errors and these errors are getting discovered everyday. You will never discover any error in the Quran, because it is the word of God. Thousands before you tried but failed miserably. You are far worse than them.
- Mon 10 Nov, 2008 4:30 pm
Post subject:
Thenk you brother Windsor, I hope you have answered Aksel, Ankersen question directed to you, on the other hand he also asked me another question:

Aksel, Ankersen wrote:
Sorry to interrupt Ahmed, just one thing.


No problem, I will reply to charles later anyway

Aksel, Ankersen wrote:
What about Makr in Koran 17:38?


Absoutely nothing, the verse is talking about totally different word that even have a totally different root


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.


LOL, see, the word in question is مكروها, Mukroha, i.e. is hated, its root is Ka Ra Ha, which is totally different word to Ma Ka Ra

The word Mukroha is on the wazn Mafola, the first letter M is not part of the root Ka Ra Ha, rather part of the wazn Mafola can you see the first letter M in the wazn,

Now if I want to derive the same wazn Mafola from the root Ma Ka Ra, then it has to be Mamkura, i.e. Is planned, and it should look like this: ممكورا

Aksel, Ankersen wrote:
Those things are denounced Makr in the sight of your Rabb,


WRONG, you should say it like this:

Those things are denounced as KURH, i.e. is hated 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).


Think not, the letter H in Mukroha is part of the root Ka Ra Ha, can you see the last Ha

Your question is nothing but total confusion and ignornance to the simplest of the Arabic language rules

Cheers
- Mon 10 Nov, 2008 6:24 pm
Post subject:
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



Hello

So you brought in 4 Quran verses (6:114, 5:15, 44:58 & 44:22) to support you allegation, let?????????????????????¢??s look at your allegation again:

charleslemartel wrote:
Quran also claimed to be clear and easy to understand book.


I.e. in any of these 4 verses, we should read what you alleged above, let?????????????????????¢??s start with 6:114,

أَفَغَيْرَ اللّهِ أَبْتَغِي حَكَمًا وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَنَزَلَ إِلَيْكُمُ الْكِتَابَ مُفَصَّلاً وَالَّذِينَ آتَيْنَاهُمُ الْكِتَابَ يَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُ مُنَزَّلٌ مِّن رَّبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ فَلاَ تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمُمْتَرِينَ (114)
[Al Quran ; 6:114]

Shall I seek other than Allah, a judge? And He is the One Who has sent down to you the Book (which is) explained; and those whom We have given the Book know that it is sent down by your Lord with the truth, therefore you should not be of the sceptics.

The Arabic words: وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ إِلَيْكُمُ الْكِتَابَ مُفَصَّلًا , Wa Hua Allazy Anzal Elaikum Alkitab Mufasala, i.e. and according to Free Islam translation above: And He is the One Who has sent down to you the Book (which is) explained . Well, the verse does not say what you alleged, remember what you said: ]Quran also claimed to be clear and easy to understand book

Where in the verse we read your allegation?, the verse only said that the Book that Allah has sent IS EXPLAINED, now, that does not mean that it is easy to understand and clear as you alleged, foro example I can spend all day long EXPLAINING to you the theory of relativity yet not one can siggest that it is easy to understand and clear, in fact I can spend a year long explaining it to others while they may never understand it nor it will be clear to them

Let me now look at the three translations you brought in for 6:114:

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.


The verse never said the words explained in details, rather it only said: explained, now, even if I assume for argument sake that the words in details were included in the Arabic text, yet it does not mean that the book is clear and easy to understand as you alleged, remember the theory of relativity example that I raised, I can explain it IN DETAILS to you for the next two years, yet that does not mean that it is clear and easy to understand as you alleged

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.


The verse never said the word fully explained, rather it only said: explained, now, even if I assume for argument sake that the words fully is included in the Arabic text, yet it does not mean that the book is clear and easy to understand as you alleged, remember the theory of relativity example that I raised, I can FULLY explain it to you for the next two years, yet that does not mean that it is clear and easy to understand as you alleged

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.


The verse never said the word the Book made plain, rather it only said: the book is explained, there will be no assumption in here because Shakir got it totally wrong in his translation, I can spend the next two years explaining a book to you, yet my actions does not mean that I made the subject plain, if the subject is hard by its nature like the relativity example, then whatever I do to explain it to you will never take such hardship from the subject.

Here you have, your first evidence failed you:

Then you brought in verse 5:15

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ قَدْ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولُنَا يُبَيِّنُ لَكُمْ كَثِيرًا مِمَّا كُنْتُمْ تُخْفُونَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَعْفُو عَنْ كَثِيرٍ ۚ قَدْ جَاءَكُمْ مِنَ اللَّهِ نُورٌ وَكِتَابٌ مُبِينٌ (15)

[The Quran ; 5:15]

O people of the Book! Indeed Our Messenger has come to you, to explain to you much of what you have concealed of the Book and pardoning much, indeed there has come to you from Allah a light and a clear book;


In the above verse, you think that the word , Mubin means makes things clear or makes things easy to understand

Well, I can see how you are confused as many are including most translators, the Arabic word Mubin is not a verb to mean ?????????????????????¢??makes things clear?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? as I will explain soon, but let me first qualify the three translation you brought in for verse 5:15

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, ?????????????????????¢??


For Yusuf Ali to translate the word مُبِينٌ , Mubin as perspicuous which suppose to mean easily understandable has to be 100% wrong, the word should mean Obvious as I will prove soon inshaallah, i.e. Obvious that it is from God, or Obvious that it is not man made

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,


For PICKTHAL to translate the word مُبِينٌ , Mubin as plain may cause a lot of confusion to the non Arabic speakers because the may thing that it means that the Quran is easy to understand which is not the case according to the meaning of the wors Mubin as I will prove versy soon, therefore the above translation has to be rejected because it will transfer the wrong meaning of the words Mubin, the meanind should be: the Quran is plain that it is from God, or the Quran is plain that it is not man made, it never means made easy to understand as I will prove very soon without an atom weight of doubt

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;


I may accept the above translation from Shakir, however it may still cause confusion to the non Arabic speakers, because they may think that the word Mubin means that the book is easy to understand, i.e. clear, while the clarity only means that IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS FROM GOD, or IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT IS FROM GOD AND NOT MAN MADE, therefore I would say the best translation should be: an [b]obvious Book from Allah[/b]

That is actually what the word Mubin means, it means Obvious

I will skip your third evidence for not and look at the fourth because your fourth evidence is based on the same argument of your second evidence, i.e. based on the word Mubin, as seen below:

وَالْكِتَابِ الْمُبِينِ (2)

[The Quran ; 44:2]

And the obvious book.

-> The three translations you brought in are all wrong, because the word Mubin itself is not a verb rather a noun

i.e. all there ignorant translators are wrong:

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).


All above translation are certainly wrong, the translation should be: And the obvious book. , i.e. obvious that it is from God and not man made, let me now prove to you that this is what the word Mubin means:

To make the word Mubin, مُّبِينٌ a verb to make things clear is nothing but a total lie and clear cut case of ignorance/manipulation, let's see how the Quran explains itself by self referencing itself in an exhaustive manner (I only brought a few examples out of numerous verses):

And they say: This is nothing but clear magic
[The Quran ; 37:15]

وَقَالُوا إِنْ هَذَا إِلَّا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ (15)

-> How come the magic makes things clear?, obviously it means the OBVIOUS MAGIC, or the CLEAR MAGIC, or the MANIFEST MAGIC, that every human can see clearly.


And of a truth he saw himself on the clear horizon.
[The Quran ; 81:23]

وَلَقَدْ رَآهُ بِالْأُفُقِ الْمُبِينِ (23)

-> How come the horizon makes things clear?, obviously it means the OBVIOUS HORIZON, or the CLEAR HORIZON, or the MANIFEST HORIZON, that every human can see clearly


Say: He is the Beneficent Allah, we believe in Him and on Him do we rely, so you shall come to know who it is that is in clear error.
[The Quran ; 67:29]

قُلْ هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ آمَنَّا بِهِ وَعَلَيْهِ تَوَكَّلْنَا فَسَتَعْلَمُونَ مَنْ هُوَ فِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ (29)

-> How come the error makes things clear?, obviously it means the OBVIOUS ERROR, or the CLEAR ERROR, or the MANIFEST ERROR, that every human can see clearly, possibly only the believers can clearly see the CLEAR ERROR in this case, the unbelievers will always be dumb deaf and blind, they are like cattle or even worse than that, this is how they have been described in the Quran.


Or have they the means by which they listen? Then let their listener bring a clear authority.
[The Quran ; 52:38]

أَمْ لَهُمْ سُلَّمٌ يَسْتَمِعُونَ فِيهِ فَلْيَأْتِ مُسْتَمِعُهُم بِسُلْطَانٍ مُّبِينٍ (38)

-> How come the authority makes things clear?, obviously it means the OBVIOUS AUTHORITY, or the CLEAR AUTHORITY, or the MANIFEST AUTHORITY, that every human can see clearly


Surely We have given to you a clear victory
[The Quran ; 48:1]

إِنَّا فَتَحْنَا لَكَ فَتْحًا مُّبِينًا (1)

-> How come the victory makes things clear?, obviously it means the OBVIOUS VICTORY, or the CLEAR VICTORY, or the MANIFEST VICTORY, that every human can see clearly


Then, as for those who believed and did good works, their Lord will bring them in unto His mercy. That is the evident triumph.
[The Quran ; 45:30]

فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ فَيُدْخِلُهُمْ رَبُّهُمْ فِي رَحْمَتِهِ ذَلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْمُبِينُ (30)

-> How come the triumph makes things clear?, obviously it means the OBVIOUS TRIUMPH, or the CLEAR TRIUMPH, or the MANIFEST TRIUMPH, that every human can see clearly


And let not the Shaitan prevent you; surely he is your obvious enemy.
[The Quran ; 43:62]

وَلَا يَصُدَّنَّكُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ إِنَّهُ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُّبِينٌ (62)

-> Now this one is funny, How come the enemy makes things clear? I guess the enemy will always try to make things not clear, obviously it means the OBVIOUS ENEMY, or the CLEAR ENEMY, or the MANIFEST ENEMY, that the humans can see clearly, indeed the enemy of Islam on FFI is Mubin, i.e. it is OBVIOUS that they are the enemy of Islam


Therefore keep waiting for the day when the heaven shall bring an evident smoke,
[The Quran ; 44:10]

فَارْتَقِبْ يَوْمَ تَأْتِي السَّمَاء بِدُخَانٍ مُّبِينٍ (10)

-> Here is another funny one, How come the smoke makes things clear? I guess the smoke will make us blind and disoriented, right? Obviously it means the OBVIOUS SMOKE, or the CLEAR SMOKE, or the MANIFEST SMOKE, that every human can see clearly
,

And We showered Our blessings on him and on Ishaq; and of their offspring are the doers of good, and (also) those who are clearly unjust to their own souls.
[The Quran ; 37:113]

وَبَارَكْنَا عَلَيْهِ وَعَلَى إِسْحَقَ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِهِمَا مُحْسِنٌ وَظَالِمٌ لِّنَفْسِهِ مُبِينٌ (113)

-> How being unjust to the own souls makes things clear, unless it means : who are OBVIOUSLY unjust to their own souls., which is a perfect translation to the Arabic words : ظَالِمٌ لِّنَفْسِهِ مُبِينٌ


So he cast down his rod, and lo! it was an obvious serpent,
[The Quran ; 26:32]

فَأَلْقَى عَصَاهُ فَإِذَا هِيَ ثُعْبَانٌ مُّبِينٌ (32)

-> And finally, How come the snake makes things clear?, possibly it means An obvious snake, I don't know I will go and ask my 14 years old child and let you know.

Therefore, for the translators to come and translate the following verse:

وَالْكِتَابِ الْمُبِينِ (2)

[The Quran ; 44:2]


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).

[The Quran ; 44:2]

Their translations must be false, misleading and deceitful, it only means, any of the followings:

1) The Obvious Book
2) The Clear Book
3) The Evident Book
4) The Manifest Book

The verb to make never existed in the Arabic verse, bearing in mind that the verb Yobain, to Explain was never used with the Quran as its entity doing the verb i.e. MuBBayen with a shadda on the Ba and this is the one that means Make things clear, it is a case of words with identical letters, therefore the context is the only criteria to determine the meaning not the Tom and Jerry flawed root method

The Quran only makes things clear for the ones who sincerely want to be guided for the ones who already believed in the Quran and recognised its calibre that it is from Allah not from a bunch of humans, all the others who follow man made conjectures without being qualified by the Quran will have a seal on their minds, and hearts and they will never be able to understand it, the Quran does not make things clear as it does not really show me how to fix my car, even the scientific facts mentioned in it was put in an unclear manner which sure to serve the purpose of testing and I have no problem with that, in fact the guided ones will see those scientific miracles clearly while others will never be able to comprehend it, but what I found that the Quran does is this:

Verily this Qur'an doth guide to that which is most right (or stable), and giveth the Glad Tidings to the Believers who work deeds of righteousness, that they shall have a magnificent reward;
[The Quran ; 17:9]

إِنَّ هَذَا الْقُرْآنَ يِهْدِي لِلَّتِي هِيَ أَقْوَمُ وَيُبَشِّرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ الَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ الصَّالِحَاتِ أَنَّ لَهُمْ أَجْرًا كَبِيرًا (9)


Let me now look at your third evidence (44:58) and see for ourselves how confused your are:

فَإِنَّمَا يَسَّرْنَاهُ بِلِسَانِكَ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَذَكَّرُونَ (58)

[The Quran ; 44:58]

Here is the three translations you brought in:

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


The proper translation should be as follow:

And we have made it easy on your tongue, perhaps they may remember

[The Quran ; 44:58]

-> Well, verse 44:58 never said your allegation that the Quran is easy to understand as well makes things clear , it only said that the Quran was made easy on Mohammed tongue, can you guess why?, because he never knew how to read nor write, therefore Mohammed needed help for him to be able to recite to other people using his tongue, this in no way means that the Quran is easy to understand for all, in fact the Quran MUST be hard to understand for the kafirs like you who oppose the message of Allah as we clearly read in the following verse:

And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of the signs of his Lord, then he turns away from them and forgets what his two hands have sent before? Surely We have placed veils over their hearts lest they should understand it and a heaviness in their ears; and if you call them to the guidance, they will not ever follow the right course in that case.
[The Quran ; 18:57]

وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنْ ذُكِّرَ بِآيَاتِ رَبِّهِ فَأَعْرَضَ عَنْهَا وَنَسِيَ مَا قَدَّمَتْ يَدَاهُ ۚ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَنْ يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا ۖ وَإِنْ تَدْعُهُمْ إِلَى الْهُدَىٰ فَلَنْ يَهْتَدُوا إِذًا أَبَدًا (57)

-> See, And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of the signs of his Lord, then he turns away from them and forgets what his two hands have sent before? , that must be a kafir like you, hey. Then we read what Allah is going to do to the kafirs like who, when they are reminded with the signs of Allah they turn away: Surely We have placed veils over their hearts lest they should understand it and a heaviness in their ears; , i.e. the likes of you will never believe while insisting on their horrible attitude towards the message: and if you call them to the guidance, they will not ever follow the right course in that case. , i.e. it will be impossible that the Quran will make it easy for you to understand while you insist on opposing and mocking the message, that is what your hands have earned

Here is another example that proves that the Quran will never be easy for the likes of you:

45: And when you recite the Quran, We place between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter a hidden barrier;

46: And We have placed coverings on their hearts and a heaviness in their ears lest they understand it, and when you mention your Lord alone in the Quran they turn their backs in aversion.
[The Quran ; 17:45-46]

وَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ الْقُرْآنَ جَعَلْنَا بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ حِجَابًا مَسْتُورًا (45)
وَجَعَلْنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَنْ يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا ۚ وَإِذَا ذَكَرْتَ رَبَّكَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ وَحْدَهُ وَلَّوْا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِهِمْ نُفُورًا (46)

-> See: when you recite the Quran, We place between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter a hidden barrier; , i.e. you will never understand it, this is because you are one: who do not believe in the hereafter , i.e. the Quran will be impossible for you to understand while not believing in the hereafter: And We have placed coverings on their hearts and a heaviness in their ears lest they understand it , look at yourself when someone like me tells you about God, what ou do?, the Quran tells us what the likes of you will do: and when you mention your Lord alone in the Quran they turn their backs in aversion. , that must be you, hey, see how accurate the Quran is, it is talking about you

And finally:

25: And among them are those who listen to you, and We have made over their hearts veils lest they understand it and in their ears deafness; and if they see every sign they will not believe in it; even when they come to you they dispute with you; those who have disbelieved say: This is naught but the stories of the former (people).

26: And they prevent (others) from it and they keep away from it, but they only destroy themselves while they do not perceive.

27: And if you could see when they are made to stand before the fire, then they will say: Oh, would that we are sent back, and we would not reject the signs of our Lord and we would be among the believers.
[The Quran ; 6:25-27]

وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَسْتَمِعُ إِلَيْكَ ۖ وَجَعَلْنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَنْ يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا ۚ وَإِنْ يَرَوْا كُلَّ آيَةٍ لَا يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَا ۚ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا جَاءُوكَ يُجَادِلُونَكَ يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا أَسَاطِيرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ (25)
وَهُمْ يَنْهَوْنَ عَنْهُ وَيَنْأَوْنَ عَنْهُ ۖ وَإِنْ يُهْلِكُونَ إِلَّا أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ (26)
وَلَوْ تَرَىٰ إِذْ وُقِفُوا عَلَى النَّارِ فَقَالُوا يَا لَيْتَنَا نُرَدُّ وَلَا نُكَذِّبَ بِآيَاتِ رَبِّنَا وَنَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (27)

-> See what the kafirs do when the signs of Allah are explained to them: And among them are those who listen to you , while they and if they see every sign they will not believe in it; even when they come to you they dispute with you; those who have disbelieved say: This is naught but the stories of the former (people). , sounds like you, hey. Well, this must be applied to you too: and We have made over their hearts veils lest they understand it and in their ears deafness.

-> The verse above are so accurate that it tells us more about the likes of you, see: And they prevent (others) from it and they keep away from it, , I have some bad news for you then: but they only destroy themselves while they do not perceive. , it is tough, hey, well here is the rest of the bad news: And if you could see when they are made to stand before the fire, then they will say: Oh, would that we are sent back, and we would not reject the signs of our Lord and we would be among the believers.


You may argue and say: ok now you understand why the Quran is hard on kafirs like you, but what about the believers like me, why it is so hard on them too, well the answer is really simple, because they shirked what Allah has sent to them with man made crap that is called the books of Ulmaaa, like the man made hadith books, i.e. the Quran must be hard to understand for them too

You should know now that this will take us to:

# 26
- Tue 11 Nov, 2008 5:02 am
Post subject:
Quote:
Hello my fellow freak, AhmedBahgat

Koran 6:101 suggests that Allah functions just the same as man.

No it does not. There is nothing like God.

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?

God here is rebuking such a possibility. He is rebuking the possibility of having a physical son as we understand it here on earth.
You point on "bouraq" and "seventh heaven" are laughable. "Bouraq" is a myth that does not exist, and heavens in the Quran refers to multiple universes.

Quote:
The whole thing is laughable yet muslims accept all this nonsense. What has happened to them?

Who said we or God accept this? God rebuked having a physical son by a female companion, or having a physical son without a female companion, or having any other kind of son in 2 verses. So what the hell are balbbering about?
Quote:
Does Allah function like a human being? What makes Allah a male?

sum

No, He does not function like a human being and He is not a male.
- Tue 11 Nov, 2008 5:08 am
Post subject:
Quote:
Furthermore, even otherwise your argument is wrong. Can you deny that Allah is supposed to be far more powerful than Mary?

Of course He is. where did this guy get that impression from?
Quote:
All the impossibles for Mary should be possibles for Allah.

Sure.
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 .

Again you prove your stupidity. It is Allah who made Maryam have a son without a companion. Mary did not do this herself.
God can have any kind of son as I expalined above, but it is not consonant with His majesty.
- Tue 11 Nov, 2008 5:13 am
Post subject:
Quote:
Surely you do not mean to say that the messenger had a sexual intercourse with Mary?

No he did not. He just made it possible.
Quote:
Allah has clearly said that he cannot have a son without a female companion. This raises serious question about the so called almighty.

God can have any son whatsoever but He does not do it because it is not consonant with his majesty. I expalined that above.
- Tue 11 Nov, 2008 5:23 am
Post subject:
Quote:
Hey bro Windsor

This is a question for you by an FFI member whom I think is very decent:

Finally a decent member of that site?!

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.

Zoroastrianism is a Nazi and racist ideology. It thrives on the concept that all Iranians must be Zoroastrian, however ridiculous and stupid this religion might be, like their forefathers thousands of years ago. They believe Iranian Muslims, who are like 98% of the population, and even Bahais and Jews etc... must be Zoroastrian or else they are not true Iranians. I talked to some of them and found them among the most racist, bigoted, ignorant and arrogant people in the world. They hate Muslims, and especially Arabs, with a tremendous passion. All the Zoroastrians that I have met, except one to be fair, were always like that. And just a small correction, I do not hate them, I despise people with such mentality. Religion should never be mixed or restricted to a certain race.
- Tue 11 Nov, 2008 6:14 am
Post subject:
Quote:
The FFI goon is named Haik Monsieur, he claims to be an ex Muslims (which I believe is a lie),

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
This is one of their oldest and most famous tricks! and they expect us to buy it! Obviously any thinking and rational person can see that over 70% of them are clear cut frauds.
- Tue 11 Nov, 2008 6:17 am
Post subject:
Quote:
Thenk you brother Windsor, I hope you have answered Aksel, Ankersen question directed to you,

I have just done so.
Please keep us updated with their responses.
- Tue 11 Nov, 2008 6:38 am
Post subject:
Windsor wrote:
Quote:
Thenk you brother Windsor, I hope you have answered Aksel, Ankersen question directed to you,

I have just done so.
Please keep us updated with their responses.


Thanks bro for your contribution

I will keep you updated, they are reading it, be assured
- Mon 17 Nov, 2008 4:20 am
Post subject:
It is about time for Slam dunk # 28

A confused kafir bound to hell from FFI raised the following Tom and Jerry argument regarding the prohibition of Alcohol:

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.


Firstly, the ignorant brought in a flawed translation which translated the clear Arabic word إِثْمٌ , Ithim, as harm

Hahahaha, Ithim means Sin, you stupid ignorant, let?????????????????????¢??s look at the correct translation by Free Islam:

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]

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)


-> Clear from the above that Allah is telling us that in Alcohol there is a GREAT ITHIM, i.e. in Alcohol there is a GREAT SIN

Let?????????????????????¢??s now see what Allah has prohibited:

Say: Indeed My Lord has prohibited the indecencies, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, and the sin and the trespasses without justice, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say against Allah what you do not know.

[Al Quran ; 7:33]

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)


-> See what Allah has prohibited: Say: Indeed My Lord has prohibited the indecencies, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, and the ITHIM, i.e. Say: Indeed My Lord has prohibited the indecencies, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, and the sin

-> See, in 2:219 Allah is telling us that in Alcohol there is a great ITHIM and in 7:33 Allah is telling us that ITHIM is haram (prohibited)

HOW CLEAR is it for the dumb ignorant disguised

Let me give you another hint to how ignorant such kafir is:

We never read in the Quran that Allah HARRAM Zina, i.e. Allah prohibited adultery, however we read that Adultery is FAHISHA (Indecency), now if we look at 7:33 we read in it that Allah prohibited Al Fawahish, i.e. Allah has prohibited indecencies, i.e. Zina is haram

And this should be enough for:

# 28
- Tue 18 Nov, 2008 2:18 am
Post subject:
misan wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
elle wrote:
Is there a verse in the Qur'an about whether alcohol is Haram or Halal?


Yeh ignorant, there is:

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]

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)


-> Clear from the above that Allah is telling us that in Alcohol there is a GREAT ITHIM, i.e. in Alcohol there is a GREAT SIN

Let?????????????????????¢??s now see what Allah has prohibited:

Say: Indeed My Lord has prohibited the indecencies, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, and the sin and the trespasses without justice, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say against Allah what you do not know.

[Al Quran ; 7:33]

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)


-> See what Allah has prohibited: Say: Indeed My Lord has prohibited the indecencies, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, and the ITHIM, i.e. Say: Indeed My Lord has prohibited the indecencies, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, and the sin

-> See, in 2:219 Allah is telling us that in Alcohol there is a great ITHIM and in 7:33 Allah is telling us that ITHIM is haram (prohibited)

HOW CLEAR is it for the dumb ignorant kafirs?


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.


Actually it was explained to me by a Muslim woman who was a member on my web site, very knowledgeable and respected candian lady, but she quickly left after I started my style of free speech on my site, as well my very profane movies replying to the enemy of Islam, so she got angry and asked me to delete her account, it was like she did not want her name to be associated with free islam, a request that I respected straightaway, I actually admired her a lot and even considered her a real sister and a friend, so I granted her wish without knowing that if I delete her account, all her comments will be deleted, and that is exactly what happened, it was a great loss to me indeed and I was a bit sad about it, but I decided how I will use free islam before even launching it, which is nothing more or less that what I do on other web sites, and I will never change, I tried to explain to her that this is what should happen

an eye for an eye
an insult for an insult
a mock for a mock
and a cartoon for a cartoon

which I see it very fair, it is like if you donot want to be mocked, then do not mock others. very simple I say

I actually find my style very easy to live with than a typical style of being polite which looks very submissive and as you may know that I only submit to Allah, this is how I call myself a Muslim, this submissive style comes with very irritating feelings, which is so irritating to a degree that it will be better just to leave such sites and close my web site and just go on with my life ignoring all around me which I can do with ease but that is not what I want to do, I am not going to ignore everything around me especially those things related to the religion, this has put me into two frontlines fighting two totally different groups, the Mushrikoon from the Muslims and the Kafiroon from the rest. imagine now being polite with such very malice and tough frontlines, I will be eaten with ease, that is why why you see Muslims on anti Islam web sites comes and go, you hardly see one that is consistent, adamant and serious

Anyway, sorry for the broing crap above, welcome to the forum, let me go back to verse 7:33 and add something to it

can you see what is also mentioned clearly as HARAM?, it is SHIRK, see: Say: Indeed My Lord has prohibited ......... that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority,, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT AL MUSHRIKOON FROM THE MUSLIMS DO, the first frontline I decided to confront

And here is the last thing in the same verse that is mentioned as HARAM: Say: Indeed My Lord has prohibited ......... that you say against Allah what you do not know. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT AL KAFIROON FROM THE NON MUSLIMS DO, the second frontline I decided to confront. Now concentrate with me regarding such amazing discovery in the same verse:

I know from the Quran that every Mushrik is a Kafir but not every Kafir is a Mushrik, Satan is such example of a Kafir who was not a Mushrik, in fact you will never read such description of SHIRK about Satan in the Quran

Now if you have ever read in great details what Al Mushrikoon from the Muslims follow "the man made books of hearsay hadith", you will clearly see that Al Mushrikoon also do what Al kafiroon do, which is explained earlier in this comment, i.e. while Al Mushrikoon shirk Allah laws with some other laws that He sent no authority, THEY ALSO SAY THINGS ABOUT ALLAH WHICH THEY DO NOT KNOW, SEE HOW EVERY MUSHRIK IS A KAFIR, HOW AMAZING

Cheers
- Wed 19 Nov, 2008 9:30 am
Post subject:
Hi Ahmed,

how are you bro? need to talk to you.
Skype: openurfmind
- Wed 19 Nov, 2008 9:51 am
Post subject:
openurmind wrote:
Hi Ahmed,

how are you bro? need to talk to you.
Skype: openurfmind


Hey dear brother

I am good man, I am hoping to see you soon inshaallah

my mic on my laptop is fuked up mate, I am waiting for my VOIP modem and when it comes I will call you using VOIP, I believe you have it too, right?

Take care mate
- Thu 20 Nov, 2008 5:39 pm
Post subject:
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.


Hello Z_R

Firstly I would like to thank you for helping me continuing my Slam Dunk Show, I really appreciate it, you know I am aiming at 100 slams then possibly retire from FFI, so we still have a very long time, therefore I will take the chance of replying to your comment in which I have noticed that you raised a new argument supported with Quran verses in Arabic and English (very much appreciated) and make the 29 slam dunk

Now, in reply to what you said above, yes that is what I meant exactly, a food that has been left to ferment which resulted in Khamr, I just used the common word for Khamr in English, however if you may suggest a better word to use in my translation, I won?????????????????????¢??t be unthankful to you

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
There has to be enough alcohol in a beverage before it can be an inebriant or intoxicant.


We are talking technically in here, let?????????????????????¢??s just assume that the moment it started to ferment is the moment it became Khamr, which means that is what the verse is talking about, and in this case drinking it is Haram, because it is associated with great sin, and Allah has forbidden the sin.

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
The word for alcohol in Arabic is kohoul or al kohoul with the definite article "al".


I have agreed with that and asked you if you may suggest a better word in English for the Arabic word ?????????????????????¢??Khamr?????????????????????¢??????????????????????, i.e. any food that started to ferment

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Another Arabic word for alcohol is : الغول‎, "al-ghoul", found in Sura 37:47 as غول ghoul.


Well, you are certainly wrong in here, Ghoul can never be another word for Kohoul, let me bring the verse:

لَا فِيهَا غَوْلٌ وَلَا هُمْ عَنْهَا يُنْزَفُونَ (47)

[The Quran ; 37:47]

The verse above is describing the Khamr that will be served in the heaven, the verse says that such Khamr : لَا فِيهَا غَوْلٌ , La Fiha Ghoul, the Ghoul is anything that causes health issues accompanied with pain, see how the three common ones did:


YUSUFALI: Free from headiness; nor will they suffer intoxication therefrom.
PICKTHAL: Wherein there is no headache nor are they made mad thereby.
SHAKIR: There shall be no trouble in it, nor shall they be exhausted therewith.

[The Quran ; 37:47]

See how the three translated the word Ghoul:

YUSUFALI: headiness;
PICKTHAL: headache
SHAKIR: trouble

I.e. the word Ghoul has nothing to do with the Arabic word Kohoul

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Alcohol was not discovered until it could be distilled out of fermented beverages.


If you mean that using the word Ghoul must be a contradiction because you think it means Kohoul while you also say that Kohoul was not discovered yet, then it has been proven above that you are wrong, and part of my slam has been dunked

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.


Let?????????????????????¢??s refer to it as Khamr, so we avoid running into a technicality

Well, I do not think that Khamr as a drink was ever something good that was praised by Allah in the Quran, let me show you what you have missed in the verses you brought and by the end of it, we should reach our slam dunk # 29

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


The Verse above never said that Khamr that causes intoxication is good, the verse above is actually talking about another sign which is clearly stated at the beginning of the verse, see:

-> وَمِنْ ثَمَرَاتِ النَّخِيلِ وَالْأَعْنَابِ , Wa Min Thamarat Alnakhil Wa Alanaab, i.e. And of the produce of the palm trees and the vine, clearly the verse is talking about some plant produce that the human may use it in two different ways as the verse next explained: تَتَّخِذُونَ مِنْهُ سَكَرًا , Tatakhizoon Minhu Sakara, i.e. you obtain from them intoxicant , this can never be some sort of praise to the Khamr, RATHER a fact that is stated by Allah about what we may be doing with such produce of the palm trees and vine, then the verse told us another possible fact about such produce of palm trees and vine, see: وَرِزْقًا حَسَنًا , Wa Rizqan Hasana, i.e. and goodly provision , i.e. we may sell such produce of palm trees and vine and make some money of it as a provision,

Making money by selling such produce must be good THAT IS WHY it was praised, ie. For us to sell it for a provision is HASAN, i.e. good, THE VERSE NEVER SAID THAT MAKING KHAMR OF SUCH PRODUCE IS GOOD, and this is where you missed out.

The verse then ended by elaborating that what was just been told about the produce IS A SIGN FOR THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND

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
[/quote]

The verse above does not prohibit drinking Al Khamr, the verse above only said to avoid it, FA IGTANIBUH

The prohibition of Khamr can only be proved in the Quran by using 2:219 & 7:33 together

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Finally faithful followers will enjoy rivers of ‎pure sealed wine in Paradise.


But we are talking about totally different phase of life in there, so why you are comparing apples with oranges then make them the same?

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


That?????????????????????¢??s right, and certainly we are talking about totally different Khamr:

1) It tastes good
2) It does not cause headache
3) It does not cause us to lose our minds

Therefore the Quran in there is talking about totally something else than the Khamr on earth, and as you know the Khamr on earth causes the followings:

1) It tastes shit
2) It causes headache
3) It causes us to lose our minds and look fools

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
In conclusion, the Qur'an states that wine is a provision from Allah


WRONG, the Quran only said that THE PRODUCE OF THE PALM TREES AND VINE is what may be a good provision, obviously by selling such produce in the fruit market for example

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
and then ‎states that it is an abomination of Shaitan.


Of course, He said so about the Khamr the human make on earth which as we know:

1) It tastes shit
2) It causes headache
3) It causes us to lose our minds and look fools

I.e. the Khamr which the humans make on earth must be an abomination of Shaitan

Zorasta_Russ wrote:
This is a contradiction for rational thinkers.


And this is slam dunk # 29 for any rational thinker who is not pre programmed:

# 29
- Sun 23 Nov, 2008 9:11 am
Post subject:
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.

Let me see what you have to say and how many stupid arguments you came up with:

Haik Monsieur wrote:
In Quran, Muslims?????????????????????¢?? holy book,


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:
we see Allah often depicted as the creator and sustainer of this universe.


Indeed

Haik Monsieur wrote:
But more importantly, it is said; he has a throne and he is firmly seated on it.


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.

This is your stupidity # 1

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Let us just have a look on this glorious throne in which the creator and sustainer of this universe is seated.


Wrong again, this is how you should say it, you ignorant:

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.


Actually, you may increase the odds of getting a reply from me if you post the Arabic text

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Plight necessitates it so please pardon this inaptness. The transliteration and translation will follow Arabic verses:


With me, the Arabic verses IS A MUST, I believe you are after a reply from a Muslim, not from one of the ignorant kafir goons, right?

Therefore stop licking arses because you are posting it to the Muslims, not to them

I have finished the draft for this Sura, so I have to bring Free Islam translation in here:

And it is He Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and His throne is over the water, that He might test you, which of you is best in deed, and if you have said: Indeed you shall be resurrected after death, those who have disbelieved would certainly say: This is nothing but obvious magic.
[Al Quran ; 11:7]

وَهُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ وَكَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ أَيُّكُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا ۗ وَلَئِنْ قُلْتَ إِنَّكُمْ مَبْعُوثُونَ مِنْ بَعْدِ الْمَوْتِ لَيَقُولَنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا سِحْرٌ مُبِينٌ (7)


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]


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:
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.


I have taken note

I hope you also take note of your two stupidities, so far

Haik Monsieur wrote:
We know from Quran Allah?????????????????????¢??s throne was over the waters.


Of course

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.


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:
Allah does not stop by simply stating his throne was over waters, but he continues in his glorious book: Chapter Al-Radd:


Is it over water or over rivers?

Come on, do not confuse yourself

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]


This verse is also finished in my translation, so let me bring it in here:

Allah is He Who lifted the heavens without any pillars that you see, then He directed His attention to the throne, and He has subjected the sun and the moon (so) each runs to an appointed time; He regulates the affair, He explains the signs that you may be of the meeting your Lord assured.
[Al Quran ; 13:2]

اللَّهُ الَّذِي رَفَعَ السَّمَاوَاتِ بِغَيْرِ عَمَدٍ تَرَوْنَهَا ۖ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ ۖ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ ۖ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ۚ يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ يُفَصِّلُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ بِلِقَاءِ رَبِّكُمْ تُوقِنُونَ (2)


Haik Monsieur wrote:
So we have seen how Allah is established (?) on his throne after raising heavens without pillars..!


Wrong, what the verses said is the following:

Allah directed His attention to His throne then raised the heavens without pillars THAT WE SEE, i.e. there might be pillars but we just can not see it YET. Also if Allah may reside on something, He would have resided on the chair within His throne.

This is your stupidity # 4

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Now, about throne, the word in Quran is Arsh,


Yes

Haik Monsieur wrote:
which is sometimes manipulated by Muslims to translate as ?????????????????????¢??Dominion?????????????????????¢??????????????????????.


Well, forget about those Muslims for now, I totally agree with you that Arsh means Throne

And I am sure that you would agree with me that a chair is part of a throne

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Muslims are embarrassed on the apparent ridicule of their god seating on a throne


As I said, forget about those Muslims, let?????????????????????¢??s keep it between me and you, now, the one who should be embarrassed is you, who so far proved to be stupid 4 times, as I said to you no one sits on the throne rather they sit on a chair that is part of 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.


How stupid you are, another Tom and Jerry crap by you, well, if God may seat on something, He will be seating on His chair within His throne, and let me tell ya, His chair is bigger that the heavens and eart, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look:

Allah, there is no god but He, the Alive, the Self-Subsisting; slumber does not apply to Him nor sleep; to Him is whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth; who is he that can intercede with Him but with His permission? He knows what is in front of them and what is behind them, and they can not comprehend anything out of His knowledge except what He wished, His chair extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them (the heavens and the earth) tires Him not, and He is the Sublime, the Great.
[Al Quran ; 2:255]

اللَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ ۚ لَا تَأْخُذُهُ سِنَةٌ وَلَا نَوْمٌ ۚ لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۗ مَنْ ذَا الَّذِي يَشْفَعُ عِنْدَهُ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِهِ ۚ يَعْلَمُ مَا بَيْنَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمَا خَلْفَهُمْ ۖ وَلَا يُحِيطُونَ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ عِلْمِهِ إِلَّا بِمَا شَاءَ ۚ وَسِعَ كُرْسِيُّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ ۖ وَلَا يَئُودُهُ حِفْظُهُمَا ۚ وَهُوَ الْعَلِيُّ الْعَظِيمُ (255)

-> See you dumb: ۚ وَسِعَ كُرْسِيُّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ , Wasaa Kursayahu Alsamawat Wa Alard, i.e. His chair extends over the heavens and the earth , i.e. His chair alone is bigger than the heavens and earth, imagine the throne where the chair is part of it, now how come Nasa will find something in the heavens (assuming that they can see it all despite the fact of the matter that they can only see 13 billion light years NO MORE) while that thing is BIGGER that the heavens itself

It is impossible for A be within B if A is far bigger than B

This is your stupidity # 5

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Now: Those Muslims who wants to argue ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? does not mean a throne-chair


Hahahaha, now we are talking

Arsh can not mean chair, you ignorant

Kursy is the Arabic word for chair

Arsh means throne

The Kursy (chair) is part of the Arsh (throne)

This is your stupidity # 6

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?????????????????????¢??????????????????????


EXACTLY, Yusuf RAISED his parents on the throne, i.e. they climbed up on the throne, it is not like both his parents will sit on the one chair on the throne, looks like you slam dunked yourself

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]


Well, the translation above is flawed, here is what it should be according to Free Islam:

And he raised his parents upon the throne and they fell before him prostrating, and he (Yusuf) said: O my father! This is the interpretation of my vision of before; certainly my Lord has made it true; and certainly He was kind with me when He took me out from the prison and brought you from the desert after the Shaitan had induced between me and my brothers, indeed, my Lord is Subtle to whom He wills; indeed, He is the all-Knowing, the all-Wise.
[Al Quran ; 12:100]

وَرَفَعَ أَبَوَيْهِ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ وَخَرُّوا لَهُ سُجَّدًا ۖ وَقَالَ يَا أَبَتِ هَٰذَا تَأْوِيلُ رُؤْيَايَ مِنْ قَبْلُ قَدْ جَعَلَهَا رَبِّي حَقًّا ۖ وَقَدْ أَحْسَنَ بِي إِذْ أَخْرَجَنِي مِنَ السِّجْنِ وَجَاءَ بِكُمْ مِنَ الْبَدْوِ مِنْ بَعْدِ أَنْ نَزَغَ الشَّيْطَانُ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَ إِخْوَتِي ۚ إِنَّ رَبِّي لَطِيفٌ لِمَا يَشَاءُ ۚ إِنَّهُ هُوَ الْعَلِيمُ الْحَكِيمُ (100)


-> See: وَرَفَعَ أَبَوَيْهِ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ , Wa Rafaa Abawayhi Ala Alarsh, And he raised his parents upon the throne , and while they are there: وَخَرُّوا لَهُ سُجَّدًا , Wa Kharro Lahu Sujudda, i.e. and they fell before him prostrating, , i.e. they were not sitting on any chairs, rather raised to the throne level (AS ANY THRONE IS RAISED UP), and while they are there, they prostrated to him.

You confirmed yourself slam

This is your stupidity # 7

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?????????????????????¢??????????????????????


Your ignorance is highlighted in points:

1) the Quran never said that Allah is seated over a throne
2) Yusuf did not PLACE his parents over the throne RATHER he raised them over the throne
3) Arsh in Arabic can not mean Throne, Chair, rather Throne alone
4) Kursy in Arabic means Chair

This is your stupidity # 8

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Bottom line: Islam?????????????????????¢??s god is seated on a throne that is situated over waters in heaven.


Repeating your ignorance won?????????????????????¢??t help you escaping your self embarrassment, however just by thinking so, it must be another stupidity that you made:

This is your stupidity # 9

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?????????????????????¢??????????????????????


Same argument in my last paragraph applies:

Repeating your ignorance won?????????????????????¢??t help you escaping your self embarrassment, however just by thinking so, it must be another stupidity that you made:

This is your stupidity # 10

Congratulation pal, you have made it to my Slam Dunk Show, what an achievement

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.


Hmmmm, your wish is granted and you have been slam dunked hard, however you should be proud of yourself because you still made it to my Slam Dunk Show, well done.

# 30
- Sun 23 Nov, 2008 8:57 pm
Post subject:
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.


Sure, but if you will be slammed again, I must add it to my show, you know, I am aiming at 100 slams

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.


You are very famous, how about an applude:

Clap clap clap

But please don?????????????????????¢??t flatter yourself too much

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.


To be honest, I read your crap and laugh all the time, but if we talk obsession, yes I am obsessed with the enemy of my religion, I will never leave them in peace, I guess you should know that already by now.

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Do you feel like I am buffing up myself?


Not sure what buffing means, nor that I want to know, however if I feel something about you, then I feel that you boofheading youself

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Feel free to feel so. Sometimes self-flattery too is needed to counter guys like you.. :dork:


But please do not flatter yourself too much

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.


So why you are not leaving the Arabic to its native speakers then?

Look, if you do not, I will not

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.


Most journalists are liars, therefore I am not surprised that lying is part of your profession

Haik Monsieur wrote:
So, it is a journalistic approach.


Yeh yeh, we know it well, it is like any thing goes as long as crowd is attracted, but hey, try to attract some intelligent crowed instead of the dumb goons of FFI

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.


To be honest, what you said above fits you like a glove, I have read some of the humour you wrote, it was so sick pal, please do not ever try to work as stand up comedian, try a stand up clown, it suits you like a glove

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.


You have no argument from the first place, you failed to tell us what contradiction you are talking about, all you ignorantly said that Allah has a throne above water then suggested that the water must be reviers, then you alleged that the god should not have a throne above water

Why the god can not have a throne above water, mister HM?

Haik Monsieur wrote:
I am not interested in this acrobatics with ?????????????????????¢??Istawa?????????????????????¢??????????????????????.


Then concede that it means what I said, i.e. Direct an attention to, your words, leave the language to its native speakers

Haik Monsieur wrote:
My purpose is to demolish the Muslim claim ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? means dominion


Then we have nothing to debate, because as I said that Arsh in Arabic means a place of someone with a mighty power to appear in it for some people, the most suitable English word as far as I know is Throne, the Atsh consists of a few things including a chair for such entity with mighty power to sit on it if desired

Now if you know any better English word that suits that description be my guest to suggest it, but I won?????????????????????¢??t accept that Arsh means chair because Kursy is the Arabic word to mean chair, and the Quran used the word twice, one to describe the chair of Allah, and the other is about King Solaiman who was sitting while being sick on his chair within his throne

Haik Monsieur wrote:
and I did it in my post. If ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? as we found in Quran is a throne ?????????????????????¢?? chair,


Wrong you idiot, Arsh in the quran can never mean a chair, rather Kursy in the Quran is the word for chair, for how long you will insist on your ignaorance?

Would that be part of youe schema that you can not allow the Muslim argument to win?

Well, that is not my argument you dumb, this was a Quran argument, i.e. I did not invent anything, if the west think of a throne that it is also a chair, then the west are as dumb and confused as you are

Haik Monsieur wrote:
then the phrase ?????????????????????¢??Istawa?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? can by all means be translated as seated.


No you ignorant, if the word Arsh does not mean chair, then the word Istawa can never mean seated, are you that foolish?

Haik Monsieur wrote:
After all, even if your argument is right,


My argument is 100% right, no question about it, now, the likes of some goons like filthy/racist khazandra and you will never accept defeat by a Muslim, you already admitted that, remember?

Haik Monsieur wrote:
it tells me Allah attended to his throne = seated on it.


I never said the word Istawa means attend you blind, I said Istawa means ?????????????????????¢??Direct an attention to?????????????????????¢??????????????????????, stop being dumb, the Quran never said that Allah is sitting over anything, however I do not deny that Allah may sit over something if He desires, that something was clearly mentioned in the Quran: Kursayahu i.e. His chair, not His throne, you confused

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Sorry man. I can?????????????????????¢??t bear your stupidity at all.


Obviously you are more stupid, because it seems that you are bearing my stupidity and will continue to reply to my comment, see

Haik Monsieur wrote:
What does it mean chair within his throne?


It means that the chair is part of the throne, i.e. there are other things that constitute a throne, not just a chair, for example there might be a table in front of the throne, you know like a coffee table , as well the whole thing must be raised above ground, and that is also part of the throne

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Do you know what are you talking about?


Of course I do, we are talking Arabic words, aren?????????????????????¢??t we

What we are talking about is the Arabic word Arsh, and the Arabic word Kursy, both are used in the Quran and you are only using the Quran to prove your crap, therefore the Quran slam dunked you and exposed your ignorance

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Check any dictionary and get the meaning of throne.


Are you confused, I do not need to check English dictionaries you stupid, we are talking Arabic words, Throne & Kursy, why don?????????????????????¢??t you check some Arabic dictionaries yourself?

Haik Monsieur wrote:
It is synonymous with chair


synonymousity is in your Barbie world, in the Quran world, it is totally different story, if the Quran used both words (Arsh & Kursy) explicitly, then synonymous my arse.

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?????????????????????¢??????????????????????


Look, it is me who can not bear your stupidity however I will continue till a certain part in your crap then dismiss the rest, this is how I prove to you that I can?????????????????????¢??t bear your stupidity

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Do you think it makes a lot of sense?


For a dumb bum like you and a racist freak like khazandra, of course it won?????????????????????¢??t make any sense

Haik Monsieur wrote:
First of all Ahmed, mind your language.


With you, it can not be, when I see you respecting my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters who join this site, you will be respected, as you continue to act as the lowest of the lows do in contempt against my religions followers you will never have an atom weight of respect from me, I think my message is clear

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.


If you think that it is so bitter, then fine with me, why do you think that I should not be bitter with some lowest of the lows of an enemy who publicly and proudly say that he is living his life to destroy the religion of Islam?

You are such a clear cut jerk

Haik Monsieur wrote:
I have more than enough in my armoury to do it again,


Let?????????????????????¢??s get it on punk, it seems you have not seen my full on potential yet

Haik Monsieur wrote:
so keep the phrases like ?????????????????????¢??licking arses?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? for yourself and don?????????????????????¢??t use them against me again.


Sure, how about licking bums, would that be ok with you?

Haik Monsieur wrote:
You will get bloody beaten with your own medicine again. Take my words for it.


Stop talking the talk, try to walk the walk

Haik Monsieur wrote:
Secondly, this is an English forum and I don?????????????????????¢??t think it is apposite to paste Arabic in here.


Tough luck to the English speakers then.

Haik Monsieur wrote:
If you need Arabic, you can directly go to websites which offer you Arabic.


You do not tell me what I should do, It is going to always be myself who decides what I should do

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.


What a confused liar you are, you already admitted that you are here to destroy the religion of Islam, it has nothing to do with infidels you coward, it is all aimed at the Muslims to destroy their religion, and I can assure you 100% and without an atom weight of doubt that you are failing.

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.


Hahahahah, here is what you said you coward:

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.


That does not sound like making the infidels aware of my religion, rather your aim is to destroy Islam, your words

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.


It makes no difference to me.

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.


Ok, I will accept that

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..!


And this is the part where I will stop but only after I will expose you again:

Firstly here is what another kafir is telling you on your thread you blind:

kereng wrote:
I think the "arsh over the waters" is not over the rivers in heaven.


Secondly, look at what you said:

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.


Hahahahahaahahahahahahaha

I challenge you mister confused, to show me one single verse where the Quran said that the rivers flaw OVER the heavens

In all the locations where Allah mentioned the rivers in heaven, it was always been said that the rivers flow UNDER the heaven Min Tahtiha

This clearly shows how confused you are and consequently I have to dismiss the rest of your crap because I had enough of it and can?????????????????????¢??t bear it any more

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)

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Haik Monsieur wrote:
So we have seen how Allah is established (?) on his throne after raising heavens without pillars..!


Wrong, what the verses said is the following:

Allah directed His attention to His throne then raised the heavens without pillars THAT WE SEE, i.e. there might be pillars but we just can not see it YET. Also if Allah may reside on something, He would have resided on the chair within His throne.

This is your stupidity # 4


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?

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Well, forget about those Muslims for now, I totally agree with you that Arsh means Throne

And I am sure that you would agree with me that a chair is part of a throne


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?????????????????????¢??????????????????????

AhmedBahgat wrote:
As I said, forget about those Muslims, let?????????????????????¢??s keep it between me and you, now, the one who should be embarrassed is you, who so far proved to be stupid 4 times, as I said to you no one sits on the throne rather they sit on a chair that is part of a throne


Again the same baloney. Sorry Ahmed?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦ you are sometimes entertaining too. I have to take back my previous statement about you.

AhmedBahgat wrote:
How stupid you are, another Tom and Jerry crap by you, well, if God may seat on something, He will be seating on His chair within His throne, and let me tell ya, His chair is bigger that the heavens and eart, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look:

<snip>

It is impossible for A be within B if A is far bigger than B

This is your stupidity # 5


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.


AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hahahaha, now we are talking

Arsh can not mean chair, you ignorant

Kursy is the Arabic word for chair

Arsh means throne

The Kursy (chair) is part of the Arsh (throne)

This is your stupidity # 6


Irrelevant; totally irrelevant because throne ?????????????????????¢??Arsh?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? is found in Quran to denote a chair too. Well, I am coming unto it.

AhmedBahgat wrote:
EXACTLY, Yusuf RAISED his parents on the throne, i.e. they climbed up on the throne, it is not like both his parents will sit on the one chair on the throne, looks like you slam dunked yourself


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?

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Well, the translation above is flawed, here is what it should be according to Free Islam:

And he raised his parents upon the throne and they fell before him prostrating, and he (Yusuf) said: O my father! This is the interpretation of my vision of before; certainly my Lord has made it true; and certainly He was kind with me when He took me out from the prison and brought you from the desert after the Shaitan had induced between me and my brothers, indeed, my Lord is Subtle to whom He wills; indeed, He is the all-Knowing, the all-Wise.

<snip>

-> See: وَرَفَعَ أَبَوَيْهِ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ , Wa Rafaa Abawayhi Ala Alarsh, And he raised his parents upon the throne , and while they are there: وَخَرُّوا لَهُ سُجَّدًا , Wa Kharro Lahu Sujudda, i.e. and they fell before him prostrating, , i.e. they were not sitting on any chairs, rather raised to the throne level (AS ANY THRONE IS RAISED UP), and while they are there, they prostrated to him.

You confirmed yourself slam

This is your stupidity # 7


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.

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Your ignorance is highlighted in points:

1) the Quran never said that Allah is seated over a throne
2) Yusuf did not PLACE his parents over the throne RATHER he raised them over the throne
3) Arsh in Arabic can not mean Throne, Chair, rather Throne alone
4) Kursy in Arabic means Chair
[/color]
This is your stupidity # 8


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?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦,


- Sun 23 Nov, 2008 10:07 pm
Post subject:
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.


Well, you actually reminded me with a very technical issue in the Arabic language regarding the word istawa, this is documented between myself and All_Brains on his web site a few months back

There are two devices that may come after the verb istawa

Istawa Ila = Direct an atnetion to

Istawa Ala = Established over

Some people may take the second one, Istawa Ala as seated on, which has to be wrong because seated means Qaeidoon, which is used many times in the Quran

Therefore if we read in any verse, Allah Istawa Ila, then it must mean Allah directed His attention to

If we read istawa Ala, then it must mean, Established over

In 23:28, it is Istawa Ala, i.e. Noah and his people were esatablished on the ship, i.e. embarked the ship, ie they are ridding the ship, in no way it means that they were seated on the ship,

in the second verse 43:13, it is the same meaning as 43:12, you can even see that the ship is mentioned in 23:27, i.e. istawa Ala means to ride, again it can never mean to sit down, or be seated

however if you say that most people while riding something, they are most likely will be seated, i say fine, but with many also they may not be seated, that is why we can not take Astawa Ala as seated on

*Note*, this means that my translation to some verses are wrong which will be recified when I go over the draft again
- Sun 23 Nov, 2008 10:30 pm
Post subject:
Kafir Nosubmission of FFI made me aware of a mistake that I have done, the mistake has been rectified, here is the proper translation to 13:2

Allah is He Who lifted the heavens without any pillars that you see, then He established Himself over the throne, and He has subjected the sun and the moon (so) each runs to an appointed time; He regulates the affair, He explains the signs that you may be of the meeting your Lord assured.
[Al Quran ; 13:2]

اللَّهُ الَّذِي رَفَعَ السَّمَاوَاتِ بِغَيْرِ عَمَدٍ تَرَوْنَهَا ۖ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ ۖ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ ۖ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ۚ يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ يُفَصِّلُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ بِلِقَاءِ رَبِّكُمْ تُوقِنُونَ (2)


Here is Yusuf Ali translation:

YUSUFALI: Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; is firmly established on the throne (of authority); He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed. He doth regulate all affairs, explaining the signs in detail, that ye may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord.
- Thu 27 Nov, 2008 6:54 am
Post subject:
Salam Bro Watawasu

Look mate, the so called Tafsirs of al Quran by all such confused people was another fame game that all these people were playing, they just copied each other because they lack any atom weight of intellect to work it out themselves, exactly like the goons of FFI who copy those Mufasiroon crap while as well do not have an atom weight of intellect to realize their confusion

Let me now show you and show every goon on FFI, how they and their fellow confused Mufasiroon are LOGICALLY wrong, this is going to be another mother of all slams BTW

Those Mufasiroon are basing their tafsir to 65:4 on the fake crap of hadith b y Bukhari and others in which the so called Aysha claimed that the prophet married her at 6 and consumed his marriage when she was 9, which means that he had to wait for her period, THERE IS NO OTHER LOGICAL REASON but that, because if she did not have their period at 6 why wait till 9 to consume the marriage.

Let?????????????????????¢??s now assume for argument sake that such alleged hadith by the so called Aysha is true, this means that from the age of 6 till the age of 9, the prophet did not have sex with her, this also means that when he had sex with her she at least had her period ONCE, let?????????????????????¢??s now assume that the prophet divorced her before she was 9 and before she reached her first period, i.e. SHE NEVER HAD HER PERIOD before divorce, i.e. THE PROPHET NEVER HAD SEX WITH HER before the assumed divorce, in this case Aysha can not have Iddah of three months, rather NO IDDAH whatsoever, let?????????????????????¢??s look at the following verse:

O you who believe! when you marry the believing women, then you divorce them before you touch them, you have in their case no term which you should reckon; so make some provision for them and send them forth a goodly sending forth.
[The Quran ; 33:49]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نَكَحْتُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ ثُمَّ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ فَمَا لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ عِدَّةٍ تَعْتَدُّونَهَا ۖ فَمَتِّعُوهُنَّ وَسَرِّحُوهُنَّ سَرَاحًا جَمِيلًا (49)

-> See what the verse clearly tells: ثُمَّ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ فَمَا لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ عِدَّةٍ تَعْتَدُّونَهَا , i.e. then you divorce them before you touch them, you have in their case no term which you should reckon , should have been very clear for the dumb and ignorant Mufasiroon, and their fellow FFI goons, that is if they bloody use just a tiny part of their brains, but it seems they have no brains at all to even use part of it, now let?????????????????????¢??s look at 65:4 again and it should be clear that all those Mufasiroon and their fellow FFI goons are a bunch of confused freaks who should never talk Quran because simply they could not understand it:

And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not their menstruation; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair.
[The Quran ; 65:4]

وَاللَّائِي يَئِسْنَ مِنَ الْمَحِيضِ مِنْ نِسَائِكُمْ إِنِ ارْتَبْتُمْ فَعِدَّتُهُنَّ ثَلَاثَةُ أَشْهُرٍ وَاللَّائِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ ۚ وَأُولَاتُ الْأَحْمَالِ أَجَلُهُنَّ أَنْ يَضَعْنَ حَمْلَهُنَّ ۚ وَمَنْ يَتَّقِ اللَّهَ يَجْعَلْ لَهُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ يُسْرًا (4)

-> The verse above is telling us the the Iddah of some type of wives should be 3 months, one of these types of wives are: وَاللَّائِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ , i.e. and of those too who have not their menstruation , according to the confused Mufasiroon and the FFI goons, this group of wives are those who had never had their menstruation, i.e. children, i.e. like Aysha when she was 6 years old when the prophet married her as alleged by the hearsay hadith, THIS CAN NEVER MAKE SENSE because in such case those young wives never ever reached their menstruation as alleged by the confused Mufasiroon and their fellow FFI goons, which should also mean that their husbands never touched them as the prophet never did with Aysha (as alleged in the hearsay hadith), i.e. THEY HAVE NO IDDAH as 33:49 told us, here it is again: ثُمَّ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ فَمَا لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ عِدَّةٍ تَعْتَدُّونَهَا , i.e. then you divorce them before you touch them, you have in their case no term which you should reckon , but 65:4 clearly tells us that they must have 3 months Iddah, i.e. 65:4 can not be talking about those who have never reached menstruation rather those who ate least reach it once

Here you have it, I just slam dunked all those confused Mufasiroon and their fellow FFI goons, this means that we have another mother of all slams:

- Fri 28 Nov, 2008 7:25 am
Post subject:
Hello brother AhmedBahgat. It's been more than 2 weeks!
Quote:
Thanks for conveying message Ahmed, your friend should really join the forum.

No thanks. I do not accompany haters and bigots.
Quote:
Zoroastrianism is not racist

I said it thrives on Nazi ideologies (A unique religion for a unique race/ethnicity), which is certainly true.
Quote:
yes I would be happy to see the majority of Iranians return to Zoroastrianism, it is the homeland of our Prophet after all,

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.
Quote:
but I don't resent Iranian Bahais or Jews...

But you resent Iranian Muslims?!
Quote:
in fact I empathize with them, especially the Bahais, as all are living together under the restrictions of Sharia law.

They are not living under the restrictions of Sharia law. Sharia law does not have restrictions. IRI is not Islam! They apply traditional Shia rules which at sometimes are worse than the Sunni rules. I try to get this into the head of Zoroastrians but they are too stupid to understand it.
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.

You are the second sensible Zoroastrian I have come across. The rest were racist bigoted arrogant and ignorant scumbags.
Quote:
Anyway, Zoroastriansism does care for non-Aryans, in fact for the world and all its people.

Any religion should care for the whole world. That's the point of religion actually!
Quote:
Windsor made reference to our "stupid scripture", so I'd appreciate a textual reference from him.

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.
- Fri 28 Nov, 2008 7:57 am
Post subject:
Concerning the earlier argument of God having a son with or without a female companion. Here is what I now believe:

"بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُن لَّهُ صَاحِبَةٌ وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ وهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ" (6:106)

بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ = The Originator of the heavens and the earth! It is not consonant that He should have a child

وَلَمْ تَكُن لَّهُ صَاحِبَةٌ = and He never has a female companion

وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ = and He who has created everything

وهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ = and He alone knows everything

The verse does not say that God does not a child because He never has a female companion. It says that God is the Originator of the heavens and earth, and so it is not consonant that He should have a child, and He never has a female companion, and He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything.

It's just 4 complete separate statements.
- Sat 29 Nov, 2008 12:52 am
Post subject:
Islamis_Tashit wrote:
Like I always say, nobody lies and cheats more than Muslims. Nobody. They are the most dishonest people on the planet.



And, O people! Work according to your positions; indeed, I am working; you shall know to whom the torture will come that will disgrace him and who is a liar, and watch, indeed, I am with you a watcher.
[Al Quran ; 11:93]

وَيَا قَوْمِ اعْمَلُوا عَلَىٰ مَكَانَتِكُمْ إِنِّي عَامِلٌ ۖ سَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ مَنْ يَأْتِيهِ عَذَابٌ يُخْزِيهِ وَمَنْ هُوَ كَاذِبٌ ۖ وَارْتَقِبُوا إِنِّي مَعَكُمْ رَقِيبٌ (93)

-> So you accuse the Muslims of being liars, well, this is what I have to tell a punk like you: O people! Work according to your positions; indeed, I am working; you shall know to whom the torture will come that will disgrace him and who is a liar, and watch, indeed, I am with you a watcher.
- Sat 29 Nov, 2008 2:40 am
Post subject:
Quote:
Like I always say, nobody lies and cheats more than Muslims. Nobody. They are the most dishonest people on the planet.

What an amazing comeback! Laughing Laughing And Aksel, Ankersen was wondering why I would not join that site? It's this hate, arrogance and ignorance that I despise and refuse to be a part of, especially that stupid guy with his stupid avatar.
- Sat 29 Nov, 2008 9:53 am
Post subject:
Salam all

One of the confused Christians of FFI posted the following thread http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1167355#1167355 showing the following Youtube movie:


Link


Here is my slam to it:

Hello all,

This is my slam to this idiotic thread: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=59969

sam06usa wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6htjDd5ZgcU&feature=related


Laughing Laughing

What a clear cut dumb bum you are, sam

You listen to such Christian jerk on youtube, hahahahaha

So you reckon that Allah encrypted the message: Al Masih Ilahi, i.e. Christ is my god using the children method that is called ABGAD HAWAZ "adding such numbers to suit anyone's need" WHILE AT THE SAME TIME telling us clearly and without encryption, the following:

Indeed they have disbelieved those who said: Allah is the Messiah, son of Marium. Say: Who then could stop Allah if He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and those on the earth all together? And to Allah is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He desires; and Allah over everything is Capable.
[Al Quran ; 5:17]

لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَآلُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ قُلْ فَمَن يَمْلِكُ مِنَ اللّهِ شَيْئًا إِنْ أَرَادَ أَن يُهْلِكَ الْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَأُمَّهُ وَمَن فِي الأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا وَلِلّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاء وَاللّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ (17)


-> See how clearly it is said , you confused: لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَآلُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ, i.e. Indeed they have disbelieved those who said: Allah is the Messiah, remember what your confused Christian pal claimed on his youtyube video, that the Quran encrypted the message of christ is my god", i.e. according to 5:17 above, your Christian pal HAS DISBELIEVED, i guess you too sam, has disbelieved ACCORDING TO THE QURAN THAT YOU PUNKS ARE USING TO PROVE THE DIVINITY OF JESUS

Well, I have more surprises for you, Dumb and Dumber, again from the book you love that much, the Quran, let's have a look:

Indeed they have disbelieved those who said: Allah is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Certainly whoever associates others with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and for the unjust there shall be no helpers.
[Al Quran ; 5:72]

لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَقَالَ الْمَسِيحُ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ اعْبُدُواْ اللّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ إِنَّهُ مَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللّهِ فَقَدْ حَرَّمَ اللّهُ عَلَيهِ الْجَنَّةَ وَمَأْوَاهُ النَّارُ وَمَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ مِنْ أَنصَارٍ (72)
-> LOL, see again you bunch of confused idiots bound to hell: لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ, i.e. Indeed they have disbelieved those who said: Allah is the Messiah, i.e. for the second UN-ENCRYPTED time, we are told ACCORDING TO THE QURAN, that the two idiot Christians sam and his mentor the youtube jerk, that both have disbelieved, i.e. both are heading on their highway to hell, enjoy the ride, punks

-> Can you see what Christ also said in the verse: وَقَالَ الْمَسِيحُ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ اعْبُدُواْ اللّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ, i.e. and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord., hahahaha, will you obey the words of Christ as stated clearly in the Quran your book of evidences, you bunch of conmen bound to eternal hell? Well I am not cursing you with hell, this is what Christ is telling you above in the same verse from your book of evidences The Quran, see, you jerks: he Messiah said: O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Certainly whoever associates others with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and for the unjust there shall be no helpers., WHAT A SHOWTIME IT WILL BE.

Well, I am not done yet, freaks, I have more in my Quran bag, for both of ya, and according to the Quran, your book of proofs, Christ himself clearly and without any of your Barbie encryption was flagged as a slave of God, let's have a look:

The Messiah will never disdain that he should be a slave to Allah, nor do the angels near (to Him), and whoever disdains His worship and is arrogant, then He will gather them to Him all together.
[Al Quran ; 4:172]

لَّن يَسْتَنكِفَ الْمَسِيحُ أَن يَكُونَ عَبْداً لِّلّهِ وَلاَ الْمَلآئِكَةُ الْمُقَرَّبُونَ وَمَن يَسْتَنكِفْ عَنْ عِبَادَتِهِ وَيَسْتَكْبِرْ فَسَيَحْشُرُهُمْ إِلَيهِ جَمِيعًا (172)

-> See, idiots: لَّن يَسْتَنكِفَ الْمَسِيحُ أَن يَكُونَ عَبْداً لِّلّهِ, The Messiah will never disdain that he should be a slave to Allah, you must be so embarassed by now.

No wonder you see the conman Apple Pie aka Chicken Lies of FFI, rushing to cheer these idiotic threads that only make FFI look stupid and jerky source of information, on the other hands you do not see any of the double faced kafirs who are portraying themselves as smart goons, like HM, Ixolite, swordoftruth, nosubmission, tashit, etc etc, coming to expose the stupidity of such freaks who only give bad image to FFI, well, let me show you then another verse from my Quran bag:

The Messiah, son of Marium is only a messenger; indeed messengers before him have passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat the food. See how We explain to them the signs then see how they are deluded.
[Al Quran ; 5:75]

مَّا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدِّيقَةٌ كَانَا يَأْكُلاَنِ الطَّعَامَ انظُرْ كَيْفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الآيَاتِ ثُمَّ انظُرْ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ (75)

-> How clear is that for the Dumb Bums? Or possibly the Dumb Bums can only understand encrypted messages, well, they may try to understand the following unencrypted message: مَّا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ, i.e. The Messiah, son of Marium is only a messenger;, ironically the confused Christians ignore the following simple fact about Christ an his mother: they both used to eat the food does not sound like a god, hey, this is how Allah is CLEARLY explaining to us the truth about Jesus: See how We explain to them the signs then see how they are deluded., looks like this verse is talking about sam, chicken lies and the youttube jerk, yes THEY MUST BE DELUDED, what an amazing accuracy by the Quran, I AM SURE THAT EVERY SANE KAFIR ON FFI CAN SEE HOW DELUDED SUCH 3 FREAKS ARE.

Well, do you think I am done?, think not, I still have one more verse in my Quran bag, it actually gives us an amazingly accurate overview to the whole things involved, the lettered verses, what the youtube jerk is doing, and what his confused and manipulated pal, sam, along with the conman resident of FFI, chicken lies are ding, as well what the Muslims should do when they hear such crap:

It is He Who has sent down the Book to you; some of it are decisive signs, they are the mother of the Book, and others are allegorical; but for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow what is allegorical from it, seeking the discord, and seeking its interpretation, but none knows its interpretation except Allah. And those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believed in it, it is all from our Lord; and none remembers but the people who posses minds.

هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ (7)

[The Quran ; 3:7]

Let me walk you through this amazing verse, bit by bit:

-> هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ, It is He Who has sent down the Book to you; , The Quran is referred to in this bit as Al Kitab, i.e. Al Quran was sent down to Mohammad by Allah.

-> مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ, some of it are decisive signs, they are the mother of the Book,, Allah is saying to Mohammad and anyone who will read the Quran, that in this book there are verses basics or fundamental of established meaning (decisive signs) those decisive verses were also described as Umma Al Kitab, i.e. the mother of the Book literally, or the foundation of the book logically, therefore the context suggest to the believers that the decisive verses are the ones that they should follow, what about the rest of the Quran then?, in the next bit we read about it:

-> وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ, and others are allegorical;, here is the rest of the Quran, the other portion of the Quran verses are Mutashabihat, i.e. allegorical, i.e. hard to understand, i.e. confusing because it can have more than one meaning, this is not coincidence, it is part of the plan as Allah has told us that He included those allegorical verses in the Quran, now, it is about time to ask why He did that? We don?????????????????????¢??t need to look any where, we only need to continue reading the verse:

-> فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ, but for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow what is allegorical from it, seeking the discord, and seeking its interpretation,, the mighty plan objective is revealed, those deliberately inserted allegorical verses like the lettered verses which can never be understood, are there to expose those in whose hearts is perversity believers or not, it applies to all,, the three Christian jerks, sam chicken lies and the yourtube jerk are an example of such kafirs whose hearts are ill and trying to explain the unexplainable to spread discord between the believers, the Rashad Khalifa cult followers, are another example of so called believers who also try to explain the unexplainable, these two groups of the opposite spectrums, in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings. HOW ACCURATE THE QURAN IS, AMAZING

There is a very important hint in here, for those seeking discord, in which community there are seeking such discord?, it has to be within the believers community, therefore we have a double test in hand, a test for the unbelievers to see if they will seek discord by speculating the different meanings of those Mutashabihat verses, and another test for the believers to expose who will follow that discord, it can also be considered a test to the unbelievers who don?????????????????????¢??t search for the meanings of these verses neither seek discord between the believers, it will be a test for them exactly like the believers to see if they will follow that discord or not. This is awesome planning, it may sound not fair at the first glance, but if we consider the following, I guess it has to be fair:

In this life, this is how a tester creates a test, he/she includes in the test a bit of tricky questions, he/she never tell us what sort of tricks it will be included though, and yet the process is fair and square to all, in the case of this life test, The Tester Allah has told us in advance what the trick is which is in 3:7, THIS IS FAIRNESS AT ITS MAX, WHAT IS STRIKING THAT, MANY STILL LISTEN TO THAT DISCORD THEN FOLLOW IT AS WE SEE ON 19.org WEB SITE AND ON MANY OTHER WEB SITES. The fact of the matter as stated in the verse regarding such Mutashabihat verses is stated in the same verse as follow:

-> وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ, and none knows its interpretation except Allah., here is the denial that NO ONE WILL KNOW THE MEANING EXCEPT ALLAH. The real believers are those who are well established in the knowedge about Allah, will only have one action to do when faced with such Mutashabihat verse:

-> وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا, And those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believed in it, it is all from our Lord;, i.e. those who are well established in the knowledge about Allah should never chase the meaning of such Mutashabihat verses, that is why those Muslims who added the note that Allah only knows the meaning of these lettered verses, ARE 100% right. I am 100% sure, when those three jerks read my refute to their crap, they will insist on their crap, this is because they have no brains, only those with brains are going to be the ones to remember, and this is how 3:7 ended:

-> وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ?????????????????????¢??????????????????????, and none remembers but the people who posses minds..

Clear from the above that Allah deliberately inserted Mutashabihat verses to test all of us and He told us in advance about the trick and it is clear that the verse can?????????????????????¢??t be Mutashabihat because every bit in it is clearly understood and makes great sense within the whole Quran context, the trick outcome as told to us is simply, some will try to search for its meanings seeking discord, others will listen to that discord and the true believers in Allah will just take it as from Allah without searching into its Mutashabihat meanings and they just accept both Mutashabihat and Muhkamat verses as from Allah

Here you have it, another 3 confused Christian freaks are slammed really hard.

# 33
- Mon 01 Dec, 2008 7:11 am
Post subject:
Salam All

One of the confused kafirs on FFI raised the following thread:

sum of FFI said:

The subject of stoning has been discussed already and it was shown that Muhammad was a "stoner". He threw stones at those buried up to their necks.

Does anyone know who, in this day and age, throws the stones? Is it a special squad who are trained in stoning like the beheader in Saudi Arabia? Is it people who are conscripted to the task of stoning? Or is it just volunteers?

Is there a stockpile of stones ready for use or do the people wander about looking for the right type of stone?

This is real Islam and we need to let as many people as possible be aware of the brutality of Islam. It is real and it is now. No muslim that I know condemns stoning and wants it banned worldwide because it is barbaric. This is almost certainly because to condemn stoning would be to condemn Muhammad. Not wise.

Any answers?

sum
------------------------------

The problem in here, that Stonning as a punishment is never found in the Quran, it is actually found in te man made corrupt Bible, let's have a look:

Here we go doccy

Stonning/killing is in the man made Bible not the Quran:


12.10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
[Deuteronomy ; 12:10]


17.2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman who hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God in transgressing His covenant,
17.3 and hath gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded,
17.4 and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it and inquired diligently, and behold, it be true and the thing certain that such abomination is wrought in Israel,
17.5 then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman who has committed that wicked thing unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die.
17.6 At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is worthy of death be put to death, but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
[Deuteronomy ; 17:2-6]

Stonning to death punishment for disobidient sons.

21.21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, so that he die. So shalt thou put evil away from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.
[Deuteronomy ; 21:21]

Stonning to death punishment for non virgin women.

22.20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel, (unmarried women)
22.21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father?????????????????????¢??s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father?????????????????????¢??s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22.22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman; so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
22.23 If a damsel who is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her,
22.24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones, that they die ?????????????????????¢?? the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man,because he hath humbled his neighbor?????????????????????¢??s wife; so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
[Deuteronomy ; 22:20-24]

Here you have it Doccy, if you have a problem with some confused Muslim countries applying stonning, then you may ask such confused people, why they are ruling with corrupted scriptures, that they themselves (the Muslims) accept that such man made book called Bible is corrupted?

Another confused kafir bites the dust after being slammed

# 34
- Mon 01 Dec, 2008 7:16 am
Post subject:
Salam bro Windsor

Here is a reply from Aksel to your comment:

Aksel of FFI said:

I thought Windsor should join forum as it saves Mr Bahgat from acting as messenger and keep interrupting his show with our off topic chat.

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.

It's not true, and you are making no sense, how does a religion that predates Christianity thrive upon the racial theories of 20th century Nazis? It thrived for thousands of years without them.

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.

My name Aksel Ankersen might have told you that I'm of Scandinavian descent (a recent convert) and therefore your argument is foolish. You have not given me one example of how Zoroastrians are stupid or our religion is primitive, inspite of claiming it repeatedly. I would be happy to see Zoroastrianism bloom again in Iran, that's where the Prophet started his mission therefore it's a logical centre for Zoroastrianism. If the government of Iran made conversion out of Islam legal for even a week you would see it happeneing.

Windsor, a few pages back wrote:
And I thought Christians were the dumbest among the religious adherents!


Your attitude is annoying indeed; you make offensive and mindless sweeping generalisations about other religions and their followers and yet whine about us "bigots" and our hate site when we put your religion, in it's turn, under the magnifying glass.

Zoroastrians who mix race and religion are certainly putting their national pride ahead of the actual teachings of Zoroastrianism. the religion always has emphasized right mentality and actions, one's racial background is irrelevant:

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.

You think the concept of truth versus falsehood and righteousness versus sin is laughable? That's what Asha and Druj mean. yes, I would like a specific reference as to what Zoroaster taught that you think stupid. Please.

-Aksel
- Mon 01 Dec, 2008 12:14 pm
Post subject:
Salam All

One of the confused Christians on FFI, was so pissed that I posted the OT passages above, which clearly show the Bible is so high in ordering the killing of people when they commit the slightest of crimes, like disobeying the parents for example [Deuteronomy ; 21:21], and even for no crime at all, as we have seen that the Bible orders to CHOP OFF the hands of an innocent woman whose only crime was to save her husband who was beaten hard by another man, so she decided to grab him by the balls, a noble act by a smart woman to save her husband, yet the Bible orders to CHOP OFF her hands, this crap is detailed in [Deuteronomy 25:11-12 ]

Therefore, let?????????????????????¢??s see what he has to say:

Nosubmission wrote:
Dear Ahmad, you are full of gas tonight.


Hello

Is that some sort of humor or a complement?

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.


Copied it to where exactly, to the Quran or to your man made hearsay hadith?

Well, If in the Quran, then you are wrong and confused because the Quran is not man made, i.e. it could not be authored by my pagan drunk scribes fell in love with the supposedly man-made book of the Jews

If it is the second, i.e. they copied the Jews crap into their man made hearsay hadith, then you are 100% right,

Nosubmission wrote:
I hope you will not discard the following verses in your scripture as remnants of the satanic revelation:


Well, I will make your hopes come true by replying to the Quran verses you posted, however your hope that the Quran contains satanic revelation as the Jews corrupt scripture does, is hopeless

Nosubmission wrote:
Mohammad's scribes said that it was a wise thing to kill youngsters to protect their parents:


Funny indeed, well, for a started, you can not say Mohammed?????????????????????¢??s scribes unless you nominate names for me, like when I say Luke, Matthew, John and Mark scribes, other than that, your BS of using the words Mohammed?????????????????????¢??s Scribes will be totally rejected.

Secondly, we are talking about COMMANDS from the God, you drunk, we are not talking about stories that just happened between some individuals and others, in fact the following verses you posted will clearly shows how confused ignorant and dumb you are:

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 ?


Well, that was not a command from Allah for the rest of humanity to do, that was only a command to one of Allah prophets to do with such specific case, Moses was even warned against asking why such prophet did so.

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.


Again, it was an incident that happened and never a command from Allah for the rest of humanity to do you confused, let?????????????????????¢??s see how the command is stated by your god in your corrupt OT:

18: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20: And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21: And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
22: And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
23: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
[ Deuteronomy ; 21:18-23]

-> See you confused, how it is A COMMAND FOR ALL THE PEOPLE TO DO: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them, HOW CLEAR, then: shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;, a command for all mothers and fathers to do so for any rebellious son, then: they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard., i.e. the command of the God for every mother and father when dealing with a glutton, drunkard and rebellious son included humiliating the son in front of every one in the city: And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. , see you dumb, NOT ONLY HIS PARENTS THAT SHOULD STONE HIM RATHER THE WHOLE TOWN MUST DO SO, the Bible is so high on horrifying scenes that the chapter ended up by telling us: : And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: and His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. , CAN YOU SEE MISTER COFUSED CHRISTIAN HOW IT IS A COMMAND FOR THE GOD OF YOUR CORRUPT SCRIPTURES?

Now compare the above COMMANDS with the story of Moses and the prophet whom he accompanied, IT WAS NEVER A COMMAND FOR THE BELIEVERS IN INHERIT AND IMPLEMENT YOU DESPERATE CHRISTIAN

That should be a slam btw but it is not worthy to add to my show

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.


How confused and desperate you are, the following verse is not in anyway stating the punishment of the disbelievers, HAHAHAHA, the verse below is stating the punishment for a certain type of people, let me bring my translation as this verse draft was done by FI:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that, they should be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides or they should be expelled from the land; this is for them a disgrace in this world, and for them in the hereafter a great torture.
[Al Quran ; 5:33]

إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ أَوْ يُنْفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا ۖ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ (33)


-> Firstly, I agree totally that the above is a command from Allah for all the believers to follow, however the verse above is talking about two crimes:

1) A specific crime which is: those who wage war against Allah and His messenger which does not mean an disbeliever in general you confused, rather a disbeliever who wage war against Allah and His messenger, i.e. the punishment can not be applied to a disbeliever who DOES NOT wage war against Allah and His messenger

2) A general crime which is : and strive to make mischief in the land , now striving to make mischief in the land can be a lot of things, for example terror attacks has to be covered under mischief in the land, i.e. we are talking about ill criminals who strive to cause mischief in the land, rape and armed robbery can be other examples of causing mischief in the land

Now, the verse above is so accurate that it is giving us FOUR possible punishments:

1) they should be killed

OR

2) crucified

OR

3) their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides

OR

4) be expelled from the land ,

How wise from the verse, we are dealing with criminals who wage war on Allah and His messenger or other criminals who strive to cause mischief in the land, yet we are given 4 possible punishments to select one that fits the level of their crime, YOU CAN NEVER SEE SUCH DETAILS IN THE CORRUPT BIBLE, IT ALWAYS SHOWS NO PITY for the criminals or even non criminals like the brave wife who committed no crime. In the Quran verse above we have option 4 which can also mean put in prison, because you can not expel a native to any country from such country unless another country accepts him/her. So in the case of no country accepting such criminal to move there, there will be no other option but to jail such criminal in his own country (land), which also means expelled from the land because he is forced to live within a confined place.

The above means, even for those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and for those who strive to cause mischief in the land, we may use punishment # 4 from the menu of punishments above, THIS IS OBVIOUS FROM THE QURAN TEXT OF: this OR this OR this OR this . Yet the Quran allows for no punishment at all for the above criminals if they repent before the punishment is executed, this was stated clearly in the next verse, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look:

Except those who repent before you overcome them; therefore know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 5:34]

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَقْدِرُوا عَلَيْهِمْ ۖ فَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (34)

-> See how clear it is, you confused Christian: Except those who repent before you overcome them, i.e. before the punishment is executed, this is because therefore know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

The Quran has humiliated you no-submission, really bad, this is an obvious slam and must be added to my slam dunk show

# 35
- Tue 02 Dec, 2008 10:52 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

This is my next impressive slam dunk:

tawasaubilhaq wrote:
That is a very good, sweet and short explanation, AhmedBahgat. I would have done almost similar.


No worries mate, however I decided to elaborate on 24:33 to leave no room for the manipulators to play with. do not forget that they admitted that this is what they do, manipulate the Quran verses.

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.


Well, A woman who is rapped, has committed no sin for it to be forgiven, the whole notion of forgiving a rapped woman is flawed and certainly is not what Allah is talking about in 24:33

tawasaubilhaq wrote:
However, a girl who then continues to make it her profession, then she will not be forgiven.


Now, we are talking about a prostitute, who is committing Baghaa (prostitution), i.e. she is committing Zina, i.e. she is having sex outside what is allowed for her in the Quran, which is also described as Fahisha (indecency), and as we should all know that committing Fahisha is Haram, i.e. Prostitution which is Zina which is Baghaa which is Fahisha is Haram:

And go not nigh to fornication; surely it is an indecency and an evil way.
[The Quran ; 17:32]

وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَا ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا (32)

-> I am using Shakir translation for now as I have not started sura 17 translation yet, it is the one to be done next inshaallah, as we can clearly read that the true believers should not come near Zina: وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَا , i.e. And go not nigh to fornication, I believe that to translate the word Zina as Fornication or Adultery may be misleading, this is because I believe that Fornication or Adultery in English most likely mean that a married man or a married woman had sex with others outside the wedlock, while the fact of the matter that the Arabic word Zina does not only cover married men and married woman who have sex outside the wedlock, rather it also covers unmarried men and unmarried women who have sex outsider the wedlock, in fact if you look at what Al Mushrikoon from the Muslims do when they punish an adulterer is to first see if such person is married or not married as they believe that everyone of them has a different punishment according to their Shirk., the problem in translating the word Zina is this, it is commonly acceptable in the English speaking countries to have sex outside the wedlock as long as you are not married, i.e. it is acceptable moral to do so, therefore you can not really find an accurate word in English to interpret the Arabic word Zina, possibly there is a word to do the job which I am still in the look for and will keep asking some professional English speakers to guide me to such word. Anyway, you, me and everyone on this web site must agree that the Arabic word Zina covers married/unmarried men and women who have sex outside what is legally allowed in the Quran.

Also, the words: And go not nigh to fornication does not conclusively mean that Zina is Haram literally, however the act of Zina was described next as: إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا, i.e. surely it is an indecency and an evil way, clearly Zina is described as Fahisha, and because we read in the following verse that Allah has prohibited Al Fawahish (the Plural of Fahisha), i.e. Allah has prohibited indecencies, then Zina must be Haram according to Allah:

Say: Indeed My Lord has prohibited the indecencies, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, and the sin and the trespasses without justice, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say against Allah what you do not know.
[Al Quran ; 7:33]

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)

-> See: قُلْ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّيَ الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ, i.e. Say: Indeed My Lord has prohibited the indecencies, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, not just Al Fawahish are prohibited but any apparent or concealed one is prohibited, this clearly means that Zina is prohibited, i.e. having sex outside what is allowed in the Quran is prohibited.

In addition to the above, in sura 24, we read clearly that the Zani/Zania may only marry Zani/Zania or Mushrik/Mushrikah, but on the other hand a believer should never marry a Zani or a Zania, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look, again I will use Shakir tranlsation:

The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.
[Al Quran ; 24:3]

الزَّانِي لَا يَنْكِحُ إِلَّا زَانِيَةً أَوْ مُشْرِكَةً وَالزَّانِيَةُ لَا يَنْكِحُهَا إِلَّا زَانٍ أَوْ مُشْرِكٌ ۚ وَحُرِّمَ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (3)

-> See how clear it is, not just Zina is Haram but Zina is Haram as well marrying a Zani or a Zania is haram for any believer, see how it is said: The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.

I will take the chance to expose the ignorance of the two life dismissals HM and Cassandra regarding the Arabic word Farg, as further down in the same sura 24, Allah has commanded the believing men and the believing women to do a couple of things, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look:

30- Say to the believing men that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts; that is purer for them; surely Allah is Aware of what they do.

31- And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! so that you may be successful.
[Al Quran ; 24:30-31]


قُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَغُضُّوا مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِمْ وَيَحْفَظُوا فُرُوجَهُمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَزْكَىٰ لَهُمْ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا يَصْنَعُونَ (30)
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)

-> In verse 24:30, can you see what the believing men are commanded to do: قُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَغُضُّوا مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِمْ وَيَحْفَظُوا فُرُوجَهُمْ , Say to the believing men that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts , see the word فُرُوجَهُمْ , Furjahum which is a masculine plural, i.e. their (the men) private parts, if the word means Vaginas, then the verse above is talking about men with vaginas, hahahahah, the freak and confused enemy of Islam, dumb and dumber aka HM and Cassie, have been exposed, therefore the word Farg, is a generic word that means the parts of the human body that should not be exposed (private) according to the Quran, with men, it has to be at least their dicks, their balls and their bums.

-> Now, in verse 24:31 we read the same things and more that are commanded to do by the believing women: وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ , And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts , see the word فُرُوجَهُنَّ , Furjahunna, which is feminine plural, i.e. their (the women) private parts, which again is a generic word that means the parts of the human body that should not be exposed according to the Quran, with the women, it has to be at least their vaginas, their bums and their boobs. In fact the same verse has told us what the believing woman should expose: and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; can you see how detailed the commands are for the believing women to what they should expose and to whom. It really implies one thing, that the women bodies should be respected and the women themselves should work to gain such respect to their own bodies, unlike those ignorant women in all societies who enjoy showing the humps and bumps in their bodies so they expose it to strangers with no shame

Now, before I move on to the verse in question 24:33 to reply to the stupid allegation by some ignorant kafirs who strive to destroy the religion of Islam with manipulations AS THEY ADMITTED THEMSELVES, that Allah may forgive the pimps who force chaste women into prostitution against the women desire, I could not skip verse 24:32, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look, again I will use Shakir translation for now despite it is not 100% accurate:

And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.
[Al Quran ; 24:32]

وَأَنْكِحُوا الْأَيَامَىٰ مِنْكُمْ وَالصَّالِحِينَ مِنْ عِبَادِكُمْ وَإِمَائِكُمْ ۚ إِنْ يَكُونُوا فُقَرَاءَ يُغْنِهِمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ (32)

-> Can you see the great teaching of the Quran, this is morality at its maximum, the verse commands the believing men and the believing women to marry the slaves from the women and the salves from the men if they are pious because those slaves are poor: And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing. , Shakir ignorantly translated the word Saliheen as fit, which is totally wrong, the word should be translated to pious, i.e. And marry those among you who are single and those who are pious among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, see how great the teaching of the Quran is, this is what the ignorant Kafirs can not see while it is so obvious for a child, certainly this must confirm the veil that is set upon their eyes, another undeniable fact regarding the accuracy of the Quran in describing what we see around us at any moment of time.

What the Kafirs want to only see from the whole sura is verse 24:33, and not just that, they think that they found a bit of room to manipulate to serve their own retarded desire, this is actually another impressive fact about the Quran that I have witnessed so many times in so many years, the Arabic words are put in a way to confuse the Kafirs further, another undeniable fact regarding the accuracy of the Quran when it told us many times that the Kafirs will not understand the Quran. Let?????????????????????¢??s study the stupid allegation by some ignorant kafirs who strive to destroy the religion of Islam with manipulations AS THEY ADMITTED THEMSELVES, they allege that Allah will forgive the pimps who force chaste women into prostitution against the women desire:

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; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 24:33]

وَلْيَسْتَعْفِفِ الَّذِينَ لَا يَجِدُونَ نِكَاحًا حَتَّىٰ يُغْنِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا ۖ وَآتُوهُمْ مِنْ مَالِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي آتَاكُمْ ۚ وَلَا تُكْرِهُوا فَتَيَاتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَاءِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّنًا لِتَبْتَغُوا عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۚ وَمَنْ يُكْرِهْهُنَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (33)

-> Verse 24:33 contains a lot of commands, firstly for those who can not afford the cost of marriage: And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. , certainly pimping can not be of any chaste. The verse then moved on to talk about another command which is when marrying from Ma Malakat Aymanikum: 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, , the writing is the marriage certificate (Al kitab), i.e. they should seek marriage from Ma Malakat Aymanikum, you know all, that I disagree to how Shakir translated Ma Malakat Aymanikum, as I believe it should mean what your OATHS posses, however I will just keep it as is for now, however you can see how confused he is, in the previous verse 24:32 Allah was talking about marrying from the slaves for bith the men and the women using the words: عِبَادِكُمْ وَإِمَائِكُمْ , Ibadakum Wa Imaakum, i.e. the male slaves and the female slaves, the singular od each word is Abd and Ammah, i.e. a male slave, and a female slave, therefore Ma Malakat Aymanikum in this verse can not mean slaves, however let?????????????????????¢??s assume for argument sake that it means slaves, we read in the verse that the believers are encouraged to marry from them and they should also: and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; , how great the teachings of this great book so far. In the mind of the retarded kafirs all these great teachings will take a sharp turn all of a sudden into the world of immorality and pimping, how retraded those filthy kafirs are, the next bit in the verse is yet another command that is dealing with a very common problem from so early days of the human existence on earth, it is the abuse of the weak women by some retarded thugs, simply they use the insecurity and weakness of many young women and force them into prostitution, a common trade in all generations, obviously the thugs are making a lot of money through them, while they give them peanuts at the end of the day, many women had no choice from the beginning and just been raised to be prostitutes, and many other who accepted it first then when they started to realize how dark, filthy and insecure it is, they try to bail out, yet many can not, threats against bailing out is part of the contract, and certainly many women of those innocent victims are killed, in fact just less than 3 weeks ago, they found in Sydney two Chinese prostitutes slaughtered (their necks was severed) in their apartment, horrifying, this is a very common business venture in Australia, they bring many Asian women to Australia with a fake promise of great work and study then they force them into prostitution, here is what I found about such crime:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24655020-26103,00.html

Later on, they discovered that they were working as prostitutes, they yet to find the killers but the police are guessing that they were killed by their pimps. No one of you can not deny this fact about many women who refuse from the beginning to be prostitutes or accept then try to bail out later, that they are forced into prostitution by men and even by women, verse 24:33 is not dealing with the pimping sin, the sin is clearly part of a Zina ring, i.e. a prostitution ring, i.e. Fahisha ring, i.e. pimping is Haram and the pimps are not really forced into pimping, they rather force others to work for them. The verse is dealing with what Allah will do with those innocent women who desire to be chaste yet they are forced into prostitution against their desires: وَلَا تُكْرِهُوا فَتَيَاتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَاءِ , and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution,, firstly, Shakir faulted big times in here, the Arabic word Fatayatakum can not mean your slave girls, this is just so stupid by him, it is like the women mentioned in 24:31 are the slaves, and in 24:32 are the slaves and in 24:33 are also the slaves, well the word Fatayatakum only means your young women, i.e. the men or women should not force their young women into prostitution, i.e. the men or women should not force their young women into Zina, i.e. the men or women should not force their young women into Fahisha, that is, if the young women desire to be chaste: إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّنًا , when they desire to keep chaste,, obviously the verse can not be talking about forcing those women who desire not to be chaste, because they need no force, they are happy with it.

Remember when I told you that those pimps take most of what those women do while giving them peanuts, why they do so you reckon?, well the next bit is the exact answer: لِتَبْتَغُوا عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۚ , in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; , i.e. they want to make money by any means even if haram.

Here we reach the most important part, the part which the kafir enemy of Islam manipulate to serve their own retarded desires: وَمَنْ يُكْرِهْهُنَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ , Wa Mn Yukrihihunna Fa Inn Allah Min Baad IKRAHIHINNA Ghafour Rahim, i.e. and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. . Now, an important question should be raised: who are the ones who will be forgiven:

1) Is it the pimps who forced their young women into prostitution while the young women desire to be chaste?
OR
2) Is it the young women who were forced into prostititution while they desire to be chaste?
OR
3) Is it 1 and 2 together, i.e. the pimps and the young women will be forgiven?

The answer to such question that is confusing the hell out of the already confused kafirs is really simple for anyone who knows a a biit of logic and/or a bit of Arabic grammar, but the Muslims should know well that in such department all the goons of FFI are a bunch of losers, let me prove to you that they are indeed losers even if they know no Arabic grammar:

Logically speaking, if possibility # 1 or possibility # 2 is invalid, it means that possibility # 3 is invalid automatically. i.e. let?????????????????????¢??s concentrate on possibility # 1 and # 2 first:

1) Is it the pimps who forced their young women into prostitution while the young women desire to be chaste?

This possibility can never be valid for two reasons, a logical reason and a grammar reason:

A- The logical reason:

The pimps are already doing Fahisha which is running a Zina ring, i.e. something that is Haram, now, it makes no sense to any sane human that committing further mischief in the land by forcing their young women into their Zina ring while the young women desire to be chaste, that the pimps?????????????????????¢?? fahisha and their second crime against the young women will be forgiven, only the retarded kafir enemy of Islam have the mentality to think so.

B- The grammar reason:

If the verse mean to forgive the crime of the pimps which is forcing their young women into prostitution then this is how the Arabic words SHOULD have been stated:

وَمَنْ يُكْرِهْهُنَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهكْمَِ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ , Wa Mn Yukrihihunna Fa Inn Allah Min Baad IKRAHIKUM Ghafour Rahim, i.e. and whoever compels them, then surely after your compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. , the highlighted red word إِكْرَاهكْمَِ , IKRAHIKUM, i.e. YOUR compulsion must be masculine plural direct speech because the order was a direct speech (Do not force), because we are talking about compulsion that is most likely committed by men, and even if by men and women, then under the Arabic grammar, masculine plural must be used for a group of males and females, the bottom line is this the compulsion must be referring to its committers if that compulsion is the one to be forgiven. and in this case it has to be the compulsion of the pimps using the damir KUM to relate it to the pimps.

Let?????????????????????¢??s now see what the real words used in the verse:

وَمَنْ يُكْرِهْهُنَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ , Wa Mn Yukrihihunna Fa Inn Allah Min Baad IKRAHIHUNNA Ghafour Rahim, i.e. and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. , the highlighted blue word إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ , IKRAHIHUNNA, i.e. THEIR compulsion, is feminine plural absent speech, because we are talking about the compulsion the absent young girls are forced into, which is to commit Zina while they desire to keep chaste, this is very important, because in such case the young girls are forced into something that is 100% HARAM and the doers of such prohibited act are promised with great punishment by Allah, so what should happen to them after they have been forced into the Haram? Well they will be forgiven, it is all about the innocent young women upon whom have been preyed by thugs, it is not about the thugs you stupid bunch of kafirs bound to hell, that it why the word إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ , IKRAHIHUNNA, i.e. THEIR compulsion, it is feminine plural. whithe the damir HUNNA to relate it to the young women.

Here you have it, I totally demolished their two stupid allegations:

1) The word Farg means private parts and applies for men and women, it can never mean vagina.

2) Verse 24:33 is talking about forgiving the innocent young women who were forced into prostitution (Zina), an act that is Haram, by a bunch of thugs while the young women desire to be chaste.

This has to be another impressive slam:

# 36
- Thu 04 Dec, 2008 7:11 pm
Post subject:
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.


Hey again

Well, because you acted dumb, by following a bunch of ignorant freaks on FFI web site, I have to slam dunk you, but this is going to be a quick one because of the high degree of stupidity of your argument, i.e. one verse is enough to expose your ignorance, let's have a look:

And test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage; and if you find in them maturity, then pay to them their money, and do not consume it extravagantly nor wastefully, lest they grow up; and whoever is rich, let him abstain, and whoever is poor, let him eat kindly; and if you have paid to them, their money, then call witnesses in their presence; and it is enough that Allah is a Reckoner.
[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)

-> See: 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:

# 37
- Thu 04 Dec, 2008 8:40 pm
Post subject:
Ahmed chose to reply to one of the life dismissals:

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.


Ignorant manipulator of FFI, 4:6 is clear, it says:

بَلَغُواْ النِّكَاحَ, i.e. They reach the age pf marriage

Can you see what they reached you manipulator, again they reach النِّكَاحَ, i.e. the age of marriage, i.e. the age of puberty, I know you must be freaking out and will start running around FFI like a Zebra, well you have been exposed again, and again, and again, this is going to continue forever, pal

Also your stupid argument that if the Quran is talking about reaching the age of something, the Quran specified it shows how stupid, confused and manipulated you are, that is exactly what happened in 4:6, mister smart

The Quran is talking about reaching the age of Nakah, i.e. Marriage, i.e. Puberty, i.e. the Quran SPECIFIED what age we are reaching, it will be stupid to put an age for it, like 10, 11 or 24 years old, because it differs from a human to a human, but I know this must be too hard for a dumb like you to understand

You are back in your life dismissal wing.
- Fri 05 Dec, 2008 8:03 am
Post subject:
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


Good morning all

Today?????????????????????¢??s subject is our slam dunk # 38

As you can read above, a confused Doctor who is a clear enemy of Islam on FFI is puzzled, why the Recording Angels are needed?

His question proves the FFI goons lack of knowledge concerning the Quran, his question was answered clearly in the Quran, I myself managed to work out the logical point behind those recording angels so many years ago before even knowing that the Quran disclosed it, not ironically the reason I logically thought of was the exact same reason stated in the Quran.

Simply the records by the recording angels are not required for Allah, these records are required for the humans only, i.e. it is the book of evidences against the human, in this case each human can read his/her book and convict him/her self, what a mighty planning by Allah, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look at a few verses:

13- And (for) every human, We have imposed his fate upon his neck, and We will produce to him on the day of resurrection a book which he will encounter wide open.

14- Read your book; sufficient is yourself today against you as a reckoner.
[Al Quran ; 17:13-14]

وَكُلَّ إِنْسَانٍ أَلْزَمْنَاهُ طَائِرَهُ فِي عُنُقِهِ ۖ وَنُخْرِجُ لَهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ كِتَابًا يَلْقَاهُ مَنْشُورًا (13)

اقْرَأْ كِتَابَكَ كَفَىٰ بِنَفْسِكَ الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكَ حَسِيبًا (14)

-> See how clear the verse above are: And (for) every human, We have imposed his fate upon his neck , i.e. every human is responsible for the self, no one bears the sins of another, and on the day of judgment every human must encounter his/her book wide open: and We will produce to him on the day of resurrection a book which he will encounter wide open., how clear, now what this book will be used for? The answer is in the next verse:

-> See: اقْرَأْ كِتَابَكَ كَفَىٰ بِنَفْسِكَ الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكَ حَسِيبًا , i.e. Read your book; sufficient is yourself today against you as a reckoner., HOW CLEAR. No doubt that if such ignorant goon of FFI read the Quran he would have found the answer, but you should know that the goon is not after answers, rather he is after mocking the religion of Allah, that is why he will always look stupid because he lacks the knowedge to what is said in the Quran

The Quran said far more regarding the subject, let?????????????????????¢??s see what will happen when the criminals like Doccy and his gang read their books:

And the Book shall be placed, then you will see the criminals fearing from what is in it, and they will say: Ah! woe to us! what a book is this! it does not omit a small one nor a great one, but recorded them (all); and what they had done they shall find present (there); and your Lord does not deal unjustly with anyone.
[Al Quran ; 18:49]

وَوُضِعَ الْكِتَابُ فَتَرَى الْمُجْرِمِينَ مُشْفِقِينَ مِمَّا فِيهِ وَيَقُولُونَ يَا وَيْلَتَنَا مَالِ هَٰذَا الْكِتَابِ لَا يُغَادِرُ صَغِيرَةً وَلَا كَبِيرَةً إِلَّا أَحْصَاهَا ۚ وَوَجَدُوا مَا عَمِلُوا حَاضِرًا ۗ وَلَا يَظْلِمُ رَبُّكَ أَحَدًا (49)

-> Firstly the book of evidences will be brought to each one of those criminals: And the Book shall be placed , after the criminals have a read through it while they are shaking like cowards: then you will see the criminals fearing from what is in it , they will say: Ah! woe to us! what a book is this! it does not omit a small one nor a great one, but recorded them (all); , at this point of time, the criminals can not deny or argue the charges against them, i.e. every small or big act that they have done all their life is recorded and now is in front of their own eyes: and what they had done they shall find present (there); , one of the obvious objectives of such book of evidences is to force the criminals to convict themselves, i.e. THEY WILL HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO PLEAD GUILTY YOUR HONOR, , another objective of such books of evidences is to prove to those criminals that and your Lord does not deal unjustly with anyone.

As you have noticed that I stated the following: one of the obvious objectives of such book of evidences is to force the criminals to convict themselves, again, this was stated clearly in the Quran:

They shall say: Our Lord! twice didst Thou make us subject to death, and twice hast Thou given us life, so we do confess our faults; is there then a way to get out?
[Al Quran ; 40:11]

قَالُوا رَبَّنَا أَمَتَّنَا اثْنَتَيْنِ وَأَحْيَيْتَنَا اثْنَتَيْنِ فَاعْتَرَفْنَا بِذُنُوبِنَا فَهَلْ إِلَىٰ خُرُوجٍ مِنْ سَبِيلٍ (11)

-> See above what is going to happen: so we do confess our faults; , well, what do you is logical that they might be thinking next, I say to think of a way out, see: is there then a way to get out? , hahahah, dream on criminals, there will be no way out, the next verses should confirm it for you:

10- And they shall say: Had we but listened or pondered, we should not have been among the inmates of the burning fire.

11- So they shall acknowledge their sins, but far will be (forgiveness) from the inmates of the burning fire.
[Al Quran ; 67:10-11]

وَقَالُوا لَوْ كُنَّا نَسْمَعُ أَوْ نَعْقِلُ مَا كُنَّا فِي أَصْحَابِ السَّعِيرِ (10)
فَاعْتَرَفُوا بِذَنْبِهِمْ فَسُحْقًا لِأَصْحَابِ السَّعِيرِ (11)

-> Firstly, the criminals like Doctor sum, will also say: Had we but listened or pondered, we should not have been among the inmates of the burning fire. , then they will plead guilty: So they shall acknowledge their sins, , and consequently they should be distant away in the fire: but far will be (forgiveness) from the inmates of the burning fire.

Here you have it, the Quran clearly answered the question raised by another Kafir who knew nothing about the Quran, ironically though, he is deluded enough to believe that he knows a lot about the Quran

I guess for the true Muslim, watching those inmates in the fire is going to be a great Showtime, well, let?????????????????????¢??s get done with our Showtime today, our 38th Slam Dunk:

# 38
- Sun 07 Dec, 2008 12:06 pm
Post subject:
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?
Koran Sura 24 verse 13 wrote:
لولا جاؤوا عليه باربعة شهداء فاذ لم ياتوا بالشهداء فاولئك عند الله هم الكاذبون


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.


Good morning

You must be so desterate after my very strong Quran arguments are demolishing www.faithfreedom.com propagandas about islam

The verse above is not denying any past, mister smart

The verse above is talking about present, i.e. some people at present, accused a woman of being a whore, therefore they must bring 4 witnesses otherwise they will liars and must be lashed 80 lashes

Imagine now that I am an accuser who accused a Muslim woman of being a whore, in year 2007, on that year I managed to bring 4 witnesses, therefore I will be considered honest

Now assume we are in year 2008 and me again accused another woman of being a whore, but I faild to bring 4 witnesses this time, this mean that I am a liar and must be lashed 80 lashes

I.e. Lam did not deny my past

Now I hope that you are smart enough to recognise your stupidity

My example above can not be refuted, however I am expecting that you will run around FFI like a confused Zebra trying to justify the goons crap, therefore you should expect what will happen next

Salam
- Tue 09 Dec, 2008 7:59 am
Post subject:
Good morning

Look at the new level of stupidity that FFI goons have achived:

antineoliberalaxgrinder of FFI said:

AhmedBahgat. Could you please explain the following apparent contradiction between Koran verse 60:8:

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: ...


and verse 24.2 in which Allah is clearly prohibiting Muslims from dealing kindly with adulterers:

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


It does not stipulate that adulterers must first have fought the Muslims for their faith or driven them from their homes in order to qualify for a merciless flogging. I await your explanation for this glaring Koranic contradiction.


antineoliberalaxgrinder wrote:
AhmedBahgat. Could you please explain the following apparent contradiction between Koran verse 60:8:


Sure, However I reject the word ?????????????????????¢??apparent?????????????????????¢?? that you used because if it was ?????????????????????¢??apparent?????????????????????¢?? to you, why you need someone to explain it to you? Simply you started your comment by apparently contradicting yourself.

Let me say, that this alleged Quran contradiction can not be apparent to you because you need someone who knows the Quran to explain it to you, right?

antineoliberalaxgrinder wrote:
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: ...


Let me bring 60:8 in here


8- Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.
[The Quran ; 60:8]

لَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ (8)

-> The verse above is simply saying that believers should show kindness to, and deal justly with, anyone of: those who have not made war against the Muslims on account of (their) religion, and have not driven the Muslims forth from their homes, a child should understand it, I say.

antineoliberalaxgrinder wrote:
and verse 24.2 in which Allah is clearly prohibiting Muslims from dealing kindly with adulterers:


Hmmm, so you started your alleged Quran contradiction alert with you contradicting yourself, then when you elaborated on your alleged Quran contradiction, you contradicted yourself again, what the hell is that, pal?

Before even reading 24:2, what is the bloody relation between the adulterers and those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes?

Well, do you reckon that those who have not made war against the Muslims on account of (their) religion, and have not driven the Muslims forth from their homes are adulterers?

Pal, it is not even worth bringing 24:2, I have to stop in here, you have taken FFI confusion to a new level, congratulation

It was so stupid that it will be a shame if I stamp it with my trade mark slam dunk, let me stamp it with another trade mark



Cheers
- Wed 10 Dec, 2008 7:16 am
Post subject:
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.
- Wed 10 Dec, 2008 7:45 am
Post subject:
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.


Salam mate

No man, no replies yet, they are a bunch of confused goons

Take care
- Fri 12 Dec, 2008 9:20 am
Post subject:
Good morning all

It seems Ugly is determined to be slam dunked, let me make his wish comes true:

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.


The Quran never called Mohammed the prophet of the illiterate, looks like those confused Muslims are your neighbours in your barbie world, am I right?

Islamis_Tashit wrote:
What part didn't you understand the first time I said it? Go back and read it.


It is not that I do not understand it your idiot, it is all about rejecting it because the Quran does not support your and their allegation as I will show very shortly

Islamis_Tashit wrote:
If you disagree with this interpretation,


Exactly, it is about disagreement, but not an interpretation disagreement, there is nothing in the Quran to be interpreted in a way to imply such conclusion, in fact it is the contrary, what is in the Quran is not an implication rather a fact that the prophet did not know how to read nor write as I will show shortly.

Islamis_Tashit wrote:
then go talk to those Muslims who think that this is what the Quran really says.


Well, I do not need to go to anyone, they will be slam dunked along with you very shortly

Islamis_Tashit wrote:
Shees, what does it take to get you to understand a post??


Stop talking out of your bum, Ugly.

Islamis_Tashit wrote:
I thought Muslims weren't allowed to drink??


Confuse the subject tactics, well it is expected after you have been cornered and now it is the time for the final blow to get you slam dunked on my show.

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


Dismissed

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?


Let me get the slam dunked:

Again you fool, the Quran never called directly or by implication that Mohammed is the prophet of the illiterates, because Mohammed reading and writing abilities (as verbs) were clearly denied by a Quran verse, let's have a look:

And you did not recite before it any book, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, for then could those who say untrue things have doubted.
[The Quran ; 29:48]

وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُو مِن قَبْلِهِ مِن كِتَابٍ وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ بِيَمِينِكَ إِذًا لَّارْتَابَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ (48)

-> Clearly 29:48 says وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُو مِن قَبْلِهِ مِن كِتَابٍ, And you did not recite before it any book,, i.e. Mohammad never read a book before the Quran completed, then it says وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ بِيَمِينِكَ, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, some may still argue and say this means that Mohammad may have learnt how to read and write after the completion of the Quran revelation, . I said after the completion of the Quran revelation because what follows next indicates it shold have been the case otherwise the Kafirs at the time would have doubted him : إِذًا لَّارْتَابَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ, for then could those who say untrue things have doubted., i.e. Mohammad was illiterate before the revelation of the Quran and during the period of the Quran revelation because if he was literate, the people at his time would have doubted him. now Mohammed dies very shortly after the revelation of the last verse therefore it is safe and logical to say that Mohmmed did not read nor write a book all his life.

And finally:

# 39
- Fri 12 Dec, 2008 9:43 am
Post subject:
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.


Exactly, my name is ahmed with an e,

Now, what you want me to answer exactly?

That how come the angels of love do such horrible things in hell?

Firstly, the angel being the sign of love under your flawed belief is rejected and dismissed, it simply violates what the Bible and the Quran said, for example we know well the story of Gomorrah which was destroyed by angels, that was not a sign of love, we also know of story in the Quran about the angels who were sent in Badr battle to help the weak Muslims in killing the criminals from the Kafirs, that can not be a sign of love, we also know from the Quran about the angels who are in charge of causing us to die, that is another sign that can not be love, we also know from the Quran that hell has 19 angels, those angels were clearly described with words that contradict your Barbie world dream that the angels are the sign of love, let's have a look:

O you who have believed! save yourselves and your families from a fire whose fuel is men and stones; over it are angels severe and strong, they do not disobey Allah in what He commands them, and do as they are commanded.
[the Quran ; 66:6]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قُوا أَنْفُسَكُمْ وَأَهْلِيكُمْ نَارًا وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ عَلَيْهَا مَلَائِكَةٌ غِلَاظٌ شِدَادٌ لَا يَعْصُونَ اللَّهَ مَا أَمَرَهُمْ وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا يُؤْمَرُونَ (6)

-> See, impossible to classify the angels as signs of love, the above verse clearly warns the believers of a fire whose fuel is men and stones; over it are angels severe and strong,, this is because they have to do what they are commanded to do, they have no choices: they do not disobey Allah in what He commands them, and do as they are commanded.

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:


the one who is really twisted as well confused may be you, see, you want a god described by your own low desires, angels that do what you desire and even the judgement should be as you desire

I am totally the opposite to you of course, that is why you allege that Islam is twisted, in reality though, the possibility that you are the twisted one is highly plaussible, you only and relatively see the other side as twisted.
- Sat 20 Dec, 2008 8:05 am
Post subject:
Salam all,

One of the kafirs of FFI, brought in a stupid argument by another confused kafir who is asking are slave women equal to animals under Islam?, let's have a look:

planck of FFI wrote:

A possible re-interpretation of a few arabic words? I don't know arabic so I'm not sure if what's written below is true. But I thought I'd offer it up in this section to those of you who do study the quran.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023923.php

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.?????????????????????¢??????????????????????

-----------------------------

And here is my slam to it:

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)

-> 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

Then I added:

Here is another example where the word Ma is used to refer to intelligent beings includiing humans:

Do you not see that Allah knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth? Nowhere is there a secret counsel between three persons but He is the fourth of them, nor (between) five but He is the sixth of them, nor less than that nor more but He is with them wheresoever they are; then He will inform them of what they did on the day of resurrection: surely Allah is Cognizant of all things.
[The Quran ; 58:7]

أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۖ مَا يَكُونُ مِنْ نَجْوَىٰ ثَلَاثَةٍ إِلَّا هُوَ رَابِعُهُمْ وَلَا خَمْسَةٍ إِلَّا هُوَ سَادِسُهُمْ وَلَا أَدْنَىٰ مِنْ ذَٰلِكَ وَلَا أَكْثَرَ إِلَّا هُوَ مَعَهُمْ أَيْنَ مَا كَانُوا ۖ ثُمَّ يُنَبِّئُهُمْ بِمَا عَمِلُوا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ (7)

-> See Mohammed is saying to the kafirs: مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتَِ , Ma Fi Alsamamwat, i.e. whatever is in the heavens, and مَا فِي الْأَرْضِ , Ma Fi Alard, i.e. whatever is in the earth which should cover all humans on earth.

Now, here is an example where the word Min is used with the ships and the cattle:
And He Who created pairs of all things, and made for you of the ships and the cattle what you ride on
[The Quran ; 43:12]

وَالَّذِي خَلَقَ الْأَزْوَاجَ كُلَّهَا وَجَعَلَ لَكُمْ مِنَ الْفُلْكِ وَالْأَنْعَامِ مَا تَرْكَبُونَ (12)

-> See: مِنَ الْفُلْكِ وَالْأَنْعَام, Min Alfulk Wa AlanaamAlard, i.e. of the ships and the cattle

Here you have it again, the writer of such crap is 100% confused and never studied the Quran.

And finally came the third nock down which made the knowck out and the 40th slam:

What I just discovered which will make the writer of such crap to look like a clear cut idiot is the simple fact that the same verse 4:3 is referring to the second, third and fourth wife using the word Ma, let's have a look:

And if you fear that you cannot act justly with the orphans, then marry whoever pleased you from the women, two and three and four; but if you fear that you shall not act equitably (between them), then only one or what your oaths possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate.
[Al Quran ; 4:3]

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تُقْسِطُواْ فِي الْيَتَامَى فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء مَثْنَى وَثُلاَثَ وَرُبَاعَ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَلاَّ تَعُولُواْ (3)

-> See: فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم, Fa'ankihu Ma Taba Lakum, i.e. marry whoever pleased you

Here you have it for the third time, but this time, it must be so embarrassing to such writer of such crap, however he achieved making it to my slam dunk show

# 40
- Sat 20 Dec, 2008 6:29 pm
Post subject:
Here is somethihg funny regarding Slam # 40

One of the kafirs of FFI raised the following vague argument:


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.


So I asked him:

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


So he replied back:

skynightblaze wrote:
Are these Allahs words? Whom does Allah serve then? You should be able to tell us that.


Hmmm, that was my reply:

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


He was a good kafir who quickly conceded:

skynightblaze wrote:
I guess i must really dismiss myself this time around. Very Happy



Obvioulsy even though verse 109:3 was a saying by Mohammed, it was still a command by Allah to say such words to the kafirs, if you look at verse 109:1 we clearly read the command from Allah to Mohammed to say such words:

1- Say: O unbelievers!
2- I do not serve that which you serve,
3- Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
[The Quran ; 109:1-3]

قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ (1)
لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ (2)
وَلَا أَنْتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ (3)

-> See: Say: O unbelievers!

I am glad that he quickly conceded instead of acting arrogant and ignorant as most FFI goons do

Salam
- Sat 20 Dec, 2008 6:38 pm
Post subject:
Still regarding Slam # 40, another FFI goon asked me in sarcasm:

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:


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.
- Mon 22 Dec, 2008 12:12 am
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Still regarding Slam # 40, another FFI goon asked me in sarcasm:

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:


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.


I see that life dismissal warning really works well there and some posters do listen to you. lol!

Salaams
BMZ
- Mon 22 Dec, 2008 12:18 am
Post subject:
BMZ wrote:
I see that life dismissal warning really works well there and some posters do listen to you. lol!

Salaams
BMZ


Salam mate

They have to take it serious if they want to continue to dialogue with me, there is no reason for me to reply to those who mock Allah and any of His prophets in any comment to me, and I consider writing Allah with a small a is a way of mocking.
- Fri 26 Dec, 2008 10:41 am
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
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.


Salam mate

No man, no replies yet, they are a bunch of confused goons

Take care

Thanks brother AhmedBahgat. Please keep us updated.
- Fri 26 Dec, 2008 11:06 am
Post subject:
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:

Islam is not twisted and does not degrade angels at all. In fact it is the only religion that does not make a mockery out of angels. It is also full of love to all the peaceful of the world. Your last sentence here is very wrong.

I think her confusion arises from the traditional description of angels. Angels in our conscious are those small white guys with 2 wings. It is the same with devils and demons. They are those big red ugly creatures with 2 horns. Such ignorant depictions are despite the fact that there are many peaceful and believing demons in the Quran.

Now, I have 2 comments to make here:

1. Angels in Islam are full of love. This does not mean ignoring the orders of God and forgiving criminals. If angels are punishing people in Hell, it is because those people are sinners/criminals that deserve such punishment. Love does not mean injustice. It is actually contrary to injustice.

Now she could make the claim that Hell is a merciless punishment even for sinners/criminals, but this is another totally different issue and even if it was true it would mean that God is merciless (Since He is the actual Punisher and Creator of Hell) and not angels at all.

2. Even if some angels in Islam were not full of love, which is untrue as we have seen, it still does not mean that Islam is not full of love. Who said that all angels must be full of love? According to whom? According to what consensus?

The whole argument is childish and baseless. When reading such arguments one wonders whether she was ever a "Muslimah".
- Sat 27 Dec, 2008 9:04 am
Post subject:
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!!


I am not sure what is your message exactly?

You bring a quran verse asking for a word for word translation then you end up your question by saying the the Jews did not kill Jesus

I am not going to reply to the Quran verse as it seems that you do not know what the hell you are talking about, however I will reply to this line:

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!!


Well, the logical law is simple, if you conspire to kill, then you must be part of the killing, let me show you what some non Muslims say:

Accoridng to the Bible a Jewish mob conspired to keep Jesus imprisoned and ensure his torture and crucifixion, and even as he was led to his death, he is further abused by a Jewish mob.

For Pilate , after being forced by the Jewish mob to sentence Jesus to death, Pilate symbolically washes his hands and pronounces:

I am not responsible for the death of this man! This is your doing. The whole crowd [the Jews] answered back: Let his blood be on our heads and the heads of our children.
(Matthew 27:24-25)

-> See, After the Jews manipulated Pilate to kill Jesus, THEY ADMITTED THAT THE BLOOD OF JESUS BE UPON THEM: Let his blood be upon us and upon our children,

Now, for Paul, the most important personality in the history of the christianity, makes a special point of blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus:

14: For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

15: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

16: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
(1Thessalonians ; 2:14-16)

-> See what Paul suppose to have said in his Bible: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets,, clearly Paul confirmed that the Jews killed Jesus and many other prophets.

Today modern day Jews claim that they cannot be held responsible for the death of jesus because what happened was 2,000 years ago when they were helpless Jews that were under the power of the mighty Roman empire.

Matthew on the other hand tell us that the the jews will do it again (kill the prophets) if given another chance, let's have a look:

And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
(Matthew 23:30)

-> Simply, the Jews will do it again, Why? Because they are of the same generation - the same race.

Conclusion:

1) The Jews are guilty as charged with the crime of conspiring to kill Jesus

2) Slam Dunk # 41 has been slammed:

# 41
- Sat 27 Dec, 2008 3:27 pm
Post subject:
Quote:
The Jews didn't Kill Jesus, the Romans did, no Judas,

According to whom exactly? The Bible? Laughing
- Tue 30 Dec, 2008 3:16 pm
Post subject:
Hello all:

The following is an example of the confused mentality of some kafirs on FFI web site:

Quote:
feel fear accordin to the Koran!! Very Happy

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?! Rolling Eyes

But they refused it!!!! Smile)

Only a mentally deluded person would believe in this nonsense. Question


Well, the Quran clearly told us that the heavens and the earth are also servants of Allah, that is commonly known on all religions, it was not something new that the Quran came up with, let me show you an example:

12: Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

13: And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
[Joshua ; 10:12-13]
-> See: he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon., Joshua is speaking to the Sun and the Moon and ordering them stand still !!!!, see how the Sun and the Moon followed the commads: And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed

Here you have it, if the Muslims are being called deluded because they believe that the heaven and earth are slaves of Allah, then the Jews and Christains must be deluded too because they also believe that the Sun and the Moon are slaves of Allah, the Bible even confirms that talking to these creatures is VALID: and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

And that was our 42 Slam:

# 42
- Tue 30 Dec, 2008 3:18 pm
Post subject:
Windsor wrote:
Quote:
The Jews didn't Kill Jesus, the Romans did, no Judas,

According to whom exactly? The Bible? Laughing


Their own Bible is exposing their stupidity fair and square

Cheers
- Tue 30 Dec, 2008 4:45 pm
Post subject:
Good job, Ahmed

It is time FFI readers come out from their cave. They do understand what
you explain.

They are just scared of other FFI senior members whom they find scary. Laughing
Basically, their job is to write a few incoherent lines.

Currently, I am enoying the ongoing exchanges among The Cat, Huxley, Bob, Bunny and others
about Ali Sina's retention of the Muslim mind. It is an interesting read.

Looks like Ali may, one day, revert back to Islam, leaving his FFI estate to the goons. Laughing
He is old you know. The immorality in the West, which gave him protection, is haunting and killing Ali Sina.

Hope FFI members come at write at a new forum which I have created with the help of an ex-Muslim, non-Muslims and Muslims.

faithfreedom.org.uk

And the site name is very easy to remember. Very Happy

Salaams, mate
BMZ
- Tue 30 Dec, 2008 10:50 pm
Post subject:
Hello All

This comment is going to be a serious of slams, I will reply in all these comments to any argument raised by the confused goons of FFI against sura 9, I replied to their allegations many times but this time is going to be slowly and by using Free Islam translation, the most accurate one as far as I believe, of course Free Islam translation had forced me to enhance and prefect my understanding to the verses in question in this sura, the first slam in my next group of slams will be based on verses 9:1-7 only:

On the Kuffar web site FaithFreedom.com they consistently use 9:29 to defame the Quran, Islam and all Muslims, what they deliberately do is take the verse (alone) then manipulate it out of its context to cook a clear cut lie, the context of any sura in the Quran is not something the Muslims invented as a refute to those ignorant enemy of Islam, the context is in front of every one's eyes for 1400 years and can be clearly read in the verses before 9:29 and beyond, that is why they had to only look at 9:29 and ignore the rest of Sura no 9, sometimes they select other verses and present them on their own to mislead as much as they can, they are deliberately blind, they can not be trusted as a source of information about this great religion, there is no doubt that they have an agenda against this great religion, I wonder why they are failing so bad for 1400 years?

9:29 is related to a very well known incident regarding the Kabba, the Kabba was a place for all to come to worship God and also to do business (trading), even the Mushrikoon used to go there and do whatever they want, most of them used to go around the Kabba as a method of worshipping their idols to get them closer to Allah, that is why they are called Mushrikoon from the first place, when the Muslims reclaimed the kabba, they offered Al Mushrikoon a treaty if the comply with the new laws of the land of Mecca. It is also alleged in some history books that the Mushrikoon used to do a very indecent act, they used to do the Tawaf (going around the Kabba) naked, exactly like the filthy scenes we see in the Mardi Gras every year around the flawed world. When Mohammad reclaimed the Kabba, any filthy act by the Mushrikoon had to stop, this is when these verses in Sura 9 was revealed (sure 9 is the last sura that was revealed which means it was revealed at the last days of Mohammad before he died, we also notice that it does not have the Bismillah (in the name of Allah....), some say that it does not have the Bismillah because it is full of threats to those Mushrikoon and their filthy act around the Kabba, but I can't buy this because the Quran in many of the other suras that start with the Bismillah are still threatening the Mushrikoon big times.

The objective and the message of Sura 9 is clear and it was to reclaim the Kabba the house of Allah and free it from all these filthy acts. Looking at all the verses that I brought in, we will see the picture crystal clear, I will list the verses in English then the original language in Arabic, and my walkthrough will follow:

1- (Declaration of) disassociation, from Allah and His messenger towards those of the polytheists with whom you made a treaty (but they violated it).

2- So walk freely in the land for four months and know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace to the unbelievers.

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 (who violated the treaty) and so His messenger; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not cause failure to Allah. And give tidings to those who have disbelieved of a painful torture.

4- Except those with whom you made a treaty from among the polytheists, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up against you any one, so fulfil their treaty until their term; indeed Allah loves the pious.

5- And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists (who violated the treaty) wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush, but if they repent and stand up for the prayer and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free; indeed Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

6- And if one of the polytheists seeks protection from you, grant him protection so he hears the word of Allah, then deliver him to his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.

7- How can there be a treaty with the polytheists concerning Allah and concerning His messenger; except those with whom you made a treaty at the sacred mosque? So as long as they are straight to you, be straight to them; indeed Allah loves the pious.
[The Quran ; 9:1-7]

بَرَاءةٌ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى الَّذِينَ عَاهَدتُّم مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ (1)
فَسِيحُواْ فِي الأَرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِي اللّهِ وَأَنَّ اللّهَ مُخْزِي الْكَافِرِينَ (2)
وَأَذَانٌ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى النَّاسِ يَوْمَ الْحَجِّ الأَكْبَرِ أَنَّ اللّهَ بَرِيءٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَرَسُولُهُ فَإِن تُبْتُمْ فَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَإِن تَوَلَّيْتُمْ فَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِي اللّهِ وَبَشِّرِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ (3)
إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ عَاهَدتُّم مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَنقُصُوكُمْ شَيْئًا وَلَمْ يُظَاهِرُواْ عَلَيْكُمْ أَحَدًا فَأَتِمُّواْ إِلَيْهِمْ عَهْدَهُمْ إِلَى مُدَّتِهِمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ (4)
فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلاَةَ وَآتَوُاْ الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (5)
وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ اللّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ (6)
كَيْفَ يَكُونُ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ عَهْدٌ عِندَ اللّهِ وَعِندَ رَسُولِهِ إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ عَاهَدتُّمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ فَمَا اسْتَقَامُواْ لَكُمْ فَاسْتَقِيمُواْ لَهُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ (7)

-> Verse 1, when the incident happened, Allah wanted Mohammad to make an agreement with those filthy Mushrikoon, by telling them that they should stop their Mardi Gras and possibly other filthy acts around the House of Allah, all they needed to do is to act properly and decently even if they are still Mushrikoon and they will have immunity/protection, like a treaty, now, verse 1 is disassociating Allah and His prophet from those Mushrikoon who will break that truce: (Declaration of) disassociation, from Allah and His messenger towards those of the polytheists with whom you made a treaty (but they violated it). , this is Free Islam translation which I believe is the most accurate and most literal translation that will be found any where, the message of verse 1 is OBVIOUS, it is taking about some MUSHRIKOON who live or visit the city of Mecca, who MADE A TREATY with the Muslims regarding the new rules (law of the land) that will govern the city of Mecca after it was freed by the Muslims at the end of the prophet mission. Verse 1 is specifically talking about those of the Mushrikoon who accepted the treaty then VIOLATED it. The first word in the verse: بَرَاءةٌ , Bara?????????????????????¢??aa, i.e. Not guilty literally, I used the word disassociation to translate it because the word may also mean so, it is like I am disassociating myself from someone, if we take the verse so literal, then the message should be as follow, Allah and His prophet will be NOT GUILTY against those of the Mushrikoon who accepted the treaty, how polite, it is like Allah knows that the Mushrikoon will yet charge Him and His prophet with aggression against them but Allah is telling us that He and Mohammed will be NOT GUILTY. I added the words (but they violated it) in Free Islam translation to make it easy for the reader to understand the verses, this is not something that I invented, rather it will be said clearly in verse 4.

-> Verse 2, the message of the verse is simply as follow:

There is 4 sacred months in the lunar year, humans used to come to the Kabba from every corner in these 4 months, one month of these 4 is the one when the great Hajj is performed, it is like, in the other 3 months they used to do a minor version of Hajj or do some trades, during this time also, the Muslims are not allowed to fight their enemy UNLESS IT IS A MUST, the verse message is simply, mentioning those 4 months as being the period for ANOTHER treaty between those Mushrikoon who violated the first treaty in Mecca, in other words, the Mushrikoon who violated the first treaty desired to oppose the new laws of the land (Mecca) and wanted to fight the new rulers, so a second treaty was taken, which is not to fight in those 4 sacred months, both parties should wait until those 4 months are finished then the Muslims can fight the Mushrikoon who violated the first treaty: So walk freely in the land for four months, see how clear, the verse message is to tell the Mushrikoon who violated the first treaty in Mecca that they have another treaty of no war for 4 months, in these 4 months, those Mushrikoon who violated the first treaty can walk freely in the land, the land of Mecca of course, not the land of America.

The verse however told those Mushrikoon who violated treaty # 1 (the new laws in Mecca) but accepted treaty # 2 (not to fight in those 4 sacred months) that while they are free to walk in the land of Mecca during those 4 months: and know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace to the unbelievers. this is actually a message of mercy from Allah, to constantly threaten those disbelievers who violated treaty # 1 and accepted treaty # 2 and are waiting for the 4 sacred months to finish so they fight the new rulers of Mecca (the Muslims), a message that they should stop their aggression or disgrace will be their reward. i.e. if they stopped it, they would have saved themselves from such disgrace, i.e. a message of mercy to save their own selves.

-> Verse 3, the message of the verse is clear, it is the same message in verse 1 but being announced to the Mushrikoon on the day of the great Hajj, the verse is also using the same word that Allah and His messenger will be بَرِيءٌ , Baree?????????????????????¢??e , i.e. Not guilty against those Mushrikoon who violated treaty # 1 (the new laws in Mecca): 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 (who violated the treaty), and so His messenger; what comes next is yet another message of mercy for those Mushrikoon who violated treaty # 1 and accepted treaty # 2 to repent from fighting the Muslims because they suppose to be on hold of fighting during those 4 sacred months (treaty # 2): therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, , see, better for them, but if they insist on fighting the Muslims after the expiry of the period of treaty # 2 (the 4 sacred months): and if you turn back, then know that you will not cause failure to Allah. And give tidings to those who have disbelieved of a painful torture. , how clear

-> Verse 4, This is where Allah will inform us that what He is talking about all along in the pervious 4 verses are those Mushrikoon who violated treaty # 1 (the new laws in Mecca), in this verse also, things will start to become a bit clearer. Some Mushrikoon were intelligent enough to understand that what the have to honour treaty # 1: Except those with whom you made a treaty from among the polytheists, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up against you any one, see how clear has become, i.e. verse 9:1, 9:2 and 9:3 are 100% talking about those from among Al Mushrikoon who violated treaty # 1, now for those Mushrikoon who violated treaty # 1 and accepted treaty # 2 while honouring it, i.e. those have not failed the Muslims in anything during the 4 sacred months no war treaty, as well have not backed up against the Muslims any one during those 4 sacred months no war treaty, this is how the Muslims should have treated them during those 4 months no war treaty: so fulfil their treaty until their term; indeed Allah loves the pious. i.e. the Muslims must honour treaty # 2 as long as the Mushrikoon who violated treaty # 1 and accepted treaty # 2 are honouring treaty # 2 of not fighting the Muslim during those 4 sacred months as well not backing up anyone against the Muslims.

-> Verse 5, in this verse, we read what should the Muslims do with those Mushrikoon who violated treaty # 1 and accepted treaty # 2, after the end of no war period according to treaty # 2, i.e. if the 4 sacred months finish and the Mushrikoon who have not accepted the new laws in the land of Mecca (treaty #1), have not repented yet of their desire to fight and kill the Muslims, then the Muslims should fight and kill them likewise: And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists (who violated the treaty) wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush, , yet, even after the fight starts, the door of repenting is still open for those Mushrikoon who insist on violating the new law of the land of Mecca after the Muslims reclaimed it: but if they repent and stand up for the prayer and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free; indeed Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. The Kafirs of FFI may get confused in here, you have to know that the Salat mentioned in here does not really mean the Islamic Salat and the Islamic Zakat, in fact these practises were known to the ancient people before them, Praying and paying Zakat are the reasons for many of al Mushrikoon to visit the Kabba from the first place, it was not like they wanted to have a barbecue party in there, In fact the word Mushrikoon means that they already believe in Allah, they just associate with him other idols whom they thought will get them nearer to Allah, i.e. they used to pray to their idols and pay Zakat as means of getting them closer to Allah: let?????????????????????¢??s look at the following verse:

Surely, to Allah belongs the sincere religion, and (as for) those who take guardians other than Him, (saying): We do not worship them except that they may get us nearer to Allah. Indeed, Allah will judge between them in that in which they differ; surely Allah does not guide who is a liar, disbeliever.
[The Quran ; 39:3]

أَلَا لِلَّهِ الدِّينُ الْخَالِصُ ۚ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مِنْ دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاءَ مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَىٰ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَهُمْ فِي مَا هُمْ فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي مَنْ هُوَ كَاذِبٌ كَفَّارٌ (3)

-> See what Al Mushrikoon say in defence of their shirking other Idols other than Allah: those who take guardians other than Him, (saying): We do not worship them except that they may get us nearer to Allah.

Therefore, those Mushrikoon who desire to visit the Kabba ARE ALREADY BELIEVERS IN ALLAH, they only associate idols with Allah to get them closer to Allah, i.e. the Salat and Zakat that are mentioned in verse 9:5, are the Salat and Zakat that suppose to be performed by those Mushrikoon but only after they get rid of their shirk and do it according to the belief in Allah alone, not in Allah and other idols other than Him to get them closer to Him.

This should Totally demolish the non sense by the ignorant and confused goons of FFI, the idiots do not know that a Mushrik is some one who already believes in Allah but shirk others (than Him) with Him, 39:3 CONFIRMED such fact.

-> Verse 6, will confirm what I said about verse 5, you will see that Allah is still referring to them as Mushrikoon (idolaters) but is telling the believers that they MUST PROTECT THEM if they seek protection of course they are complying with treaty # 1 concerning the new law of the land of Mecca : And if one of the polytheists seeks protection from you, grant him protection so he hears the word of Allah, then deliver him to his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know. certainly if a Mushrik who claims to be believing in Allah from the first place and just got confused with his shirk, while living in the land of Mecca under the new law of the land, it is so logical that they will hear the proper message from Allah that should rid them of shirking their idols with Allah during the season of Hajj, , see how the verse described their confusion of BELIEF, at the end: this is because they are a people who do not know.

-> Verse 7, Allah is summing it up all the above verses beautifully, for those who violated any of the treaties, #1 and # 2, how come the Muslims may honour their treaty back? It cannot be of course: How can there be a treaty with the polytheists concerning Allah, and concerning His messenger; [b], now for those among Al Mushrikoon who honoured treaty # 1 or even violated it but honoured treaty # 2, the Muslims must honour the treaty back: [b except those with whom you made a treaty at the sacred mosque? So as long as they are straight to you, be straight to them; indeed Allah loves the pious.,

Here you have it, a perfect slam, let me summarize to you the stupidity of the goons of FFI:

1) Verse # 1 clearly talks about a first treaty (#1) between the Muslims and the idolaters, which is relating to the new law of the land of Mecca (which contains the Kabba), those who will respect the new laws and stop making Salat and paying Zakat to their idols inside the Kabba to get them nearer to Allah (as they think), will be protected and delivered to their places of safety

2) Verse # 2 and verse # 3 talk about a second treaty (#2) between the Muslims and the idolaters who refused to comply with treaty (#1), i.e. they insisted on worshipping their idols inside the Kabba, simply due to the fact that the Muslims have 4 sacred months where a season of Hajj is performed, they should not be fighting those Mushrikoon who insist on their shirk, so another treaty is offered to cease fire during those 4 sacred months. The Mushrikoon who honour such 4 months of cease fire, are allowed to walk freely in the land of Mecca.

3) Verse # 4 excludes those Mushrikoon who honour treaty # 1, or violated it but accepted treaty # 2 of cease fire for 4 months where they will be allowed to walk freely in the land and while not backing up any enemy against the Muslims, the verse clearly stresses dealing with them with kindness and even protect them if they seek protection (from a possible hostile believers who live in Mecca)

4) Verse 5 is dealing with the situation when treaty # 2 expires, i.e. the season of Hajj during the 4 sacred months is finished, in such situation the Muslims should fight the Mushrikoon who (the Mushrikoon) insisted on fighting the Muslims from the first place after refusing to comply with treaty # 1 then refusing to repent. The fact that verse 5 is talking about those Mushrikoon of doing Salat and paying Zakat cannot be used against the verse because Al Mushrikoon SHOULD BE ALREADY DOING SO, they only do it for their idols to get them nearer to Allah. See the ignorant goons of FFI do not know that a Mushrik is already a believer in Allah, he/she only shirk their belief in Allah with other idols.

5) Verse 6 is dealing with the fact that those Mushrikoon who accepted treaty # 1 and live in the land of Mecca may listen to the right message which should rid them of their shirking other with Allah to get them nearer to Him.

6) Verse 7 is summing all the above in very short and impressive words, simply, there should be no honour of a treaty with those who violate the treaty, but for those who honour the treaty should be honoured likewise and even protected if they seek protection.

Nothing in any of these verses that may imply the slightest forcing the Mushrikoon to believe in Allah, IT CANNOT BE BECAUSE A MUSHRIK IS ALREADY A BELIEVER IN ALLAH, that is how dumb, confused and ignorant the FFI goons are

Another mother of all slams:

# 43
- Sun 04 Jan, 2009 8:12 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

On FaithFreedom International web site, the Arabic section: http://www.faithfreedom.org/arabic.htm Dr Ali Sina has posted a few alleged contradictions in the Arabic Quran, you may have noticed that I have already replied to one of those contradictions: Slam Dunk # 1

Today, I will slam another alleged contradiction from such Arabic section on FaithFreedom site:

Dr Ali Sina claims on his web site (The Arabic section) the following:

أيهما خلق أولا ، السماوات أم الأرض؟

(فصلت) 8 قُلْ أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَكْفُرُونَ بِالَّذِي خَلَقَ الْأَرْضَ فِي يَوْمَيْنِ وَتَجْعَلُونَ لَهُ أَندَادًا ذَلِكَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ 9 وَجَعَلَ فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ مِن فَوْقِهَا وَبَارَكَ فِيهَا وَقَدَّرَ فِيهَا أَقْوَاتَهَا فِي أَرْبَعَةِ أَيَّامٍ سَوَاء لِّلسَّائِلِينَ 10 ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى إِلَى السَّمَاء وَهِيَ دُخَانٌ فَقَالَ لَهَا وَلِلْأَرْضِ اِئْتِيَا طَوْعًا أَوْ كَرْهًا قَالَتَا أَتَيْنَا طَائِعِينَ 11 فَقَضَاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ فِي يَوْمَيْنِ وَأَوْحَى فِي كُلِّ سَمَاء أَمْرَهَا وَزَيَّنَّا السَّمَاء الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ وَحِفْظًا ذَلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ 12

(النازعات) أَأَنتُمْ أَشَدُّ خَلْقًا أَمِ السَّمَاء بَنَاهَا 27 رَفَعَ سَمْكَهَا فَسَوَّاهَا 28 وَأَغْطَشَ لَيْلَهَا وَأَخْرَجَ ضُحَاهَا 29 وَالْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ دَحَاهَا 30 أَخْرَجَ مِنْهَا مَاءهَا وَمَرْعَاهَا 31 وَالْجِبَالَ أَرْسَاهَا 32


Dr Sina is asking in wonder:

Which of these two was created first, the heavens or the earth?

Then Dr Sina posted verses 9 to 12 from Sura # 41, let me bring the English translation in here, I will use Shakir translation for now despite its errors but it should be enough for the slam:

9- Say: What! do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two periods, and do you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds.

10- And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four periods: alike for the seekers.

11- Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.

12- So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.

[The Quran ; 41:9-12]

قُلْ أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَكْفُرُونَ بِالَّذِي خَلَقَ الْأَرْضَ فِي يَوْمَيْنِ وَتَجْعَلُونَ لَهُ أَنْدَادًا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ (9)
وَجَعَلَ فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ مِنْ فَوْقِهَا وَبَارَكَ فِيهَا وَقَدَّرَ فِيهَا أَقْوَاتَهَا فِي أَرْبَعَةِ أَيَّامٍ سَوَاءً لِلسَّائِلِينَ (10)
ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ وَهِيَ دُخَانٌ فَقَالَ لَهَا وَلِلْأَرْضِ ائْتِيَا طَوْعًا أَوْ كَرْهًا قَالَتَا أَتَيْنَا طَائِعِينَ (11)
فَقَضَاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ فِي يَوْمَيْنِ وَأَوْحَىٰ فِي كُلِّ سَمَاءٍ أَمْرَهَا ۚ وَزَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ وَحِفْظًا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ (12)


Before I get the English translation to the suppose to be contradicting verses 70:27-32 as Dr Sina alleged, let me walk you through the above verses first:

-> Verse 9 clearly tells us about the EVENT of CREATING the earth, see what the words are: ِالَّذِي خَلَقَ الْأَرْضَ , Allazi KHALAQ Alard, i.e. Who CREATED the earth.

-> Verse 10, continues to describe the above event of CREATING the earth: And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four periods: alike for the seekers.

-> Verse 11, is the verse where we read about the heaven, however verse 11 NEVER ever mentioned the CREATION of the heaven, the verse clearly indicate that the heaven was already created, it was only in a different state, which was stated as Dukhan, i.e. smoke, let?????????????????????¢??s see: ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ وَهِيَ دُخَانٌ , Thumma Istawa Ila Alsmaa Wa Hia Dukhan, i.e. Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is vapor , i.e. the heaven was already there, i.e. it was created before the earth, but it was in another state which is Dukhan, translated by Shakir as vapor, while it should be Smoke, you can clearly see that verse 11 never said that the heaven was created, as verse 9 said about the earth. In fact what will be said next confirms such fact, see, after Allah directed Himself to the heaven: He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly. , i.e. the heaven was already created before the earth.

-> Verse 12, is a continuation to the EVENT mentioned in verse 12, again the event was Allah directing Himself to the heaven WHILE IT WAS A SMOKE[/b], which implies that He decided to do something with the already created heaven.: So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.

The above verses without a doubt confirm the following:

The heaven was already created before the earth because Allah never said that He created the heaven in the above verses rather He said that after creating the earth He directed himself to do something about the already created heaven which was on the state of a smoke, then He said after directing Himself to the already existing heaven, He said so and so to the heaven and the earth. Later on, Allah decided divide the one heaven into 7 skies. But that is something else compared to creating from scratch, as we are told about the earth.

Conclusion: According to verses 41:9-12, the heaven is created before the earth.

Let me now bring the verses that suppose to contradict the above based on Dr Sina question ?????????????????????¢??which is created first, the heaven or the earth??????????????????????¢??????????????????????, we should expect according to Dr Sina that we read in it that the earth was created before the heaven, again I will use Shakir translations despite its flaws:

27: Are you the harder to create or the heaven? He made it.

28: He raised high its height, then put it into a right good state.

29: And He made dark its night and brought out its light.

30: And the earth, He expanded it after that.

31: He brought forth from it its water and its pasturage.

32: And the mountains, He made them firm,
[The Quran ; 79:27-32]

أَأَنْتُمْ أَشَدُّ خَلْقًا أَمِ السَّمَاءُ ۚ بَنَاهَا (27)
رَفَعَ سَمْكَهَا فَسَوَّاهَا (28)
وَأَغْطَشَ لَيْلَهَا وَأَخْرَجَ ضُحَاهَا (29)
وَالْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ دَحَاهَا (30)
أَخْرَجَ مِنْهَا مَاءَهَا وَمَرْعَاهَا (31)
وَالْجِبَالَ أَرْسَاهَا (32)


What the hell is the that? Are all FFI team and kafir members that stupid? It seems that I am confirming such allegation about them with every slam that I make, but this is not going to be a normal slam, rather another mother of all slams, the verses above never talked about creating neither the heaven nor the earth, the verses above indicate that both the heaven and earth were already created, let me prove it to you, as well expose Shakir ignorance with the Arabic language:

-> Verse 27 is not talking about the creation of the heaven, rather the construction of the heaven, Shakir 100% used the wrong translation for the Arabic word: بَنَاهَا , Banaha, i.e. Built it, again, this does not mean creation if before building we need some sort of solid foundation to hold it, and that must be created first of course, whatever that foundation may be (anti matter, gravity or else) it was needed for the universe to hold itself, no question about it, an example is the Kabba, Ibrahim built it while ITS FOUNDATION was already there, so Ibrahim did not create it from scratch., therefore the proper translation should be as follow: Are you the harder to create or the heaven? He BUILT it. , HOWEVER I will allow the flawed understanding, that the verse meant creating the heaven from scratch, just to make the illogical and ignorant kafirs happy, therefore, verse 27 is talking about the event of creating the heaven from scratch.

-> Verse 28 & 29 are continuation to the development that happened upon the already created heaven: He raised high its height, then put it into a right good state. , and And He made dark its night and brought out its light.

-> Now verse 30 is also not talking about creating the earth from scratch, rather about the already created earth some time in the past, see: وَالْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ دَحَاهَا , Wa Alad Baad Zalik Dahaha, i.e. as translated wrongly by Shakir: And the earth, He expanded it after that. , i.e. the expansion happen on the already existing earth, the Arabic word دَحَاهَا , Dahaha, CAN NEVER MEAN Create it, I am sure that all the FFI goons are aware of that.

-> Verses 31 & 32 are similar to verse 30, i.e. information regarding the further development that happened to the already existing earth: He brought forth from it its water and its pasturage, and And the mountains, He made them firm

Let me now assume for argument sake that Dr Ali Sina flawed understand to verse 79:27-32, is correct, i.e. verses 79:27-29 are talking about the creation of the heaven, and verse 79:30-32 are talking about the creation of the earth,

The above verses without a doubt confirm the following:

The heaven was created before the earth.

Conclusion: According to verses 79:27-32, the heaven is created before the earth.

Let me compare it with the previous conclusion regarding verses 41:9-12:

Conclusion: According to verses 41:9-12, the heaven is created before the earth.

See, that is what I am talking about, FFI web site never runs out of ignorance and stupidity, can you see how Dr Sina failed to even explain the contradiction, rather raising a question then posting two groups of verses, then he calls it a contradiction on his Arabic web site.

I am delighted to read all these crap on his web site, while being a clear evidence of the FFI board ignorance, it makes me see for real how the Quran will slam dunk all such crap.

As you we all know the more stupidity in the kafirs allegation the more chance the slam will be another mother of all slams:

# 44
- Thu 08 Jan, 2009 9:42 pm
Post subject:
Hey goons

I started translating sura 19 (Mariam) until I reached verses 19:12-13, then realized that the verses are yet another slam dunk exposing the resident ignorant of FFI Whatever Khalil and his gang, regarding their Taqiyya crap

Remember what the goons told us about Takiyya, they goons alleged that it is an ACTION of hiding the faith or lying to benefit the faith. Well, in the following verses we will read CLEARLY that prophet Yahya was described as being Takiyya, let's sit back and enjoy the slam:

12- O Yahya! Take the book strongly. And We gave him wisdom while (he was) a young boy.
13- And affection from Us and purity, and he was fearing (of Allah),
[Al Quran ; 19:12-13]

يَا يَحْيَىٰ خُذِ الْكِتَابَ بِقُوَّةٍ ۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْحُكْمَ صَبِيًّا (12)
وَحَنَانًا مِنْ لَدُنَّا وَزَكَاةً ۖ وَكَانَ تَقِيًّا (13)

-> See. the verses are talking about prophet Yahya: O Yahya! Take the book strongly. And We gave him wisdom while (he was) a young boy., then the next verse continues to describe prophet Yahya: And affection from Us and purity, the verse 13 ended by telling us that prophet Yahya was a Takiyya: وَكَانَ تَقِيًّا , Wa Kana Takiyya, i.e. and he was fearing (of Allah)

Now try Tom and Jerry understanding by the goons, then dismiss them in the bin labeled, The Hard Core Ignorant of FFI

# 45
- Thu 08 Jan, 2009 10:30 pm
Post subject:
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 (18)

-> 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
- Thu 08 Jan, 2009 11:23 pm
Post subject:
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 (1Cool

-> 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


This is the mother of all grand slams, Ahmed.

It is good you posted at FFI and I would like to see what that goon KKKhalil Fariel has to say. I am glad you are exposing their weaknesses, ignorance and Taqaiyya.

This poster Khalil at FFI, basically copies and pastes from Shia sources. I caught him quite early. Laughing

Well done
Salaams
Baig
- Thu 08 Jan, 2009 11:38 pm
Post subject:
Just read the following silly response from Cassie:

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.


She should just have kept shut. I find such comments so ridiculous and hilarious. I really can't understand these 1-3 liner posters of FFI. First, they know nothing and second, they just comment for the sake of making a silly comment. Laughing

Salaams
Baig
- Sat 10 Jan, 2009 6:53 am
Post subject:
Hello all

This comment relates to the mother of all slam dunks # 43:


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


As I told you that the people before Islam used to do the prayer and even pay Zakat to Allah, therefore when the verses in sura 9 say: fight them UNTIL they pray and pay Zakat, it means until they pray and pay zakat as it was sent to them in the past, not after they manpiulated it:, let's have a look at the followiing verse:

30- He (baby Isa) said: Indeed, I am the servant of Allah; He has given me the book and made me a prophet.
31- And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I am alive;
[Al Quran ; 19:30-31]

قَالَ إِنِّي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ آتَانِيَ الْكِتَابَ وَجَعَلَنِي نَبِيًّا (30)
وَجَعَلَنِي مُبَارَكًا أَيْنَ مَا كُنْتُ وَأَوْصَانِي بِالصَّلَاةِ وَالزَّكَاةِ مَا دُمْتُ حَيًّا (31)

-> See what Isa (Jesus) is saying above: He (baby Isa) said: Indeed, I am the servant of Allah; He has given me the book and made me a prophet., And He has made me blessed wherever I may be,, then he stated what Allah commanded him to do: وَأَوْصَانِي بِالصَّلَاةِ وَالزَّكَاةِ مَا دُمْتُ حَيًّا , Wa Awsani Bi Al-salah Wa Al-Zakah Ma Domt Hayya, i.e. and He has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I am alive;.

Here you have it, clearly the other religions before Islam like Christianity (for example) were also commanded to do Prayer and Pay Zakat, however the flawed humans manipulated such rituals after submittng to Satan, and that is why islam was sent as a final message, to fix all such flawes in the previous religions and set the standard for a real religion and hw it should be.

Now after reclaiming Mecca which has the house of Allah (Kabba) where all people come to pray to Allah and pay zakat, you should expcect that the new rules of the Muslim land must be forced and adhered to, if they are not happy from the new rules, then simply they need to piss off the land and never come near the Kabba again, bloody simple, now if they do not want that and oppose it, then whatever laws the law makers of the land made, must be applied to them, for example, if the law makers said, that those who violate the new rules of the Kabba should be killed, then tough luck, they should be killed, that is what we all know as the law of the land, i bloody e. each land has their own laws

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.


Why do not you go and learn what the Arabic word Zakat means, you Jesus worshipper bound to hell?

It is the same as Alms, you stupid

and BTW, not Just Jesus who was praying and paying Zakat, but also Ismail commanded his people to do the same, let's have a look:

54- And remember in the book Ismail; indeed, he was truthful in (his) promise, and he was a messenger, a prophet.
55- And he (Ismail) used to command his family with prayer and zakah, and he was near his Lord pleased.
[Al Quran ; 19:54-55]

وَاذْكُرْ فِي الْكِتَابِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ۚ إِنَّهُ كَانَ صَادِقَ الْوَعْدِ وَكَانَ رَسُولًا نَبِيًّا (54)
وَكَانَ يَأْمُرُ أَهْلَهُ بِالصَّلَاةِ وَالزَّكَاةِ وَكَانَ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِ مَرْضِيًّا (55

-> See not Jusr Jesus who was praying and paying zakat, but also Ismail commanded his family to do so: And remember in the book Ismail; indeed, he was truthful in (his) promise, and he was a messenger, a prophet., and: يَأْمُرُ أَهْلَهُ بِالصَّلَاةِ وَالزَّكَاة, Ya'omir Ahlahu Bi Al-Salah Wa Al-Zakah, i.e. command his family with prayer and zakah

I.e. all those who should visit the Kabba should perform Prayer and pay Zakah, to Allah, the way it should be, i.e. the ways which were mentioned by all these prophets, Ismail, Jesus and Mohammed

Please dismiss yourself

I think the above should be added to my slam dunk show, however I will only add it to my web site for now
- Sat 10 Jan, 2009 10:24 am
Post subject:
Salam all

Let me slam dunk the crap by Islamis_Tashit aka Bin Lying, that he is spewing all over the place on FFI.

He is arguing that the Arabic word: سَمَاءً , Sama?????????????????????¢??a with a hamza at the end, means Sky, as if he means the physical sky itself despite the idiot does not know what is the physical sky made of

I disputed his crap and explained to him that the word Samaa means anything that is above or higher than where you are standing.

The three letters root سما , Sama, i.e. to rise is the root from which many other words are derived, in fact we can even derive from it words that have nothing to do with being high, neither being above, for example the word مُسَمَّى , Musama, is a word that is derived from the root سما , Sama, however it means Known which has nothing to do with being high or being above.

For me to totally slam dunk Tashit crap and paralyze him so he cannot reply back sanely, is to type the three letters root on one of the online Arabic dictionaries and show every one what it came up with.

I used the common dictionary named Al-Wasit, on this web site:

http://lexicons.ajeeb.com/openme.asp?fileurl=/html/4092259.html

Here is the results of the meaning of the Root and all other derived words from it including the word سَمَاءً , Sama?????????????????????¢??a with a Hamza at the end:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


I have underlined using yellow what I am going to translate for you:

1) سما , Sama, to rise, to be above

2) اسمى , Asma, to make him higher, to make him above

3) ساماه , Samah, compete with another to be higher, compete with another to be above

4) سماه , Sammah, give him a name

5) تسامى , Tasama, the people competed against each other to be higher or to be above

6) السامى , Al-Sami, the one who is in a high place

7) السماء , Al-Sama?????????????????????¢??a, what is in front of the earth, the universe, and everything above, and everything that is above you that give you shade, the cloud, the rain, as we read in the Quran verse 71:11 يُرْسِلُ السَّمَاءَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِدْرَارًا

8) السماوة , Al-Samawah, the ceiling of a house

9) السمو , Al-Semmo, highness, the title of any prince

10) السمى , Al-Sammay, the proud, the one who thinks to be above others

11) المسمى , Al-Musamma, the known, as in the Quran verse 2:282 إِذَا تَدَايَنْتُمْ بِدَيْنٍ إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمَّى فَاكْتُبُوهُ

Here you have it, ugly Tashit, the perfect slam:

# 46
- Sat 10 Jan, 2009 3:25 pm
Post subject:
Salaam, Ahmed

Is he the guy who remains in a Holiday Inn bathroom, the Towel Head?

I have really yet to see an FFI Goon, who can discuss Arabic. Your Slam dunks are
really appreciated as the silent readers on FFI can make out how Qur'aan is distorted
by FFI Ignorants.

Please keep doing that.

Let me say this. No Ahmed Bahgat, no FFI. lol!

All here may find this interesting at this link:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R32OK1UEQPUMXC/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?_encoding=UTF8&ASIN=0980994802&nodeID=283155#wasThisHelpful

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.


Ali Sina, himself, confirmed to me once during exchanges that he read translations in English to discuss and did not understand Arabic.

Laughable, indeed! Laughing

Baig
- Sun 11 Jan, 2009 7:50 pm
Post subject: Ronyvo at FFI
Hello, Ahmed

I read the following from ronyvo at FFI, followed by your good response:

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.


You reply:

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.


It is appalling to read from ronyvo that he studied Qur'aan in Arabic. Laughing Looks like ronyvo is one step behind Haik Monsieur aka Khalil Friel. Laughing

So, with Ronyvo's argument, a Christian Arab Priest would say, "Dear beloved, we have all gathered here to see this couple in holy fucking!" Laughing Laughing Laughing

Hope Ronyvo or some FFI goon can post this on FFI for everbody's reading pleasure.

Salaams
Baig
- Tue 13 Jan, 2009 11:41 am
Post subject:
Hello all

Time to expose a clear cut deceiver who is an inmate in the CCCLD (Cyber Correction Centre of the FFI Life Dismissals) as well resume my slam dunk show:

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?


Hahahaha, here is the conman in action, when he is cornered, he starts spinning

Yeh it was bloody smart enough to expose a conman like you, show us how it was the contrary

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Do you know Arabic?


But it is been proven that you are indeed ignorant of the basics of Arabic language, your crap below will be enough to again expose you

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
I bet you do not.


The safest bet should be that are the one who do not, well, you will prove me right (again) below

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Do you have your comprehension intact? NOT.


Well, let me tact your comprehension then

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
How would you translate a phrase if that denotes "Girls who have not reached the age of menstruation?"


Lam Yaddnna ABADA

Lol, do you think that was smart enough?

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Now listen you kid.


Well, how a kid listens to a fool?

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
"Lam" = Denotative of negation. "NOT"


Good boy

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
"Yahidh" = Verbal form of "Haidh" or "Maheedh" = "Menstruate"


Good boy

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
"Na" = Resonance which means either "Still or Yet".


HAHAHAHAHAHA, are you that fool to think that you can fool the novice Arabic speakers?, well you may only further confuse the already confused goons in here, but do not dare to do it with any Arabic speaker you conman

The Na at the end of Yahiddna is called Noon Al Niswah you fool, i.e. the Noon for the feminine plural, which must be added to any VERB if we are talking about a group of women performing such verb

Why do not you go and burry your PinConHead somewhere?

KhaliL FarieL wrote:

Why do you skip your Quran classes?


And did you skip your Arabic classes?

Do you really know Arabic or just the letters and numbers?

Please follow my advice to find an isolated place so you can burry your PinConHead whitout feeling any shame that some may be watching you, you have been slammed again:

# 47
- Tue 13 Jan, 2009 12:29 pm
Post subject:
Hello, Ahmed

That was indeed a great Slam dunk. You exposed Khaleel Fariel aka Haik Monsieur as the kid who does not really know Arabic.

I was shocked when the goon said Na means Still or Yet.

I am glad you exposed this guy who talks rubbish and does not really know Arabic and grammar.

I think we can rate him as Apple_Pie No:2 Laughing

Well done, mate.

Salaams
Baig
- Tue 13 Jan, 2009 6:04 pm
Post subject:
Ahmed chose to reply to one of the CCC Life Dismissals

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Ahmed Bahgat,


Well, you need to really STHU and admit your blunder, but we should know by now that a deceiver will never admit it, because your deliberate blunder is part of your plan to deceive others, but again, you will only be able to deceive the already confused FFI goons, you will never be able to deceive a believer

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
No comment on your ad hominem rants which are reflective of your frustration.


Well, if you think that I am frustrated then fine, let?????????????????????¢??s consider it that I am frustrated because the Cyber world allows deceivers like you to mislead others with ease. That is why I am here to expose the likes of you and help those others not to be deceived by you

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
I forgot to warn you beforehand abrogating my life dismissal to engage with me will pay you dearly Mr. Bahgat,


Look pal, your life dismissal won?????????????????????¢??t be abrogated until you apologise for all Muslims publicly on FFI web site, you were the perpetrators not them, on the other hand you should have known by now that with the life dismissals, I still reserve my right to reply to any crap they spew.

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
You have not learnt from your past mistakes. Now let me move into business.


My mistakes in your Barbie world?

Well, in the real world everything is documented on my slam dunk show on a few web sites.

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
The phrase in trial is ?????????????????????¢??Lam Yahidna?????????????????????¢??????????????????????


Really?

What a dumb bum

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.


Hmmm, but you spewed crap that the Na at the end of Yahddena means ?????????????????????¢??Yet?????????????????????¢??????????????????????, which is 100% a blunder, why donot you be a man and admit your blunder first?

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.


Well, being a kid or an adult won?????????????????????¢??t take of me my brilliance in the Arabic language

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
LAM = Negation in the past.


Wrong, Lam can only apply to present tense verbs, IT CAN NEVER APPLY TO PAST TENSE VERBS, see how confused you are?, how about you go and check with an Arabic language teacher, you even do not need a professor to check it with, just a teacher and ask him, can we use LAM with a past tense verbs?, let me tell you the answer that you should hear, BIG NO, in fact it is impossible to happen

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Yahidh = Present tense from the root Haidh


Exactly, can you see how the Lam applies only to present tenses

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Na = Suffix


What happened?

Firstly you tell us that it means ?????????????????????¢??Yet?????????????????????¢??????????????????????, now you tell us that it is a suffix?

Well, I agree with you this time that it is a suffix that indicate PLURAL FEMININE VERB

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Can you translate this word to word to English without adding ?????????????????????¢??Yet?????????????????????¢?? in it and make sense of it?


Of course I can:

They do not have their period

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Do you want to see how it goes:


How about you see above how it went?

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
?????????????????????¢??Not in the past to menstruate?????????????????????¢??????????????????????


Wrong

It has to be like this:

Lam Yahiddna MIN QABL

Or

Lam Yahiddna ABADA,

In both cases, the key words Min Qabl and Abada, must indicate that the denial of Lam is not only for present rather for present and past

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Does it make sense to you?


Read above then try to learn something to clear you obvious ignorance

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Perhaps; since you are not a native speaker of English and your skills in this beautiful language is very poor.


Who cares abot English you fool while we are discussing Arabic words?

Are you that hard core of a deceiver?

Well, let me expose you with ease:

If you one day visited me at my home (I am sure it will never happen because you will not be welcomed until you apologise to all Muslims on FFI), then I asked you in Arabic:

Inta Akalat Al-Fitar, i.e. did you eat your breakfast

If you did not have your breakfast then you must answer in this way:

La?????????????????????¢??a, Lam Akul Al-Fitar, i.e. No, I did not eat my breakfast

Now look again and see for yourself that you only denied the most recent (last) breakfast, on the other hand you can not be denying that you ate your breakfast yesterday and the day before or any past day for that matter

And that should be enough to expose your stupidity and the stupidity of those goons who support your clear crap

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.


Dismissed

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
?????????????????????¢??Not menstruated yet?????????????????????¢??????????????????????

See, it makes perfect sense;


Only for the fools like you, however in the real words of the Arabic words, YET CAN NENER EXIST WITH LAM unless the words: Min Qabl or Abada are used

Why don?????????????????????¢??t you dismiss yourself? You are a real embarrassment to yourself indeed

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.


But I already did you confused, here it is again:

They do not have their periods

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Waiting
KhaliL


Well, you do not need to wait, you may check in back with your inmates, also as a punishment for your deception, you must wipe the FFI floors for the next two weeks, don?????????????????????¢??t worry if you can?????????????????????¢??t find a dirty rug, you may use yourself
- Tue 13 Jan, 2009 7:01 pm
Post subject:
Thanks for this post.

I am really glad that you have shown Khalil Fariel his own blunders and twists.

All Khalil is doing now is to wriggle out of his own blunders. First he said Na means Yet or Still. Then realises his blunder and comes up with Suffix, only after you hammered him.

I think he should really apologise.

I will be opening posts on the Qur'aan thread on my newly created forum. If you can, please tell him to come and write there.

He can enjoy true freedom and true grilling. No banning and no deleting of his posts.

Salaams
Baig
- Thu 15 Jan, 2009 11:58 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

One of the recently life dismissed kafir bound to hell from FFI raised a stupid argument which resulted in his life dismissal, please note that his insults to Allah will be ommitted:

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


However I decided to slam dunk him as well:

This slam is going to be unique, I will not do my normal walkthrough, rather will let the Quran and the Bible speak, both should dunk the slam:

12: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
[Isaiah ; 29:12]


And you did not recite before it any book, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, for then could those who say untrue things have doubted.
[The Quran ; 29:48]

وَمَا كُنتَ تَتْلُو مِن قَبْلِهِ مِن كِتَابٍ وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ بِيَمِينِكَ إِذًا لَّارْتَابَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ (48)



1- Read in the name of your Lord Who created.
3- Read and your Lord is Most Honorable,
[Al Quran ; 96:1 & 3]

اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ (1)
اقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ الْأَكْرَمُ (3)



We shall make you (Muhammad) read so that you shall not forget.
[Al Quran ; 87:6]

سَنُقْرِؤُكَ فَلَا تَنسَى (6)



18: I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
[Deuteronomy ; 18:18]


And We have only made it easy in your tongue that you may give good tidings thereby to those who fear (Allah), and warn thereby a hostile people.
[Al Quran ; 19:97]

فَإِنَّمَا يَسَّرْنَاهُ بِلِسَانِكَ لِتُبَشِّرَ بِهِ الْمُتَّقِينَ وَتُنْذِرَ بِهِ قَوْمًا لُدًّا (97)



In The name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 1:1]

بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ (1)


# 49
- Thu 22 Jan, 2009 1:24 am
Post subject:
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.


Hey kid

I decided to make you part of my slam dunk show, you should be proud that a kid like you finally made it to my show. Despite that I decided to replay my earlier slams (43) which are not posted in here, it won't stop me from adding new slams, so it is about time for slam dunk # 50

You are parroting the same crap by the deceitful gang kahlil, cassie and others,, certainly they managed to recruit you, you know what will be easier to manipulate than a kid. You and your gang allege the following crap:

The word مكر Ma Ka Ra, means to decieve

Now, I irrefutably showed every goon of FFI that Makara does not mean to decieve, rather to plan

I also showed the stupid and manipulated goons of FFI that the Arabic word for decieve is خدع Ka Da Aa. I even showed the goons the use of the Quran to such word in verses: 2:9 and 4:142 which I do not need to post them again unless I have too if the stubborn ignorant kafirs want to to read them again

In my previous refute I also showed verse 7:123 in which it is clear that the word Ma Ka Ra MUST MEAN TO PLAN, this conclusion is very logical but we know that the dumb ignorant bums will not even understand it while it is so simple to understand by a child, let's have a look at another verse that I never posted before:

And they planned a plan, and We planned a plan, while they do not feel.
[The Quran ; 27:50]

وَمَكَرُوا مَكْرًا وَمَكَرْنَا مَكْرًا وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ (50)


-> See above: وَمَكَرُوا مَكْرًا , Wa Makaru Makra, let me analyse those three words for you to help you clear you ignorance after discovering your stupidity:

1- وَ , Wa , i.e. And.

2- مَكَرُوا , Makaru , A VERB with an omitted doer of the verb which means They planned, the word ?????????????????????¢??they?????????????????????¢?? under the Arabic grammar must be omitted but still recognised as if it exits, that is one of great nature of the Arabic language, which is, saying the least words with the most meaning, the verb is formed into Plural form (the extra last two letters ?????????????????????¢??Waw?????????????????????¢?? and ?????????????????????¢??Alif?????????????????????¢??), to indicate the omitted ?????????????????????¢??they?????????????????????¢??, the root for this verb is Ma Ka Ra

3- مَكْرًا , Makra, A NOUN that is derived from the same root Ma Ka Ra, i.e. a plan

i.e. the three words should be translated as And they planned a plan.

[u]In the second half of the verse, the same was said about Allah, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look:[/b]

-> See: وَمَكَرْنَا مَكْرًا , Wa Makarna Makra, let me analyse these three words again, in order to either clear your ignorance after discovering your stupidity, or to expose your manipulations after being manipulated by other kafirs:

1- وَ , Wa , i.e. And.

2- مَكَرْنَا , Makarna , A VERB with an omitted doer of the verb which means We planned, the word ?????????????????????¢??We under the Arabic grammar must be omitted but still recognised as if it exits, the verb is formed into another Plural form (the extra last two letters ?????????????????????¢??Noon?????????????????????¢?? and ?????????????????????¢??Alif?????????????????????¢??), to indicate the omitted ?????????????????????¢??We?????????????????????¢??, the root for this verb is Ma Ka Ra

3- مَكْرًا , Makra, A NOUN that is derived from the same root Ma Ka Ra, i.e. a plan

i.e. the three words should be translated as And We planned a plan.

Now, try replacing the right meaning of to plan for the two verbs and two nouns above, using your manipulated meaning to deceive, this is what you should get:

And they deceived a deceit, And We deceived a deceit. WHICH SHOULD MAKE NO SENSE TO ANYONE LIVING A REAL WORLD, but for the FFI Barbie world dwellers from the confused, manipulated, ignorant, dumb, idiots, shifty and hell fuel kafirs, it makes all the sense to them.

And that should be my 50th slam dunk:

# 50
- Sat 31 Jan, 2009 11:44 pm
Post subject:
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 Very Happy

May Allah guide us always closer to the truth.
- Sun 01 Feb, 2009 12:25 am
Post subject:
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 Very Happy

May Allah guide us always closer to the truth.


Salam mate

welcome to FI

yeh man, i have replied to it many times, I remember that i used a part of the story of Musa where the perspective of the specch changes many times in just a few verses, the ignorant goons of FFI do not know such style of Balagha in the Arabic Language that is called Iltifata, however I excuse them because such style is still hard to comprehend, imagine an already ignorant trying to comprehend it

i will look for such comment mate, and if I cannot find it, i will try to write another one, the Quran is full of such style of Balagha

take care
- Sun 01 Feb, 2009 8:00 am
Post subject:
Good morning all

Time for another slam dunk, # 51, in this slam I will expose the confused Christian and idol worshipper of FFI, nosubmission,

He is parroting the same crap spewed by the ignorant goons that 5:116 is talking about the Trinity as if it is (Allah + Jesus + Mary), the matter of the fact however is quite the contrary, 5:116 NEVER talked about Trinity, as brother MasterBlaster stated in his refute, now what I am about to show you confirms that 5:116 can never be talking about the Trinity, here is the stupid argument by the confused goon and idol worshipper, nosubmission:

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?


Obviously the dumb ignorant bum, does not understand the difference between these words:

1) مِن دُونِ , Min Doon, i.e. OTHER THAN, i.e. it means EXCLUSION
2) مَعَ , Maa, i.e. WITH, i.e. it means INCLUSION

Let me bring the verse in here, I will use Yusuf Ali translation:

And behold! Allah will say: O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'? He will say: Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.
[The Quran ; 5:116]

وَإِذْ قَالَ اللّهُ يَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَأَنتَ قُلتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِي وَأُمِّيَ إِلَهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ اللّهِ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أَقُولَ مَا لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ إِن كُنتُ قُلْتُهُ فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَهُ تَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِي وَلاَ أَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِكَ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ عَلاَّمُ الْغُيُوبِ (116)

-> What caused your confusion and many others for that matter (even Muslims) is this, you guys are ignorant enough not to understand what these words mean : , Min Doon, which mean Other Than, i.e. the words meanExclusion

-> See the words again : اتَّخِذُونِي وَأُمِّيَ إِلَهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ اللّهِ , Itakhizoni Wa Ommi Ilahain Min Doon Allah, translated by Yusuf Ali as follow : worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah, while it is almost perfect translation, Yusuf Ali still made one mistake, he referred to the dual word Ilahain, as plural, i.e. instead of two gods, he translated to gods, however Yusuf Ali translated the words Min Doon perfectly as in derogation of , the prefect translation should be as follow, the ultimate translation should be any of the followings:

worship me and my mother as two gods in derogation of Allah

or

worship me and my mother as two gods other than Allah

I.E. 5:116 is not talking about Trinity, rather Duality, this is obvious from the dual word Ilahain, Allah however was EXCLUDED FROM BEING A GOD WITH THEM, this is because the words used are Min Doon which 100% means EXCLUSION. Anyone who translates these words as BESIDE must be a clear cut ignorant.

For the verse above be talking about Trinity then another word MUST be used instead of the word Min Doon, this word is مَعَ , Maa, i.e. With i.e. INCLUSION, so the words must be like this for the sentence to be talking about Trinity: اتَّخِذُونِي وَأُمِّيَ الهه مَعَ اللّهِ , Itakhizoni Wa Ommi Aliha Maa Allah, which should be translated as follow : worship me and my mother as gods with Allah,

Can you see the couple of differences? Well, here they are:

1) The dual word إِلَهَيْنِ , Ilahain, i.e. Two gods should be replaced with its plural الهه , Aliha, gods.

2) The EXCLUSION words مِن دُونِ , Min Doon, i.e. OTHER THAN should be replaced with the INCLUSION word مَعَ , Maa, With , i.e. we are not talking about two gods any more, rather both Mary and Jesus along WITH Allah, and in such case the Dual word إِلَهَيْنِ , , Ilahain, i.e. Two gods must be Plural الهه , Aliha, gods. as stated in point 1

What left for me to make my slam irrefutable is to a verse out of many which is a clear example to the use of the word Maa, i.e. With to mean INCLUDING other gods WITH Allah:

Do not take with Allah any other god, lest you sit down condemned, neglected.
[The Quran ; 17:22]

لاَّ تَجْعَل مَعَ اللّهِ إِلَهًا آخَرَ فَتَقْعُدَ مَذْمُومًا مَّخْذُولاً (22)

-> See, لاَّ تَجْعَل مَعَ اللّهِ إِلَهًا آخَرَ , La Tagaal Maa Allah Ilahan Akhar, i.e. Do not take with Allah any other god, i.e. INCLUSION

The goons of FFI can never come to grip to understand that my Quran refutes are irrefutable, here is the new slam:

# 51
- Tue 17 Feb, 2009 4:56 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

The debate for slam dunk # 5 opened again on FFI, here is the slam again

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Salam All,

Let?????????????????????¢??s have a look at the subject of today?????????????????????¢??s slam:

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


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
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


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


Here is what the FFI Jerk # 1 came up with, along with my reply:

Ahmed chose to reply to hard core inmate cassie

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.



Well, fine I will consider that, for your arse only (my name is Bahgat, Ahmed Bahgat)

now what I want you to consider, and sure for my arse only, I can assure you I have one that the chicks love (stay away fags), that the verse did not say that it lasted one day, let's just say this (assumption of course)

the torrnade hit them in a day of bad luck that continued. PERIOD

i.e. it did not tell us that the torrenade STOPPED on that day

back to your cell darling, but please next time you must address me as 'Sir", you want to increase your chances of an early parol, so you can talk to me freely and without restrictions

And here is what Jerk # 2 came up with, along with my reply:

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.


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

Here is what Jerk # 3 came up with, along with my reply:

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).


Read above you dumb stupid bum, it says the the furious wind was sent on a day, it does not say that the wind lasted a day

see, when I send something to anyone iit will arrive on a day, not it will arrive on days

are you that stupid or possibly that dumb?

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?


For the dumb stupid bum like you or for the retarded inmates like cassie and filthy arsekel, it may sound so, but for any sane human, all it said that the wind was sent on a day, it does not say the wind lasted a day

why do't you piss off and dismiss your dumb arse instead of wastinig my time?

skynightblaze wrote:

I have a problem with the verses from chapter 69


That must be your bloody problem, not mine

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!


It says that the wind was made (subjected) to last seven nights and eight says, it does not say that the wind was sent to them on seven nights and eight days

are you that stupid or what?

I am not mocking you, you indeed sound so dumb

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??


Dismissed

And here is what Jerk # 4 came up with supporting Jerk # 3, which resulted in slam dunk # 52:

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.


Look at the dumb and confused aussie punk promoting lies that Cyclones last a day, the following is from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1856_Last_Island_Hurricane

On August 9, people noticed a roaring noise out in the gulf, and cattle on the island walked back and forth nervously for hours. On August 10, the weather got worse with the skies turning black, and rain coming down in torrents. The hurricane swept over the island, and the storm lasted for two days.

1856 Last Island hurricane:

Formed sometime before August 9, 1856
Dissipated August 12, 1856



That must be a slam dunk, hey

Addition:

Hurricane Katrina formed on August 23, 2005 and dissipated on August 31 of the same year. It began as Tropical Storm Twelve of the season and caused billions of dollars in damage to become the costliest storm in Atlantic hurricane history.

Then I added another reply to his desprate re-reply:

Ahmed chose to reply to the ignorant inmate Arsekel

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.



Listen you criminal, we are not talking about Thamud, we are talking about Ad, you confused freak

see here how far Ad is from the coast:



Dismiss your stupid bum back into your cell, NOW

The punk did not give up, so it needed the slam:

Ahmed chose to reply to inmate Arsekel again:

Aksel Ankersen wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Ahmed chose to reply to the ignorant inmate Arsekel

...

Listen you criminal, we are not talking about Thamud, we are talking about Ad, you confused freak

see here how far Ad is from the coast:



Dismiss your stupid bum back into your cell, NOW

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.

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


This is the sort of replies you get from a clear cut punk of a jerk, here is part of my huge debate wit Layth of free-minds.org, read it and educate yourself, you ignorant:


Quote:
Aad & Thamud have continued after one another IN-THE-SAME place.


Hahahahahahahahaha, that was one hell of a clear cut manipulation, in fact Aad and Thamud lived distances apart as we will see later, as well the Quran never told us that Aad carved houses on mountains, it only told us that Aad built symbols over hills

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.


Actually Medien Saleh is the sister city of Petra, i.e. whoever lived in Petra had full access to Median Saleh and vice versa

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);


Well, this is a very weak argument, because the people of Thamud may have lived in Petra and created their Cemetery in Medien Saleh, also we all knows that the tombs are the houses of the dead, i.e. Median Saleh can also be the place which the Quran is talking about, at the end of the day, building homes for the live or the dead as stated in 7:74 CAN'T BE VALID FOR AAD'S PEOPLE because the Quran never told us that about Aad

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);


Yep, a valley between the mountains, i.e. they lived in the Valley and they carved their graves in the mountains around the valley , this does not apply to Aad's people though because the Quran never told us as such about them

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).


Possibly, that is why Thamud people made it a cemetery while they lived in Petra

Quote:
Petra.
Thus we are left with 'Petra' which fits all our clues for being 'Irum' with the Great Columns (89:6-9):


A clear cut conjecture, the City of Iram was discovered in early nineties as far as the archaeological evidences are concerned and it is hundreds of miles away from Petra and Medien Saleh:

How remote sensing helped find a lost city:

The legend goes like this: Ubar, a rich and fabulous trading center of ancient Arabia rose out of the desert and then mysteriously vanished back into the sands. References to Ubar in the Koran, the Arabian Nights, and countless Bedouin tales told around desert campfires have captivated the imaginations of explorers and archaeologists. But all searches were fruitless and the city remained lost.

From ancient accounts, the basis for Ubar's existence was frankincense, a sweet smelling incense then as valuable as gold. It was used as a fragrance, for medicinal purposes, and for embalming. The frankincense was prepared from the gum or sap of trees grown in the nearby Qara mountains. From there it was transported by camel caravan to the world centers of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Damascus, and beyond to the western Mediterranean. Ubar became enormously rich from this trade in frankincense. What started as a small town around an oasis became a walled city of great renown.

Then, according to legend, great wickedness flourished in Ubar, and the Almighty Allah destroyed the fortress city and blotted out the roads that led to it. Ubar was lost for thousands of years, perhaps buried under the shifting sands of the desert of the Arabian Peninsula. T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) called it the "Atlantis of the sands," but he died before he could lead his own expedition to find it. Many archaeologists believed that the existence of a prosperous trading center was much more than a fable told by nomadic tribesmen, but all searches for Ubar came up empty

The question with Ubar was where exactly to look. It was thought to be in or near the Rub' al Khali (Empty Quarter), a great sand sea in the southern Arabian Peninsula. This very arid area is roughly the size of Texas with sand dunes over 600 feet high. Searching such a vast area was a considerable challenge.

In the early 1980s a Los Angeles filmmaker and archaeological enthusiast named Nicholas Clapp began researching the history of Ubar and planning an archaeological expedition. George Hedges, an attorney, provided the organizational expertise and carried out most of the logistics. Clapp used ancient maps, literature, and records to arrive at a general location for Ubar in southern Oman. This was still a dauntingly large area to search

Clapp decided to enlist NASA's help because of its expertise in applying remote sensing. He contacted Dr. Ronald Blom of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory for help. Data from an experiment on the NASA space shuttle using imaging radar was of particular interest. This experiment bounced radar off the Earth's surface to determine the type of terrain. Since the radar penetrated through dry sand, they thought the remains of a buried fortress might be revealed.

The initial radar images yielded no direct indication of the location of the site, but images from the Landsat and SPOT remote sensing satellites showed distinct tracks through the desert.

Two expeditions to Oman were mounted; one in 1990 and one in 1991. The expedition team included Nicholas Clapp, Dr. Ronald Blom, archaeologist Dr. Juris Zarins, and British explorer Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who had been on previous Ubar searches. The team investigated the area around Ash Shisr, and soon an archaeological excavation began

The excavations uncovered a large octagonal fortress with thick walls ten feet high and eight tall towers at the corners. The archaeologists also found Greek, Roman, and Syrian pottery, the oldest of which was dated at more than 4,000 years old. The discovery of these types of artefacts from far away places indicated that this was indeed a major center for trade and likely the fabled Ubar.

A picture of Iram 's castles that were found on a depth of 10 meters under layers of sands. It is characterized by its huge pillars. The picture was taken via an American satellite.

One startling result of the excavation was that it appears that Ubar did meet with a catastrophic end, as many of the legends describe. The excavation revealed a giant limestone cavern beneath the fortress. The scientists believe that Ubar may have been destroyed when a large portion of it collapsed into the cavern.

There is still much to be discovered at the site and many questions remain. What is certain is that Mr. Clapp and his team took ancient stories and modern technology and from them wrung a significant archaeological discovery.

The search for Ubar is a good example of how remote sensing can be used with a more traditional discipline like archaeology. Radar imaging is one of the most important types of remote sensing in arid regions and it is has seen wide application in archaeology. In the search for Ubar, however, the limited coverage provided by the space shuttle-based imaging radar necessitated the use of other remotely sensed data.

Landsat imagery played a very important role in the search for Ubar. Using a sensor known as the Thematic Mapper, Landsat produced images that the team could use to identify features like surface tracks. Landsat imagery covers a large area in a single scene, over 30,000 square kilometres, allowing the team to analyse vast portions of the desert at one time.

Data from the French satellite known as SPOT were also used. The SPOT data provide the most detailed, or highest resolution, images available to the team

The researchers used these and other data in their search. Sophisticated image processing techniques were used to highlight the important features. Data from different sources were combined to yield more clues. The result was that the expedition was able to exclude large regions of the desert from consideration, and narrow the search to the most promising sites

In reality, Ubar was not the name of the city, but the name of the region. In the 2nd century A.D. Ptolemy made a map which called the area "Iobaritae", i.e. the Ubarites. The Quran called them "the people of 'Ad". Later legends referred to the fabulous wealth of the city and used the region name Ubar to designate it.

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

This image from space shows a portion of the southern Empty Quarter of the Arabian Peninsula in the country of Oman. On the left is a radar image of the region around the site of the fabled Lost City of Ubar.




Below, we read that the Quran specified the location of Aad in Al-Ahqaaf:

And mention the brother of Ad; when he warned his people in the sandy plains,-- and indeed warners came before him and after him-- saying Serve none but Allah; surely I fear for you the punishment of a grievous day.
[The Quran ; 46:21]

وَاذْكُرْ أَخَا عَادٍ إِذْ أَنذَرَ قَوْمَهُ بِالْأَحْقَافِ وَقَدْ خَلَتْ النُّذُرُ مِن بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا اللَّهَ إِنِّي أَخَافُ عَلَيْكُمْ عَذَابَ يَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ (21)


Looking at the followings facts about Aad from the Quran:
1) The people of Hud were living in Al-Ahqaaf which means the Dunes, and the historians said that it is located between Yemen and Oman.
2) Aad????????s people were having groves, livestocks, and springs.
3) Aad 's people built an enormous city called Iram, which had tremendous palaces and huge pillars. That is why, Allah described it in the Quran as: Iram; the city with huge pillars.
4) When they accused Hud of lying, Allah sent a stormy wind loaded with dust that killed them and immersed their city in sands.

This must conclude that the discovered city of Ubar is the city of Iram mentioned in the Quran

There is no doubt that what the author is trying to prove (that Thamud people lived in the same place as Aad's people) is nothing but dust in thin air, he provided not a single merited conclusive evidence

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).


Also it must be surrounded with a few mountains hence Petra is the city of Thamud but it can't be the city of Aad

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).


Hmmmm, based on that logic then, the location where Ibrahim dropped his family in a valley without cultivation at the first House of Allah on earth can't be near Jerusalem because Jerusalem is cultivated hill not an uncultivated valley, can you see how the author of this confusing article is double faced?

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:


So what, it seems this guy is running out of words, fine Petra is the city of Thamud, however what Petra has to do with Aad exactly?, I really don't get it

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."


So what again, come on, the Muslims agree that Petra is the city of Thamud, but it can't be the city of Aad

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).


Great and what that has to do exactly with Aad or Al Masjid Al Haram?, bloody confusing hey

Quote:
Thus, in conclusion to this part of the research,


I won't call it research though, I may call it a clear cut case of confusion

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.


Hahahahahaha, that was a clear cut conjecture, all the Quran and archaeological evidences suggest that the two cities are hundreds of miles apart

# 52

Well, possibly just before the slam, he gave up, see what the jerk said while I was slamming:

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.
- Wed 25 Mar, 2009 4:06 am
Post subject:
Hello AhmedBahgat i have a question on the following point

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.


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
- Wed 25 Mar, 2009 6:16 am
Post subject:
samson wrote:
Hello AhmedBahgat i have a question on the following point

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.


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


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
- Wed 25 Mar, 2009 8:26 am
Post subject:
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.

------

But isnt marrying from ma malakat yaminuka conditional under 4:3 or ... ?
- Wed 25 Mar, 2009 8:38 am
Post subject:
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.


Exactly


Quote:

------

But isnt marrying from ma malakat yaminuka conditional under 4:3 or ... ?


Actually verse 4:3 does not say to marry one and ma malakat aymanikum, rather one OR ma malakat aymanikum, which clearly means that ma malakat aymanikum are equal to the protected women who are well supported by their families

Salam
- Wed 08 Apr, 2009 8:23 pm
Post subject:
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


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
- Wed 08 Apr, 2009 8:48 pm
Post subject:
shindeiru wrote:
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


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


Salam brother

Thank you for contributing to this tough subject, however, what I meant was 'indirect command" by Allah, as in the verse above it says: You would not make your ma malakat aymanikum partners in your possessions equally, i.e. 50:50

For me it means "Indirectly" that it is better to make your malakat aymanikum 50:50 in your possisions, let me bring the verse in Arabic and see if I may have over looked its message:

30:28 ضَرَبَ لَكُمْ مَثَلًا مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ ۖ هَلْ لَكُمْ مِنْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ مِنْ شُرَكَاءَ فِي مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ فَأَنْتُمْ فِيهِ سَوَاءٌ تَخَافُونَهُمْ كَخِيفَتِكُمْ أَنْفُسَكُمْ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ نُفَصِّلُ الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ

Yes, Allah is giving us a parable from ourselves, telling us, Is there any of ma malakat aymanikum as your partner equally in what Allah provided for you?, then Allah provided the answer by saying 'indorectly", that it not going to happen because we fear ma malakat ayman to be equal to us.

The morla of the parable as far as I believe that Allah is telling us indirectly how we treat ma malakat aymanikum unfairly by considering them sub humans

I may be wrong of course, so I appreciate your feedback, on the mean times I will look at the tafsir in Arabic and see what they have said, but I agree with you that it is a rethorical question and the answer is no, but that no is not from Allah, rather from us who refuse to make such poor people equal sharers in what Allah provided to us

Also for technicality reasons, I prefer to refer to ma malakat ayminkum as to be what your paths possess, however what your oaths possess should be virtually equal to what you right hands possess, the fact of the matter that the othas and the right hands can never own anything, it is just a metaphor of having control over a weak human who have no one to support but those whom (their oaths, or their hands) possess, the whole point is this, we do not posses them to abuse them, rather we posses them to take care of them as equal humans to us. what I mean is simply, I hope I do not confuse you by referring to them as possessed by oaths rather than possessed ba hands

Take care
- Thu 09 Apr, 2009 1:32 am
Post subject:
hi brother,

i fully agree with your english translation of aymanikum as oaths, since it is always used this way in the quran, but it seems to be corrupted eachtime it is used for humans and i wonder why. probably the lust and low desires of men who seized the opportunity to abuse of these weak people in society.

now back to our topic, i thought i should bring some verses which deal with sharing from our wealth with ma malakat ayamikum

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

we need to answer the following question here, what is the kitab which ma malakat aymanikum are asking for? 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? and the money we are told to give them is the agreed amount collected by his labor before setting him free
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


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

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..

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?
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.

let me know what you think
- Thu 09 Apr, 2009 2:04 pm
Post subject:
shindeiru wrote:
hi brother,


Salam mate

I am sorry that it is taking me long to reply to you as I have a lot of other things that are taking most of my time, I even can not finish the last 14 verses in sura 34 yet, so please bear with me

Also, I am glad that you managed to make sense out of my last comment as when I read it again, I found it full of mistakes (typos and grammar) so sorry fo that one too

shindeiru wrote:
i fully agree with your english translation of aymanikum as oaths, since it is always used this way in the quran,


Cool, however as you may also agree that using the word Oaths is also a metaphor as using the word rigght hand, however I see more humblness in taking it as Oaths, because the oaths should be taken with Allah that you are committed to care for such poor person, exactly as when the humble man bought prophet Yusuf, he said to his wife, treat him with honour, he may benefit us, and we may take him as a son. how great such teaching if all rich people give heed to it?, I guess there will be no poor human around.

shindeiru wrote:

but it seems to be corrupted eachtime it is used for humans and i wonder why.


You do not need to wonder too far, just look in the Quran and you should find the answer in fornt of your eyes, repeated, it is Satan who try to flaw all humans, and his best way in, is to make them confused regarding their own scriptures, this is the case with all religions btw, in fact Satan even tried to do it with the prophet by corrupting him and making him recite verses that were never sent by Allah, people underestimate the cleverness and commitmemt of Satan

Satan way in with the Muslims ,after he did all the chistians, the jews, the hindus, and athesits, (who heard the message of the Quran and rejected it), was really simple, he realized well that he cannot corrupt the Quran, so over very short years, he incited those who promoted the man made crap of hadith, to shirk their man made books with the book of Allah, now, with such Mushrik Muslims, you will always see them confused regsrding the Quran, because they may even uphold something from such man made books of hadith that either overwrites a law in the Quran, or contradicts it

How simple the plan, dear brother, I am shocked, and sad yet not surprised that it satan did the Muslims too, most of them mate, even many of my family members, if not all, it is very scary feeling i have to tell you, it is like I say to myself, how the hell all these people are wrong and I am right?, so I try to even convince myself that I am wrong and I have gone astray and I should stop what I am doing and go back to the main stream Muslims, I could not do it from the bottom of my heart, I found it less scarier to follow my heart and what I consider the truth while taking the risk of being wrong, than following the main stream and what they consider right, while taking a higher risk that they may be wrong.

Possibly if I have not reached what I found in the Quran, and was what should be classified as ignorant, would have given me respite, because Allah does not punish the ignorant if they never heard the truth/knowledge

Now, considering that what I learnt from the Quran and their man made hadith is what I assume to be the truth, then I have no excuse man to turn back, this also applies to all who read my writings and whom Ispoke directly to, including so many of my family members and friends. they cannot be classified as ignorant any more, therefore they are taking risk as well.

Now using such propabilities, by assuming that both of us may be wrong, you should recognise that I still have a better chance in my defence if given the opportunity to explain myself, I will just use the superiority of Allah words in my defence as well use the crap in such man made books to soldify my defence

Now, with the other way around, such people and hadith worshippers, will have no bloody defence even if given the opportunity to explain themselves. I have put myself in their situation and just could not find a way out.

Sorry for such broing thoughts, sometimes I feel like writings too much, the reason of the above thoughts, is simply is your wonder to why so many Muslims promote the wring information about their own religion, the best answer to that is simply, screw them, they will not carry any of you sins, nor will you concering their sins, just follow what your heart tells you while seeking guidance for your heart from the Quran only

shindeiru wrote:

probably the lust and low desires of men who seized the opportunity to abuse of these weak people in society.


Not probably, rather certainly

See, I consider humans at any generations, are living with the same law of the animals, the one to stay is the strongest.

This started from almost day 1 for humans on earth, when one of Adams sons, killed his brother so the strongest stays and win what they consider a win, while the fact of the matter, it will be a certain loss

This animal attitude happens every fukin day in this life and will continue to happen, it happens between indviduals, it happen between fanilies, it happened between strangers, it happen between companies and it happens between nations

Now, who will be the weakest of humans?

well, the weakest are:

The poor and need, the sick and disabled, the women and chidlren

now work it out to who is abused most compared to a full grown and healthy rich man.

In the suppose to be Muslim countries, you will see such people abused most, for example, look how the disabled are treated in a country like Egypt or Saudi Arabia, and a country like USA or Australia, no comparison

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


Cool

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?


Exactly, and the straight answer, is MARRIAGE, 100%

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?


Well, every pow is ma malakt aymanikum, but not every ma malakat aymanikum is a pow, therefor, it should apply to the pows, i.e. the tradional understanding is still correct, however I believe that they totally missed the point that ma malakat aymanikum does not always mean a pow

shindeiru wrote:
and the money we are told to give them is the agreed amount collected by his labor before setting him free


This is just total BS man

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


100%, thanks bro for confirming it and proving how fool ma nny of those traditionalists have been

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..


Spot on man, and the word Aqadat, as a variation of the word Aqidah, i.e. sometheing you you firmly believe in, so Aqadata Aymanikum, that they took a very firm oaths to give such poor people any of the inheritence

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?


I believe it may reconcile as follows:

There there is certainly no partner with Allah, as it is certian that you will never make ma malakat aymanikum your partners 50:50

infact, I never seen it happens, have you ever seen a rich man or woman, giving with pleasure, half of their wealth to a poor servant that he/she has?

and even it happens, it is almost unknown , and cannot be used as a contradiction against the Quran, this is because if they claim with ease that Allah have partners (so many did so), then we should see with ease that so many rich people gave their half wealth away to poor people

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.


It is not much different from my understanding to be honest, in fact I have to say that it is the same, the verse is not talking about the support of peanuts that they already were offering the needy and poor servants, this is because when they say that there is partners with Allah, then the god partnership must be equal, it is not like a god will be more powerful than anonther god, or a god possesses more than the other god, it makes no sense of course, that is why the verse stressed the equality by using the word SAWAA, i.e. 50:50, in another words, equally

shindeiru wrote:

let me know what you think


Take care mate and sorry for my typos
- Sat 11 Apr, 2009 2:19 am
Post subject:
hi man how are you,

i enjoyed sharing our thoughts on the topic of ma malakat aymanikum and confirming our mutual beliefs.

you know, as i already told you im lebanese.
im from a shia background and you know how shia are hardcore hadith lovers and conjecturers..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.

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.

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.
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. 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.

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..


its been a while i didnt go to FFI by the way, what a bunch of inoffensive, repetitive donkeys HAMIR lol. 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.
- Sat 11 Apr, 2009 8:43 am
Post subject:
shindeiru wrote:
hi man how are you,


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

shindeiru wrote:
i enjoyed sharing our thoughts on the topic of ma malakat aymanikum and confirming our mutual beliefs.


Cheers, the thoughts were spontenious as I was reading your comment, that is why I could not nit stop it, lol

shindeiru wrote:
you know, as i already told you im lebanese.


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

shindeiru wrote:
im from a shia background and you know how shia are hardcore hadith lovers and conjecturers..



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?

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.



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

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.


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.

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..


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.

shindeiru wrote:
its been a while i didnt go to FFI by the way, what a bunch of inoffensive, repetitive donkeys HAMIR lol.


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


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.


Exactly, i call it hit, slam dunk and dismiss, never give them the oppotunity to entertain themselves

Take care mate
- Sat 11 Apr, 2009 12:42 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
shindeiru wrote:
hi man how are you,


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

shindeiru wrote:
i enjoyed sharing our thoughts on the topic of ma malakat aymanikum and confirming our mutual beliefs.


Cheers, the thoughts were spontenious as I was reading your comment, that is why I could not nit stop it, lol

shindeiru wrote:
you know, as i already told you im lebanese.


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

shindeiru wrote:
im from a shia background and you know how shia are hardcore hadith lovers and conjecturers..



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?

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.



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

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.


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.

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..


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.

shindeiru wrote:
its been a while i didnt go to FFI by the way, what a bunch of inoffensive, repetitive donkeys HAMIR lol.


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


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.


Exactly, i call it hit, slam dunk and dismiss, never give them the oppotunity to entertain themselves

Take care mate


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
- Mon 13 Apr, 2009 12:40 am
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
however you do not sound like most Arabs whom I know


neither do i look, talk or walk like most of the arabs or muslims you know. in fact if you see me, i'll be the last person with whom you'll talk religion. im more like the guy you see running on the beach carrying a girl like a sac of potato on my shoulder lol. im 29 and i travel a lot for work, mainly to africa and i see people from all horizons maybe thats why im not into the same mentality as the arabs we both know..

AhmedBahgat wrote:
look ate what youe people did to your beautiful country for so many fukin years and still going till today


you dont need to tell me man, its sad

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


this is exactly how i always referenced myself, i find it despicable those who label themselves with their sectarian names

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.


hahahaha you want another hilarious one? one day, towards the beginning of my spiritual awakening i asked a shia guy the follwing question: since iblis was given respite, till the day of judgement is he still alive? and if he repents sincerely, would God pardon him?
check out the answer i got: during muhammad's prophethood, iblis was on his way to the prophet to seek forgiveness (as if he could not repent to Allah directly BTW) and he met OMAR who managed to convince him not to repent and to go back doing his job of leading people astray..yes omar was so evil that he managed to fool iblis himself! loool so yes they're very creative when it comes to diabolizing eachother, and when i pointed this fact to him he told if i consider myself shia, then i shouldnt criticize our hadiths. damm

AhmedBahgat wrote:
See, we agree totally while we have never met face to face nor even know how we look like to the other


we might meet one day inshallah. i will be going to thailand and HK, possibly australia soon
- Mon 04 May, 2009 10:24 am
Post subject:
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:

Quote:
I looked up a couple of tafseers for you.


Tafsirs, means nothing to me, for me the Quran explains itself, i.e. the Quran Yufsir itself

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.


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:
Quote:

The one in al-Anbiya uses the female prounon (i.e. blew into it (fem) ) and so seems to refer to Maryam.


I agree, it was a female pronoun, Nafakhna FIHA, i.e. Blew into her, the underlined word indicates the feminine pronoun.

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)


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:

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.


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
- Mon 04 May, 2009 1:26 pm
Post subject:
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:

Quote:
I looked up a couple of tafseers for you.


Tafsirs, means nothing to me, for me the Quran explains itself, i.e. the Quran Yufsir itself

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.


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:
Quote:

The one in al-Anbiya uses the female prounon (i.e. blew into it (fem) ) and so seems to refer to Maryam.


I agree, it was a female pronoun, Nafakhna FIHA, i.e. Blew into her, the underlined word indicates the feminine pronoun.

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)


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:

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.


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


Yes, this slam dunk was really due and you did at the right time.

I think the Kafirs would easily inderstand now. lol!

Quote:
Then Jesus was also blowing in the vaginas and dicks of the birds, hahahahaha


Excellent and I have something more to add here. Remember when Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to his disiciples and said, "Receive!"
The Kafirs can now believe that he must have also blown in through their dicks. Rotflmao

I really wonder on the sanity, if there is any, of the Kafir's paralysed mind.

Salaams, mate
BMZ
- Wed 10 Jun, 2009 4:56 pm
Post subject:
Hello, Ahmed

Can you please post Khalil's post on "Ahsanal-Khaliqeen", which you dismissed recently, here in the Slam Dunk and also up-date the Slam Dunk on FFI?

Thanks
BMZ
- Thu 11 Jun, 2009 3:47 pm
Post subject:
KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Trojan wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Here you have it, you can link to my slam dunk animation if you wish


:heartbeat: How nice Bhagat and debunker make peace..... (no pun intended)


I was sure about it. Ahmed can not stop being Ahmed Bahgat. Razz

AhmedBahgat wrote:
debunker wrote:
As for Khalil's super silly argument about the use of the word Ra'ouf to describe Muhammed, we use this word to describe each other! There are people whose name is Ra'ouf. Kareem is another adjective we use to desrcribe each other. Not ALL the adjectives of God are exclusive to Him.



If you want to totally slam dunk the kafir, then tell him that Allah also called Ibrahim, "Halim", which is also used to describe Allah:

Here is the word Halim, describing Allah:

2:225 لا يؤاخذكم الله باللغو في ايمانكم ولكن يؤاخذكم بما كسبت قلوبكم والله غفور حليم

And here is the word Halim, describing Ibrahim:

9:114 وما كان استغفار ابراهيم لابيه الا عن موعدة وعدها اياه فلما تبين له انه عدو لله تبرا منه ان ابراهيم لاواه حليم

11:75 ان ابراهيم لحليم اواه منيب

Therefore describing Mohammed with a name of Allah, is not exclusive to him, as Ibrahim too was described using a name of Allah

Here you have it, you can link to my slam dunk animation if you wish


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


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

# 54
cheers
- Thu 11 Jun, 2009 4:03 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Trojan wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Here you have it, you can link to my slam dunk animation if you wish


:heartbeat: How nice Bhagat and debunker make peace..... (no pun intended)


I was sure about it. Ahmed can not stop being Ahmed Bahgat. Razz

AhmedBahgat wrote:
debunker wrote:
As for Khalil's super silly argument about the use of the word Ra'ouf to describe Muhammed, we use this word to describe each other! There are people whose name is Ra'ouf. Kareem is another adjective we use to desrcribe each other. Not ALL the adjectives of God are exclusive to Him.



If you want to totally slam dunk the kafir, then tell him that Allah also called Ibrahim, "Halim", which is also used to describe Allah:

Here is the word Halim, describing Allah:

2:225 لا يؤاخذكم الله باللغو في ايمانكم ولكن يؤاخذكم بما كسبت قلوبكم والله غفور حليم

And here is the word Halim, describing Ibrahim:

9:114 وما كان استغفار ابراهيم لابيه الا عن موعدة وعدها اياه فلما تبين له انه عدو لله تبرا منه ان ابراهيم لاواه حليم

11:75 ان ابراهيم لحليم اواه منيب

Therefore describing Mohammed with a name of Allah, is not exclusive to him, as Ibrahim too was described using a name of Allah

Here you have it, you can link to my slam dunk animation if you wish


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


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


It is not just confusion, Ahmed. The FFI freaks just do not have brain to think.

Any person can understand that any person can be forgiving and merciful to others but the FFI goons cannot and do not understand that Allah is the most forgiving and the most merciful.


And the title "the Most Forgiving" and "the Most Merciful" is not given to anyone, not even to the Prophet.

Hope the FFI birdbrains can now understand better. Laughing

BMZ
- Mon 22 Jun, 2009 9:10 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

To take myself out of the depression that was caused by the massive failure of the Egyptian soccer team, I decided to write one of my long Quran comments, I enjoy doing so as I don?????????????????????¢??t only consider it a lesson to others, but to others and myself.

On FFI, a guy named Manfred who is a Christian is debating some Muslims, to whether the God of the Quran is all-powerful or not?

Despite that such guy claims to be a Christian, he proved to be one of those who sleeps with the enemy, and what I mean by the enemy, is the enemy of God, the Atheists and their likes, those who claim that god does not exist, so what they do, thinking that they will corner those who believe in a god, is to ask them some Tom and Jerry or Barbie questions, like:

-> Can god create a heavy rock that he cannot lift it?
-> Can god turn into a poo?

The above two questions are examples of the thoughts of such deluded mentality of clear cut losers who are called Atheists. Now ,I for myself don?????????????????????¢??t like to debate such deluded people bound to hell, they are dismissed on the fly in my books, not because they present some solid arguments, rather because they never present any solid argument. So I salvage every second of my time and just ignore them while wishing them all the best in their worldly life, in the hereafter and if God exists, why I should wish them the same at such point in the future and after this life ends?

What puzzles me that while those atheists think of themselves as smart humans, yet, non of them managed to answer Pascal Wager argument against them, which is a very solid argument that is not even based on the belief, rather based on security and insurance for the self, a concept that every one tries to adhere to in life, even insuring a car against a POSSIBLE drastic situation in the future. Such failure to refute Pascal Wager exposes their stupidity fair and square. They will never be able to refute such solid and simple argument which I already presented to them so many times in different ways, and at best you get a Barbie answer from them. So they are virtually life dismissed in my books.

What surprised me though that, this Christian named Manfred, dared to use such stupid argument against the Muslims on FFI. So I have had to reply thoroughly with yet another mother of slam dunks to send him and his Atheists pals back in their blaze wagon nick named Destination Hell ?????????????????????¢?? Welcome Aboard Dumbs

Let me first clear a few points:

1) This comment is about the definition of All-Powerful of a God, I also don?????????????????????¢??t take what Tom, Dick, or Harry says what it should mean, I only take how the God in Whom I believe defined it, therefore the only evidences that will be provided are from the Quran, to explain the definition of the All-Powerful God, and consequently I will bring many verses that mention such aspect of Allah.

2) If you apply the above logic of taking how the god of any religion defined such aspect of being all-powerful, then confused Christian Manfred of FFI, should use his corrupt Bible to answer those confused Atheist questions. For Manfred, he thinks that he has beaten them, for Manfred, yes god can make himself anything, like a human who is not all-powerful. Not just that, for Manfred, the all-powerful god can allow anything to happen to him, like getting bashed and fuked by his slaves whom he suppose to have created and have all power over them. How bloody funny, those confused Christians who try to use their stupid excuse of salvation of sin that it must be through death, then I tell them, how dumb you are, if your imaginary god could not just say to his slaves I forgive you instead of getting killed by his own creatures, then your god is not all powerful, you confused.

3) Most of the translation I brought in is my translation, however, because I only finished the translation of the first 45 suras, I will use my translation up to sura 45, then from sura 46 onwards, I will use Shakir translation, I will leave Shakir?????????????????????¢??s one intact so you can compare and understand how I translated such aspect of God.

4) The aspect is mentioned in the Quran by using the following sentence:

الله علي كل شئ قدير , Allah Ala Kul Shai Qadir

Let me break it word for word and translate each word:

-> الله , Allah, i.e. Allah
-> علي , Ala, i.e. Over
-> كل , Kul, i.e. Every
-> شئ , Shai, i.e. Thing
-> قدير , Qadir, i.e. Capable

If we put the words above together, then it should be:

Allah over everything Capable.

We need to add the verb to be because it exists (virtually) in Arabic, so it should be

Allah is, over everything, Capable.

Or:

Allah, over everything, is Capable.

I lean to go for the first one, but I will still seek advice in my last translation run.

I also have no problem if anyone wants to translate the word قدير , Qadir, to All-Powerful., i.e. I accept the following two possible translations:

Allah is, over everything, all-Powerful.

Or:

Allah, over everything, is all-Powerful.

Be aware that the name Allah may be replaced with He in some verses

5) My argument is based on the two words كل شئ , Kul Shai, i.e. Everything or all things, the first is more accurate though. So we need to logically define everything, for example:

a- It is every creature.
b- It is every action. But upon whom should be the action done?
c- Or both a & b

Now, I accept that everything means both ?????????????????????¢??a?????????????????????¢?? and ?????????????????????¢??b?????????????????????¢??

I.e. everything means every creature and every action.

We should have no argument regarding every creature, because God can not be a creature due to the fact that He created every creature. i.e. Every creature cannot include God.

Therefore if we take the first part as following:

Allah is, over every creature, all-Powerful.

Then it should logically mean that Allah can do anything that we can imagine or not imagine to any creature that He created. Being, turning them into a poo, turning them into monkeys, destroying them, burning them, blessing them, you name it, absolutely anything.

Now we come to the main point of this long comment, how about when we apply the other part, i.e.

Allah is, over every action, all-Powerful.

Well, the definition of that according to the Quran, i.e. according to Allah, that it has to be every action that is done upon any of His creatures.

Such very logical understanding should be obvious to a child, of course a real and all-powerful god cannot do degrading actions to himself, like turning into a human then allowing other humans to fuk him and kill him, how ridiculous. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IF GOD ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN, THEN HE WILL AUTOMATICALLY LOSE THE ALL-POWERFUL ASPECT. That is obvious under the flawed Christian theology when the suppose to be a human god failed to even save himself from getting humiliated and killed. And even before that, in many occasions, he failed to do healings to some humans or un-curse the tree that he wrongly cursed.

Based on all the above, I had to bring many of the verses where such aspect is mentioned in the Quran, and we should see that almost in each verse, Allah is giving us an example of A THING of EVERYTHING, and we should see that it should clearly apply to any of His creatures not upon Himself:


5:17 Indeed they have disbelieved who said: Allah is the Messiah, son of Mariam. Say: Who then could stop Allah if He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Mariam and his mother and those on the earth all together? And to Allah is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He desires; and Allah is, over everything, Capable.

5:17 لقد كفر الذين قالوا ان الله هو المسيح ابن مريم قل فمن يملك من الله شيئا ان اراد ان يهلك المسيح ابن مريم وامه ومن في الارض جميعا ولله ملك السماوات والارض وما بينهما يخلق ما يشاء والله علي كل شئ قدير

-> See, the verses ended by telling us: and Allah is, over everything, Capable. , in the same verse, Allah has given us two examples of His powerful capability to do anything to any of His creatures:

a- if He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Mariam and his mother and those on the earth all together.

b- He creates what He desires

I.e. He is, over His creatures, Capable, and this ultimate capability is by doing anything to any of His creatures or creates other creatures to do with them whatever He wants FREELY and at any point of time.


5:40 Do you not know that Allah, to Him is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He castigates whom He wills; and forgives whom He wills and Allah is, over everything, Capable.

5:40 الم تعلم ان الله له ملك السماوات والارض يعذب من يشاء ويغفر لمن يشاء والله علي كل شئ قدير

-> Another example of Allah?????????????????????¢??s ultimate power of doing anything to any of His creatures: He castigates whom He wills; and forgives whom He wills and Allah is, over everything, Capable.


6 17 And if Allah touches you with harm, then there is none to take it off but He; and if He touches you with good, then He is, over everything, Capable.

6:17 وان يمسسك الله بضر فلا كاشف له الا هو وان يمسسك بخير فهو علي كل شئ قدير

-> See this example: And if Allah touches you with harm, then there is none to take it off but He; and if He touches you with good, then He is, over everything, Capable.


9:39 If you do not go forth, He will castigate you with a painful torture and will replace you with another people, and you will not harm Him a thing; and Allah is, over everything, Capable.

9:39 الا تنفروا يعذبكم عذابا اليما ويستبدل قوما غيركم ولا تضروه شيئا والله علي كل شئ قدير

-> Another example: If you do not go forth, He will castigate you with a painful torture and will replace you with another people, ?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦.; and Allah is, over everything, Capable.


11:4 To Allah is your return, and He is, over everything, Capable.

11:4 الي الله مرجعكم وهو علي كل شئ قدير

-> See how our return to Allah is expressed before telling us that He is, over everything, Capable: To Allah is your return, and He is, over everything, Capable.


16:77 And to Allah belongs the unseen of the heavens and the earth; and the command of the hour is not but a glance of vision, or it is nearer; indeed, Allah is, over everything, Capable.

16:77 ولله غيب السماوات والارض وما امر الساعة الا كلمح البصر او هو اقرب ان الله علي كل شئ قدير

-> See this unique capability over a thing that is not really a physical creature walking or swimming in the universe, rather a virtual creature (the Hour) and see how the verse is expressing such ultimate capability over the hour by telling us that: the command of the hour is not but a glance of vision, or it is nearer; indeed, ]Allah is, over everything, Capable.

Of course the hour is A THING that Allah created, consequently He is, over it, Capable. How articulate the Quran is.


22:6 That is because Allah is the Truth and because He gives life to the dead, and because He is, over everything, Capable.

22:6 ذلك بان الله هو الحق وانه يحي الموتي وانه علي كل شئ قدير

-> See how giving life is an action that Allah can perform over the dead creatures anytime He wants: He gives life to the dead, and because He is, over everything, Capable.

The ultimate capability of reviving the dead is also accompanied with the ultimate capability of causing death:

57:2 His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He gives life and causes death; and He has power over all things.

57:2 له ملك السماوات والارض يحيي ويميت وهو علي كل شئ قدير

-> See: He gives life and causes death; and He has power over all things., as translated by Shakir, which is ok with me, i.e. Allah has power over all creatures to cause death to them or give them life.

The aspect of such ultimate power of taking life by Allah, CANNOT be performed upon Himself, this is because, at such moment of time He must lose another ultimate aspect that He also told us about it, let?????????????????????¢??s see this verse:

25:58 And rely upon the Alive Who does not die, and glorify (Him) with His praise; and Sufficient is He to be of the sins of His servants, Acquainted.

25:58 وتوكل علي الحي الذي لا يموت وسبح بحمده وكفي به بذنوب عباده خبيرا

-> How clear: And rely upon the Alive Who does not die,, therefore Allah CANNOT cause death to Himself because He does not die, and certainly Allah CANNOT do any action to Himself that degrades or weakens Him, because He told us that He is the Strong, The Mighty, The Exalted and The Great.

Apply such very logical understanding that does not even need the Quran to explain it on the corrupt Christian theology of god: At the moment their imaginary god turned into a human, he became ignorant and weak, ignorant when he cursed a good fig tree that might have fed many hungry creatures, and weak when he admitted that he cannot do anything of his own, and when he was helpless to defend himself against a mob of perpetrators, that he can easily blow them away as a god. Yet you see the shameless and deluded Christian apologists telling us that it does not make sense to us because we do not bloody understand the concept of salvation, how dumb and deluded, well here is the simple concept of salvation by a suppose to be god

By telling the sinners:

Sinners, I am the God, the Forgiver and the Merciful. I forgive you all.

If he cannot do that while being a god (not morphed into a weak human to get fuked by some perverts), then he can not be the all powerful god. i.e. such dumb Christian apologist like Manfred of FFI, has shot himself in the foot after sleeping with the atheist enemy of God, he is telling us that his imaginary god is all powerful and can do anything even morphing into a weak human getting killed to offer his creatures salivation, yet his own imaginary god CANNOT forgive the sinners by simply telling them I forgive you sinners, rather he MUST AND HAD TO morph into a weak human to get nailed then killed and hanged on a cross for his creatures sins. SUCH CRAP does not only make sense to any Muslim, in fact it does not even make any sense to most of the Christians along with their fellow atheists.

Let?????????????????????¢??s move on to the next example of such ultimate capability of the real God towards His creatures

24:45 And Allah has created every walking creature from water, so of them is that which walks upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two legs, and of them is that which walks upon four (legs); Allah creates what He wills; indeed, Allah is, over everything, Capable.

24:45 والله خلق كل دابة من ماء فمنهم من يمشي علي بطنه ومنهم من يمشي علي رجلين ومنهم من يمشي علي اربع يخلق الله ما يشاء ان الله علي كل شئ قدير

-> This is a good example, the verse is telling us that Allah has created some creatures that walk on bellies, and others that walk on 2 legs, and others that walk on 4 legs, and others according to His will. Then the verse ends by reminding us with such ultimate capability that Allah has over His creatures: of them is that which walks upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two legs, and of them is that which walks upon four (legs); Allah creates what He wills; indeed, Allah is, over everything, Capable.

Such ultimate power over how the creatures are created does not only apply to humans, rather to any creature, see this example:

35:1 Praise be to Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers having wings, two, and three, and four; He increases in creation what He wills; indeed, Allah is, over everything, Capable.

35:1 الحمد لله فاطر السماوات والارض جاعل الملائكة رسلا اولي اجنحة مثني وثلاث ورباع يزيد في الخلق ما يشاء ان الله علي كل شئ قدير

-> Who made the angels, messengers having wings, two, and three, and four; He increases in creation what He wills; indeed, Allah is, over everything, Capable.


59:6 And whatever Allah restored to His Messenger from them you did not press forward against it any horse or a riding camel but Allah gives authority to His messengers against whom He pleases, and Allah has power over all things.

59:6 وما افاء الله علي رسوله منهم فما اوجفتم عليه من خيل ولا ركاب ولكن الله يسلط رسله علي من يشاء والله علي كل شئ قدير

-> See in this example how such ultimate capability by Allah, also covers giving the authority to any of His messengers: Allah gives authority to His messengers against whom He pleases, and Allah has power over all things.. Another translation by Shakir.

Finally, as I stated earlier, Allah cannot be a thing of the things, these things being a creature or an action, are all created by Allah, see this verse:

6:101 The incomparable Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a child when He has no female companion, and He created everything, and He is, concerning everything, all-Knowing.
[The Quran ; ]

6:101 بديع السماوات والارض اني يكون له ولد ولم تكن له صاحبة وخلق كل شئ وهو بكل شئ عليم

-> How clear: and He created everything, and He is, concerning everything, all-Knowing

And again:

The One, to whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and Who did not take a child, and there is not to Him a partner in the kingdom, and Who created everything, and measured it according to a measure.
[The Quran ; ]

25:2 الذي له ملك السماوات والارض ولم يتخذ ولدا ولم يكن له شريك في الملك وخلق كل شئ فقدره تقديرا

-> See: Who created everything, and measured it according to a measure.

Here you have it, another mother of all slams, in which the Quran conclusively slam dunked such stupid questions by the confused Atheists and their fellow Christians who dare to argue with the Muslims using non sense.

# 55
- Tue 23 Jun, 2009 1:48 am
Post subject:
Hello, Ahmed

Thanks for reminding the Christian poster at FFI. I think this slam dunk was timely and necessary.

Actually, any Christian on FFI should not even disclose that he/she is a Christian because Christianity is really not a religion. It is a Cult that has become popular just because it was marketed as an easy-to-do product.
do any damn thing, sin without fear and load on all the sins of humanity on Jesus, till the poor fellow will not be even able to walk on the big Day.

I came across a Christian who told me "God can do anything. Right?"

I replied, "Yes!"

Then I asked him, "Can God become a donkey or a monkey?" He said, "No!"

When you come across polemic Christians, you will note that he/she would argue and talk exactly in the same silly manner the gospels were written.

The gospels and the New Testament are based on polemics and Tu Quoque. Anyone can see that. Thus we see the same NT culture which the average Polemic Christians like LCD and Manfred display.

This is known as the Bible culture and they cannot think outside the Bible Box. lol!

"Innal-laha alaa kulle shaiyin-qadeer" was a very good reply.

Salaams, mate
BMZ
- Tue 23 Jun, 2009 7:56 am
Post subject:
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



Exclamation
- Tue 23 Jun, 2009 1:09 pm
Post subject:
Rigel wrote:
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



Exclamation


Yes, bro. Ahmed is doing that. He has cut down writing on FFI but hammers the fools to educate them, when necessary.

Glad to see you back.

Salaams
Baig M Z
- Sat 11 Jul, 2009 9:01 am
Post subject:
Hello AhmedBahgat

in reference to the topic of ma malakat aymanukum, do you hold that sex with them is absolutely forbidden out of wedlock? 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?

thanks
- Sat 11 Jul, 2009 9:14 am
Post subject:
ronny wrote:
Hello AhmedBahgat


Hello ronny

ronny wrote:
in reference to the topic of ma malakat aymanukum, do you hold that sex with them is absolutely forbidden out of wedlock?


No, it is ok outside the wedlock AS LOING AS SHE CONSENTS

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?


No explanation is required, according to the Quran, sex is allowed with Ma Malakat Ayman outside the wedlock, however weddding Ma Malakat Ayman is encouraged in the Quran

On the other hand my understanding is based on what I understand of who is Ma Malakat Ayman accoridng to the Quran, certainly not slaves, and surely not POWs, rather weak humans who have no one to support them. therefore an oath was taken by a capable human to take care of such weak human as Ma Malakat Ayman, i.e. what the oath possesses

ronny wrote:
thanks


Salam
- Sat 11 Jul, 2009 8:24 pm
Post subject:
salaam brothers how are you doing

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).

i wanted to share my thoughts again on this topic of ma malakat aymanikum. concerning sexual relations with them, i do not believe it is allowed outside of wedlock for the following reasons:

-4:3 includes them with other regular women who should be married (this is an encouragement, not yet an obligation to marry them)
-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)
-5:5,24:33 clearly tell the believers not to have sex outside of wedlock with any member of society. 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, 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.

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.."
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.

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) for example

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.

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.

96:11-12
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

shakir's translation for AW as "until" is not correct obviously (it should literaly be "or") 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.
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.
(i would apreciate your feedback or corrections for the translation of that verse)

Finally, who says that 70:30,23:6 are referring exclusively to males guarding their private parts from females?
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".
- Sat 11 Jul, 2009 9:44 pm
Post subject:
shindeiru wrote:
salaam brothers how are you doing


Salam mate

Good to see you around

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).


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, and true that punk bin lyin trashbin is a clear cut jerk, he has been life dismmissed.

shindeiru wrote:
i wanted to share my thoughts again on this topic of ma malakat aymanikum.


Sure mate, your input will be appreciated in this tough subject

shindeiru wrote:
concerning sexual relations with them, i do not believe it is allowed outside of wedlock for the following reasons:


Before I read your reasons, I tend to agree with you, however I just want a compelling evidence from the Quran before I conlcude that this is the case, I donlt want the goons to play a lengthy and wasteless ping pong game, so my understanding is sort of literal that sex is allowed, however be wrong, so I am eager to read your reasons because honestely I would love to be proven wrong in this subject of sex with Ma Malakat Ayman

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)


yes

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)


I agree again

shindeiru wrote:
-5:5,24:33 clearly tell the believers not to have sex outside of wedlock with any member of society.


Let me bring 5:5 in here:

This day the good (of all food) is made lawful for you; and the food of those who were given the book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them; and the protected from among the believing women and from among the protected women of those who were given the book before you; that is, you give them their dowries seeking to protect (them), not fornicating nor taking them in secret; and whoever rejects the faith, indeed his work has become vain, and in the hereafter he shall be among the losers.
[Al Quran ; 5:5]

الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَّكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلُّ لَّهُمْ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذِي أَخْدَانٍ وَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِالإِيمَانِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُهُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ (5)

-> Indeed, you have a very strong point through these words: مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذِي أَخْدَانٍ, i.e. seeking to protect (them), not fornicating nor taking them in secret

Bro, I think you have nailed it, no need for more evidences, thanks for clearing my ignorance, it is sort of like I was still infected with the virus of the days of ignorance

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,


Let me bring 24:33 in here:

And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them rich out of His grace. And those who ask for the book (of marriage) from among those whom your oaths possess, give them the writing if you know in them good, and give them from the money of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your girls to prostitution if they desire protection (of their private parts), in order to seek the span of the life of this world; and whoever compels them, then indeed, Allah after their compulsion is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 24:33]

وَلْيَسْتَعْفِفِ الَّذِينَ لَا يَجِدُونَ نِكَاحًا حَتَّىٰ يُغْنِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا ۖ وَآتُوهُمْ مِنْ مَالِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي آتَاكُمْ ۚ وَلَا تُكْرِهُوا فَتَيَاتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَاءِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّنًا لِتَبْتَغُوا عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۚ وَمَنْ يُكْرِهْهُنَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (33)

-> Another very powerful point through the words: وَلْيَسْتَعْفِفِ الَّذِينَ لَا يَجِدُونَ نِكَاحًا حَتَّىٰ يُغْنِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ , i.e. And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them rich out of His grace.

Look man, you have certainly proved me wrong and I am so delighted that you have done so, somehow I was distorted when I answered roony and if I was patient and went through the Quran again, I might have been guided to the answer as you have been, but no losses, I am also been guided to the annswer through you so I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

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.


No question about it, another compelling Quran evidences

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.."


Very strong arguments, but not for me to refute as I already conceded, it is going to be one hell of an argument to the FFI goons and many confused Muslims, so I will use your reply from now on against them. That is what I like about Free Islam site, it is going to be filled with very valuable information regarding our religion, no chit chat, no bickering, no fightes and no waste of time.

Straight to the point, this is what Free Islam was planned to be

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.


Glad that you came up with strong logic regarding such issue as I know that it will be used by the goons of FFI to refute your reply.

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)


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:
for example


So you are going to beat me to it to, lol, great bro, that what we need, examples from the Quran, let's see:

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


Here we have it, that is the nail required and you nailed it again, very strong argumennt man, thanks

shindeiru wrote:
shakir's translation for AW as "until" is not correct obviously (it should literaly be "or")


Of course

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.


Certainly a good believer will do both:

1) be on the right way,
2) enjoined guarding (against evil)


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.


Of course

shindeiru wrote:
(i would apreciate your feedback or corrections for the translation of that verse)


Mate, I believe you nailed it and I will use your work from now on to reply to such issue of Ma Malakat Aymanikum

For the translation, please see the verses in the Draft Translation forum and you may correct the translation if you find any mistakes, certainly I will use the literal meaning for AW which is OR, most likely I already did so in what I draft translated so far, please have a look and let me know if you have time inshaallah.

shindeiru wrote:
Finally, who says that 70:30,23:6 are referring exclusively to males guarding their private parts from females?


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.

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".


Most certainly

Thanks mate for your excellent understanding to these many verses (together) indeed you proved again that the Quran explains itsself

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)
- Sat 11 Jul, 2009 9:46 pm
Post subject:
Salam roony

I believe that brother shindeiru has slam dunked this issue of Ma Malakat Ayman, for good

If you have something to say please say it to him as I am in total agreement with him

Take care
- Sat 11 Jul, 2009 10:24 pm
Post subject:
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


frankly, i do not give a shit about this site and its population of monkeys. a few months ago there were still a few guys who could argue but now, its all racist rants. i prefer concentrating on increasing my quran knowledge inshallah with Allah's guidance.

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.


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.


can you please show how the quran conclusively refers to Ma Malakat Ayman as males

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)


with Allah's help and guidance inshallah
- Sun 12 Jul, 2009 12:41 am
Post subject:
Hello, Shindeiru & Ahmed

I am glad, Shindeiru that you have been banned. It is a good way for coming out of Ali Sina's FFI cesspool.

I am also glad to see Ahmed writing less. This gives us all more time to do work on Qur'aan. I do read once in a while but do not write on that hate site full of hate-bags. I have noticed that even Khalil has left and there are not many Muslims there anymore.

Once the Muslim posters stop writing, the hate scum-bags will be writing and nodding to each other for a while and will soon start quarreling amongst themselves. lol!

As for your discussions, all I have to say is this and this is what Allah wants us to do:

"Afalam yaddabirul qaul?" This short verse says it all. Once we study each verse in the passage, we find the answers ourselves.

Salaams
Baig
- Sun 12 Jul, 2009 7:45 am
Post subject:
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.


Salam mate

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

There should be no arguments that the book that was sent down is the Quran

For the wisdom that is also sent down with the Quran, we clearly read in verses 17:22-39 that Allah means by the wisdom that was sent down, the verses and messages of the Quran

i.e. Allah referred to the Quran using the book AND the wisdom in one sentence

See below:


لَا تَجْعَلْ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ فَتَقْعُدَ مَذْمُومًا مَخْذُولًا (22)

Do not make with Allah any other god, lest you sit down condemned, neglected.
[Al Quran ; 17:22]

وَقَضَىٰ رَبُّكَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا ۚ إِمَّا يَبْلُغَنَّ عِنْدَكَ الْكِبَرَ أَحَدُهُمَا أَوْ كِلَاهُمَا فَلَا تَقُلْ لَهُمَا أُفٍّ وَلَا تَنْهَرْهُمَا وَقُلْ لَهُمَا قَوْلًا كَرِيمًا (23)

And your Lord has decreed that you serve not except Him, and kindness to the parents, wether one or both of them reach old age with you, and say not to them: Uff and do not insult them, and say to them an honourable saying.
[Al Quran ; 17:23]

وَاخْفِضْ لَهُمَا جَنَاحَ الذُّلِّ مِنَ الرَّحْمَةِ وَقُلْ رَبِّ ارْحَمْهُمَا كَمَا رَبَّيَانِي صَغِيرًا (24)

And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy, and say: My Lord! Have mercy upon them, as they raised me up (when I was ) little.
[Al Quran ; 17:24]

رَبُّكُمْ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا فِي نُفُوسِكُمْ ۚ إِنْ تَكُونُوا صَالِحِينَ فَإِنَّهُ كَانَ لِلْأَوَّابِينَ غَفُورًا (25)

Your Lord knows best what is within yourselves; if you are pious, then He is to those who turn (to Him) Forgiving.
[Al Quran ; 17:25]

وَآتِ ذَا الْقُرْبَىٰ حَقَّهُ وَالْمِسْكِينَ وَابْنَ السَّبِيلِ وَلَا تُبَذِّرْ تَبْذِيرًا (26)

And give to the relative his right, and (to) the needy and the traveller, and do not waste (your money) wastefully.
[Al Quran ; 17:26]

إِنَّ الْمُبَذِّرِينَ كَانُوا إِخْوَانَ الشَّيَاطِينِ ۖ وَكَانَ الشَّيْطَانُ لِرَبِّهِ كَفُورًا (27)

Indeed, those who waste (their money) are the brothers of the devils and the devil is, to his Lord, unbeliever.
[Al Quran ; 17:27]

وَإِمَّا تُعْرِضَنَّ عَنْهُمُ ابْتِغَاءَ رَحْمَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّكَ تَرْجُوهَا فَقُلْ لَهُمْ قَوْلًا مَيْسُورًا (28)

And if you turn away from them seeking mercy from your Lord, which you desire, then say to them a gentle saying.
[Al Quran ; 17:28]

وَلَا تَجْعَلْ يَدَكَ مَغْلُولَةً إِلَىٰ عُنُقِكَ وَلَا تَبْسُطْهَا كُلَّ الْبَسْطِ فَتَقْعُدَ مَلُومًا مَحْسُورًا (29)

And do not make your hand shackled to your neck, and do not stretch it all the stretch, lest you sit down blamed, insolvent.
[Al Quran ; 17:29]

إِنَّ رَبَّكَ يَبْسُطُ الرِّزْقَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَقْدِرُ ۚ إِنَّهُ كَانَ بِعِبَادِهِ خَبِيرًا بَصِيرًا (30)

Indeed, your Lord stretches the provision for whom He wills and He restricts (it); indeed, He is of His servants Acquainted, Seeing.
[Al Quran ; 17:30]

وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَوْلَادَكُمْ خَشْيَةَ إِمْلَاقٍ ۖ نَحْنُ نَرْزُقُهُمْ وَإِيَّاكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ قَتْلَهُمْ كَانَ خِطْئًا كَبِيرًا (31)

And do not kill your children fearing poverty; We provide for them and yourselves; indeed, their killing is a great mistake.
[Al Quran ; 17:31]

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]

وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ ۗ وَمَنْ قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا فَلَا يُسْرِفْ فِي الْقَتْلِ ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنْصُورًا (33)

And kill not the soul which Allah has forbidden, except with right, and whoever is killed unjustly, We have made to his guardian (heir) an authority, so let him not exceed the (right of) killing; indeed, he is helped.
[Al Quran ; 17:33]

وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا مَالَ الْيَتِيمِ إِلَّا بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ حَتَّىٰ يَبْلُغَ أَشُدَّهُ ۚ وَأَوْفُوا بِالْعَهْدِ ۖ إِنَّ الْعَهْدَ كَانَ مَسْئُولًا (34)

And go not near to the money of the orphan except in a way that is best till he reaches his strength and fulfil the covenant; indeed the covenant shall be questioned.
[Al Quran ; 17:34]

وَأَوْفُوا الْكَيْلَ إِذَا كِلْتُمْ وَزِنُوا بِالْقِسْطَاسِ الْمُسْتَقِيمِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا (35)

And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with a straight balance; that is good and a better determination.
[Al Quran ; 17:35]

وَلَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ ۚ إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولَٰئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْئُولًا (36)

And cause not (others) to follow that of which you have no knowledge; indeed, the hearing and the vision and the heart, about all of these, you shall be questioned.
[Al Quran ; 17:36]

وَلَا تَمْشِ فِي الْأَرْضِ مَرَحًا ۖ إِنَّكَ لَنْ تَخْرِقَ الْأَرْضَ وَلَنْ تَبْلُغَ الْجِبَالَ طُولًا (37)

And do not walk on the earth exultantly, indeed, you will not pierce the earth nor reach the mountains in length.
[Al Quran ; 17:37]

كُلُّ ذَٰلِكَ كَانَ سَيِّئُهُ عِنْدَ رَبِّكَ مَكْرُوهًا (38)

All that is ever evil, with your Lord, (and) hated.
[Al Quran ; 17:38]

ذَٰلِكَ مِمَّا أَوْحَىٰ إِلَيْكَ رَبُّكَ مِنَ الْحِكْمَةِ ۗ وَلَا تَجْعَلْ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ فَتُلْقَىٰ فِي جَهَنَّمَ مَلُومًا مَدْحُورًا (39)

That is of what your Lord has revealed to you of the wisdom, and do not make with Allah another god, lest you be thrown into hell, blamed, rejected.
[Al Quran ; 17:39]


2) When Allah said the following:

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَاكَ سَبْعًا مِنَ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنَ الْعَظِيمَ (87)

And certainly We have given you seven verses and the great Quran.
[Al Quran ; 15:87]


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


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
- Sun 12 Jul, 2009 9:34 am
Post subject:
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


yes this makes me think of

3:48
And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tavrat and the Injeel

the verse is saying that jesus will be taught the book of the Torah, the Wisdom of the Injeel.
book= torah
wisdom = injeel (since the injeel was jesus' oral teachings, not a book like the Quran or torah)

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 (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


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.

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?

finally, could you explain who are the women in front of whom the believing women are allowed to uncover, whose wives are they?
- Sun 12 Jul, 2009 10:22 am
Post subject:
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.


I may reply to this for now

We actually do not need to show that, I will keep searching though for AW that does not mean exclusion

the reason it was said in the verses of what is lawful for the believers, Azagahum AW Ma Malakat Aymanihum, is simply because the believers can marry one OR the other according to verse 4:3

See logically speaking, this is valid:

Azwagahum WA Ma Malakat Aymanahum

However AW was used because according to 4:3, they can only marry one or the other from these two groups

Salam
- Sun 12 Jul, 2009 10:49 am
Post subject:
while going through 24:33 again, i just thought of yet another very compelling argument forbidding sex with ma malakat ayman outside wedlock.

as we already said, the verse 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, so that the believer may sustain a wife and children.

What the advocates of concubinage need to explain to me is the following:
if ma malakat ayman are allowed outside wedlock then how come the verse does not propose to those believing men incapable of sustaining a wife and family the alternative of having recourse to concubinage, why does the verse tell them to keep chaste at all costs until they find the means to marry?

the answer is clear: because those women are simply not allowed outside wedlock, like any other women and in conformity with the morals of the quran. this also demolishes by the way the interpreatation of AW in 70:30,23:6 as an alternative for the wives.

this is further reinforced by the fact that the same verse DOES propose an alternative to those poor believing men; it tells them to MARRY those ma malakat ayman who ask for the writing because they are easier to sustain, as confirmed through 4:25, and further prohibits them from forcing the women under their guardianship to prostitution.
- Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:12 pm
Post subject:
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.


What you say is logically valid, so let?????????????????????¢??s isolate the categories and see for each one if it indicates males or females:

-> لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ , i.e. their husbands , Males
-> آبَائِهِنَّ , i.e. their fathers , Males
-> آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ , i.e. the fathers of their husbands , Males
-> أَبْنَائِهِنَّ , i.e. their sons , Males
-> أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ , i.e. the sons of their husbands , Males
-> إِخْوَانِهِنَّ , i.e. their brothers , Males
-> بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ , i.e. the sons of their brothers , Males
-> بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ , i.e. the sons of their sisters, Males
-> نِسَائِهِنَّ , i.e. their women , Females
-> مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ , i.e. whom their oaths possess , ??
-> التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ , i.e. the attendants of men who do not have need (for women) , Males
-> الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَىٰ عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ , i.e. the children who are not aware of the private parts of women , Males

As you can see, we have 12 categories. In 10 of them, we managed to conclusively confirm that they are Males

Then we have 1 category where we conclusively confirmed that they are Females

And finally 1 category of Ma Malakat Ayman as unknown, for now

If you look at the order, you should notice that from category 1 to category 8, all males and all are relatives

Starting from category 9 till category 12, all are not relatives

Now category 9, -> نِسَائِهِنَّ , i.e. their women , Females, is a general one and should mean THE MUSLIM WOMEN, which I believe should be the only one to mean Females to cover any arising question for the believing women concerning: If they should show their adornment to any believing women (being slave or not)?

I say possibly after seeing that 10 out of 12 categories only mean Males

See how category 11, explicitly identified مِنَ الرِّجَالِ , FROM AMONG MEN who don?????????????????????¢??t desire sex with women any more, mostly very old men. Now, such category of not desiring sex any more should also cover the women who do not desire sex any more, but the women were already included in category 9 (as general for all believing women being slave or not, or desiring sex or not), that is why the words مِنَ الرِّجَالِ , FROM AMONG MEN were added to the category

Also if you look at category 12, you see that it was referred to as Children, and we know that Chidlren should cover Males and Females, however in such category we have additional words that conclusively imply boys, الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَىٰ عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ , i.e. who are not aware of the private parts of women , certainly it must mean boys only, because the girls should be aware of their private parts.

Yet I am happy to change my position and agree with you that it cannot be conclusive that the words Ma Malakat Ayman in verse 24:3, mean the males from among them

But you also must agree that the same words Ma Malakat Ayman in 24:31 cannot be conclusive either to take it as Females, therefore it must at least imply Males & Females which I believe should be the right context because a capable male may take an oath to care for some weak humans from among both sexes, likewise with a capable women, she can care for both sexes from among the weak and deprived.

It is not like capable males can only care for weak women, you know.

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

One more thing, if you read the tafsir (just for curiosity) you should see that they stated that category Their women covers all believing women being slave or not, it does not cover the women from the Kafirs or Mushriks. Also if you read the following verses, you may notice that the words Ma Malakat Ayman cannot mean Females only, rather Males & Females :

4:36
16:71
24:33 is a very strong evidence, let me bring it in here:

وَلْيَسْتَعْفِفِ الَّذِينَ لَا يَجِدُونَ نِكَاحًا حَتَّىٰ يُغْنِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا ۖ وَآتُوهُمْ مِنْ مَالِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي آتَاكُمْ ۚ وَلَا تُكْرِهُوا فَتَيَاتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَاءِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّنًا لِتَبْتَغُوا عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۚ وَمَنْ يُكْرِهْهُنَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (33)

And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them rich out of His grace. And those who ask for the book (of marriage) from among those whom your oaths possess, give them the writing if you know in them good, and give them from the money of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your girls to prostitution if they desire protection (of their private parts), in order to seek the span of the life of this world; and whoever compels them, then indeed, Allah after their compulsion is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 24:33]

-> See these words وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ , i.e. And those who ask for the book (of marriage) from among those whom your oaths possess, give them the writing

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

But look bro, if I am wrong in such issue and Ma Malakat Ayman only means females, I will be delighted to be proven wrong, even if I do it to myself so I will continue reading the verses that talk about them, ironically I believe that any male who is physically fit should have no reason to be Ma Malakat Ayman

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?


I think we may end up confusing ourselves if we look at the same verse, I guess better that we read all the verses talking about them to try and reach a conclusion, Access Quran software should be very good in finding these verses then reading them one after the other which I am currently doing while I am writing this reply

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?


I believe it should mean any believing woman (being slave or not, being free or ma malakat ayman), all believing women in general regardless of their social level

Salam
- Sun 12 Jul, 2009 8:56 pm
Post subject:
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


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


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?

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.
- Mon 13 Jul, 2009 4:24 am
Post subject:
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.


Salam mate

I agree with you regarding such bit about allowing the women to uncover in front of Ma Malakat Ayman, however the context may be taken that only if Ma Malakat Ayman are husbands, that is why AW was used

Ila Ala Azwagihum AW Ma Malakat Aymanihum

If Waw was used between the husbands and Ma Malakat Ayman, then we have serious problem

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?


Yes it has to be without the WAW if we are talking about women only, it is called Gama Muanath Salem

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.


What do you mean, please?

Salam
- Wed 15 Jul, 2009 8:36 am
Post subject:
Salam all

I wanted to write this comment for 48 hours now but been busy lately. This comment is going to be very important in explaining my current understanding to the following 2 lots of verses:

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ (5)

And those who are concerning their private parts guarding.
[Al Quran ; 23:5]

إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ (6)

Except for their spouses or those whom their oaths possess, for they indeed are not blamed.
[Al Quran ; 23:6]


And:


وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ (29)

And those who are concerning their private parts guarding.
[Al Quran ; 70:29]

إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ (30)

Except for their spouses or those whom their oaths possess, for they indeed are not blamed.
[Al Quran ; 70:30]


I now believe firmly (with the help Allah through brother shindeiru) that the two groups mentioned in 23:6 & 70:30 أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ , Azajihim AW Ma Malakat Aymanuhum, i.e. their spouses OR those whom their oaths possess , are one group which is those under legal marriage, let?????????????????????¢??s refer to it as Azwaj i.e. Spouses

The first evidence is the use of the word AW in between them, i.e. this OR that, some may say, if it is this or that, how come we say that both are this?

4:3 has the answer, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look:

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تُقْسِطُواْ فِي الْيَتَامَى فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء مَثْنَى وَثُلاَثَ وَرُبَاعَ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَلاَّ تَعُولُواْ (3)

And if you fear that you cannot act justly with the orphans, then marry whoever pleased you from the women, two and three and four; but if you fear that you shall not act equitably (between them), then (marry) one or what your oaths possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate.
[Al Quran ; 4:3]

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)

That is why both 23:6 & 70:30 used the OR device between the two groups, because we are talking about not guarding the private parts in front of a legal wife, and a man can have one OR the other as a legal wife, but not the TWO together.

The above was discussed briefly in earlier comments between brother shinderiu and myself, but after that I kept asking myself:

If Ma Malakat Ayman has become legal wives i.e. Spouses, why 23:6 & 70:30 still referring to them as such and not as Azwajihum[.b], i.e. [b]Spouses?

The question above is very hard indeed, and at the same time is a valid question, I felt that the answer is in the Quran, and indeed all of a sudden something clicked which I believe has the answer to such tough question, the answer is found in 4:25, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look:

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَن تَصْبِرُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (25)

And whoever among you who cannot afford to marry the protected and believing women, then (marry) of those whom your oaths possess from among your believing young women; and Allah knows best your oaths between some of you and others; so marry them with the permission of their families, and give them their dowries in kindness if they are seeking protection, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours. And when they have protected themselves and thereafter commit an indecency, then upon them is half the torture which should be upon the protected women. This is for him who fears the sin from among you; and if you are patient is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 4:25]

See, even though the two groups make up one group of Spouses, 4:25 is telling us that they are not really equal spouses, in fact Ma Malakat Ayman have advantage over Muhasanat women, so let me walk you through bit by bit:

-> The verse is talking about those who cannot afford marrying well protected and supported women: وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ , i.e. And whoever among you who cannot afford to marry the protected and believing women . The solution for them is to seek marrying of those whom their oath possess: فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ , i.e. then (marry) of those whom your oaths possess from among your believing young women; and Allah knows best your oaths between some of you and others , this actually confirms again that men can marry one OR the other as stated in 4:3 and confirmed in 23:6 & 70:30, now to marry from those weak women who have no support (even their own family cannot support them), the permission of their family must be taken: فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ , i.e. so marry them with the permission of their families , not just that, but their dowries must be paid to them after confirming that those weak women seek protection through marriage: وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ , i.e. and give them their dowries in kindness if they are seeking protection, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours.. Now imagine those Ma Malakat Ayman committed an indecency after some men married them to protect them through legal marriage, will they be punished like any wife who was already protected and supported prior to marriage? The Quran is telling us, NO, see: فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ, i.e. And when they have protected themselves and thereafter commit an indecency, then upon them is half the torture which should be upon the protected women

I.E. even after they became legal wives, their previous status of being Ma Malakat Ayman, must be kept at least to refer to them, so in the case of them committing a Fahishah, then upon them is half of the punishment that should be upon the other type of wives

The above is clear cut and compelling Quran evidence to why Allah refers to them as Ma Malakat Ayman even after they became legal wives.

Salam
- Wed 15 Jul, 2009 8:44 am
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
samson wrote:
Hello AhmedBahgat i have a question on the following point

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.


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


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


salaam brother, how are you

i was just pondering on 33:52 actually

"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."

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).

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?

i have a different understanding of the verse, but i would first like to hear your opinion on my objection.

about another verse, how can we be 100% sure the kitaab mentionned in 24:33 is the kitaab of marriage

salaam
- Wed 15 Jul, 2009 9:21 am
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
samson wrote:
Hello AhmedBahgat i have a question on the following point

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.


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


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


Salam mate

I am good mate, alhamdullelah, just had a tough job interview yesterday, will know in about 10 days how it went. How about you/

shindeiru wrote:
i was just pondering on 33:52 actually


Good to always ponder upon the Quran verses, that is what we are commanded to do, not bloody ponder upon their man made crap books of hadith.

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).


Your point is certainly valid, and of course my current understanding will be changed to the fact you said that the prophet was still allowed to marry and divorce from Ma Malakat Ayman. However, I am nt the type of person to question what Allah has allowed His messnegers and prophets to do, I know for certain that any action that was allowed to be done was for the Khair, i.e. for the good.

Now if the objective of Marrying Ma Malakat Ayman is to protect them and give them right to inherit, right to have dowery, sort of right to have a life that they never had, then I see the wisdom of Allah clearly in exclusing them from His new rule that was enforced upon His messneger, if you ponder upon the verse before it you should notice that the women were throwing themselves upon the prophet asking him to accept them as wives, it seems that some were even begging him, I believe he was a annoyed under such situation of course, therefore Allah gave him the right to judge it by himself to whom he should accept as wife from those wanting to marry him

However the disadavantage of not marrying or divorcing any other woman is still there upon him, of course

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?


I believe the title of mothers of the believers is not just automatic for any one even those who do not act like ones, in sura 66 Allah given us an example of some of them who conspired against the prophet (their husband) to humiliate him, sure if they continued to do that, they would have beed shown the highway, as the verses stated in the start of sura 66, now if assuming that the title of the mothers of the believers is automatically gained by marrying him, then the assumption should also include, instant loss of such title if he divorced them

The prevention of remarrying that was enfocred upon his wives, I believe was after his death, not after a divorce.

I believe if the prophet ever divorced one, then she must have been a bad woman, however I am not interested in these Jerry Springer stories of hadith to see if he divorced any or not, these stories mean nothing to me and to my faith.

shindeiru wrote:
i have a different understanding of the verse, but i would first like to hear your opinion on my objection.


Sure, please take the stand, possibly you are the right one, my mind is always open to enahnce my Quran understanding to a degree that it is going to be damn tough for my enemy from the kafirs and the hadith worshippers to argue with me. My aim is to slam dunk in the shotest possible way. No mock around, they already watsed 1200 fukin years, so I am not going to add my 44 years of life to their tally of confusion.

shindeiru wrote:
about another verse, how can we be 100% sure the kitaab mentionned in 24:33 is the kitaab of marriage

salaam


This is an easy one, firstly this is how it is known within the Arabs even till this very moment, for example

when Arabs marry, they first specify a day that is called Katb Al-Kitab, i.e. The writing of the book, on that day, there will be a very smal party, normally in the house of the pride, where the Maazoon will come and write in his book of marriage all the data, etc etc, and perform the known cermony of the groom holding the hand of the man in charge of the bride, while both hands coverd with a small towel or something, etc etc, from that point forward the two are legally married, despite that the real wedding party may be a few days after that day, in my case, my Katb Al-Kitab was 30-8-1991 and my wedding party was 1-9-1991

But forget the above Jerry Springer stories, let's talk truth as stated in the Quran, see this verse:

وَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا عَرَّضْتُم بِهِ مِنْ خِطْبَةِ النِّسَاء أَوْ أَكْنَنتُمْ فِي أَنفُسِكُمْ عَلِمَ اللّهُ أَنَّكُمْ سَتَذْكُرُونَهُنَّ وَلَكِن لاَّ تُوَاعِدُوهُنَّ سِرًّا إِلاَّ أَن تَقُولُواْ قَوْلاً مَّعْرُوفًا وَلاَ تَعْزِمُواْ عُقْدَةَ النِّكَاحِ حَتَّىَ يَبْلُغَ الْكِتَابُ أَجَلَهُ وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي أَنفُسِكُمْ فَاحْذَرُوهُ وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ حَلِيمٌ (235)

And there should be no blame on you concerning that which you talk publicly about the engagement of women or concealed within yourselves; Allah knows that you will mention them, but do not meet them in secret unless you say that which is lawful, and do not intend the marriage knot until the book (of marriage) reaches its appointed time, and know that Allah knows what is in yourselves, therefore beware of Him, and know that Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing.
[Al Quran ; 2:235]

-> See, it is talking about engagement, and see what it said later: وَلاَ تَعْزِمُواْ عُقْدَةَ النِّكَاحِ حَتَّىَ يَبْلُغَ الْكِتَابُ أَجَلَهُ, i.e. and do not intend the marriage knot until the book (of marriage) reaches its appointed time, in my case, the appointed time of my book of matrriage was sometime on 30-8-1991

Cheers
- Wed 15 Jul, 2009 7:28 pm
Post subject:
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.

i just saw your interesting post, 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)


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?


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.
- Wed 15 Jul, 2009 8:16 pm
Post subject:
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.


Great to hear

shindeiru wrote:

i just saw your interesting post,


It is interesting, isn't it.

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?


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, and btw I am in favour of marrying only one, due the fact I decided not to be the one who judge if I will be fair or not with the wives, I took what He said for granted that no man will ever be in this life.

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.


See man, it is all over social care not about sex

Salam
- Wed 15 Jul, 2009 10:12 pm
Post subject:
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


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
- Wed 15 Jul, 2009 10:30 pm
Post subject:
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


I believe it must be addressing all including men and woman who can marry from their Ma Malakat Ayman or else, however I believe the AW is used because at least the capable women can only marry one OR the other, 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 as long as whom they marry being ma malakt ayman or not, have orphaned children with them. I believe it will be logically hard to find a woman who is considered Ma Malakat Ayman while she has children but it is possible of course.

The point is as understood from 4:3 that little harm is allowed as long as it prevents the bigger harm, therefore the little harm of not being fair with multiple wives is allowed to prevent the bigger harm of not raising the orphans in healthy environment under the care of a man and a woman.

Now 4:3 end is not about orphans anymore, as for those who don't want to even commit the less harm of not being fair with multiple wives then they have one option which is marry one or the other, it has nothing to do with caring for the orphans any more, and I tell you that I am a type of person who will not go for the less harm to prevent the bigger harm, I rather be safe as I will never be certain that the less harm now will not be bigger harm with far more worse consequenses than the bigger harm I was trying to initialy prevent


Salam
- Thu 16 Jul, 2009 2:40 am
Post subject:
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


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?

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.

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.
-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.

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

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.

let me know what you think
- Thu 16 Jul, 2009 7:52 pm
Post subject:
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?


I believe so, however I may consider it something that the Quran called Lumam, i.e. small sins, we will never know the motive behind a man marrying more than one, I assume it is sexually motivated and has nothing to with orphans or being fair with more than one wife, in fact they marry the second and the third and they know in advance that they are going to be not fair because they must favour the newly wed wife over the older one.

I am a man who will never marry more than one wife regardless how horney I will get, this is how I prove to myself that I am sticking to the teachings of Allah in His Quran.

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.


This is not a suggestion, this is a must, the whole Quran must be read while cross referencing all other verses talking about the same subject, THIS IS THE MEANING OF THE VERSE WHERE ALLAH SAID:

75:19 ثم ان علينا بيانه , i.e. Then indeed, upon Us is explaining it.

See, it is not like Allah will come down and explain the Quran to us, rather logically, He will use His own words in the same book in some verses to explain other verses, there is no other logical way but this as far as I am concerned, even when humans like you and me bring verses to support some arguments, what we brought is His words from the same book, so it is like Allah Himself is making the argument, not us.

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.


Indeed, and I belong to that majority

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.


Exactly, and also as you know, in Arabic the verbs follow the sex of the one doing the verb, i.e.

1) For a group of men only, we must have a masculine verb with (WAW + NOON) or (YA + NOON) at the end

2) For a group of women only, we must have a feminine verb with a NOON (NO WAW or YA) at the end

3) for a group of both men and women, we must use a masculine verb with (WAW + NOON) or (YA + NOON) at the end, i.e. it must be treated as case 1 above, as if all are males while not ignoring the fact that it apply to both as a mix

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


Indeed, however you should also cosider the logic that you made me take note of, when you said that most of the believers marry only one according to the statistics (highlighted in red above), therefore 70:30 & 23:6 is directed at them (the majority), while yet the two verses apply for those who combine both wives, becuase if I tell you the following:

You must be good with A or with B

which must mean, that you must be good with both A and B if you have both.

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.


Yes and don't forget that the Quran honours Ma Malakat Ayman, so it is not degrading to them by the Quran to refer to them as such

This is going to be really hard for the kafirs to refute

shinderiu wrote:

let me know what you think


Take care mate
- Fri 17 Jul, 2009 7:18 am
Post subject:
Let me get the slam dunk show going:

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?


Well I have to excuse your ignorance in here, becaise you simply follow other ignorant who knew no Arabic or at best they know the alphbet

The word تَبَارَكَ , Tabarak, is a verb, i.e. Tabarak Allah means, Allah is doing the Baraka, BUT NOT TO HIMSELF as so many confused Muslims undersyand or follow other confused Muslims, it means that Allah did His Barakah TO US, see the three verses below how before saying so, Allah listed some Barakah upon us:

إِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ اللّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى عَلَى الْعَرْشِ يُغْشِي اللَّيْلَ النَّهَارَ يَطْلُبُهُ حَثِيثًا وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ وَالنُّجُومَ مُسَخَّرَاتٍ بِأَمْرِهِ أَلاَ لَهُ الْخَلْقُ وَالأَمْرُ تَبَارَكَ اللّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ (54)
Indeed your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then He established Himself above the throne; He caused the night to cover the day, it seeks it slowly; and the sun and the moon and the stars are made subservient by His command; Indeed to Him belongs the creation and the command; blessing from Allah, Lord of the worlds
[Al Quran ; 7:54]

See the Barakah UPON US: Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then He established Himself above the throne; He caused the night to cover the day, it seeks it slowly; and the sun and the moon and the stars are made subservient by His command, and certainly all these things are created by Him for us, therefore when you read the words تَبَارَكَ اللّه, it means blessing from Allah UPON HIS CREATURES

ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا النُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَامًا فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَامَ لَحْمًا ثُمَّ أَنْشَأْنَاهُ خَلْقًا آخَرَ ۚ فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ (14)
Then We made the drop a clinging (fertilized) egg, then We made the clinging (fertilized) egg a lump of flesh, then We made the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We developed him into another creation, so blessing from Allah, the best of the creators.
[Al Quran ; 23:14]

Same here

اللَّهُ الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ الْأَرْضَ قَرَارًا وَالسَّمَاءَ بِنَاءً وَصَوَّرَكُمْ فَأَحْسَنَ صُوَرَكُمْ وَرَزَقَكُمْ مِنَ الطَّيِّبَاتِ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمْ ۖ فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ (64)
It is Allah Who made the earth for you a settlement, and the heaven a structure, and He formed you, and made your forms good, and He provided you with good things. That is Allah, your Lord, so blessing from Allah, the Lord of the worlds.
[Al Quran ; 40:64]

Same here

Here you have it, another mother of all slams which should dunk the confused Muslims and translators along with their followers from among the confused kafirs, like sky of FFI and his pals

[img]http://free-islam.com/extraimages/slamdunk.gif[/img # 56

Here is a goon replying to the above:

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.


What filthy retarded punk you are, MY DRAFT translation is called draft you stupid, i.e. it is full of mistakes, I already edited it thousands of times you manipulated

Now let me put the final nail in your coffin

Let's look at the possibilities to the words Tabarak Allah:

Certainly Allah did not tell us who is being blessed, therefore it can be any of the followings:

1) Others
2) Himself

Now, you have no argumenet to refute the others, so your only Tom and Jerry argument that Allah is blessing Himself

so what, you confused punk?

He is blessing Hmself

So keep it itchy in your coffin, or do you prefer to be cremeted? I guess you should get cremeted so you get used to the fire
- Fri 17 Jul, 2009 8:24 am
Post subject:
Time for another slam dunk

The fools of FFI say, if Allah said that "He is the best of creators", then He means that there are other creators with Him

Hahahahahaha, this is what you get at best from the dumb ignorant bums of FFI

They do not know that the word Khalaqa is not really exclusive to God

as I said I can create a car, a TV, a poem, and even anyone can create a lie, let's have a look at this verse:

إِنَّمَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ أَوْثَانًا وَتَخْلُقُونَ إِفْكًا ۚ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ لَا يَمْلِكُونَ لَكُمْ رِزْقًا فَابْتَغُوا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الرِّزْقَ وَاعْبُدُوهُ وَاشْكُرُوا لَهُ ۖ إِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ (17)
You only worship, other than Allah, idols, and you create a lie; indeed, those whom you worship other than Allah do not possess for you a provision. So seek from the Allah the provision, and worship Him, and give thanks to Him, to Him you will be returned.
[Al Quran ; 29:17]

-> See goons: وَتَخْلُقُونَ إِفْكًا , Wa Takhliqoon Ifka, i.e. and you create a lie

Another goon has been slammed

- Sat 18 Jul, 2009 7:46 am
Post subject:
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
- Sat 18 Jul, 2009 8:00 am
Post subject:
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


Hey matey

I think the answer may be according to this logic

The words used are "Wa In Tasbiro", i.e. 'And if you be patient", i.e. in case they cannot afford marrying a free woman, as well they have no Ma Malakat Ayman. It is not like any believer is capable enough to have Ma Malakat Ayman, yet he might be capable while having no Ma Malakat Ayman, most likely that a man who cannot afford marriage of a protected woman, will not be able to offer protection to Ma Malakat Ayman

Sort of marrying a protected woman costs more than marrying from Ma Malakat Ayman

Let me know what you think

Salam
- Sat 18 Jul, 2009 8:47 am
Post subject:
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

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.

i read in some tafsir

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
- Sat 18 Jul, 2009 8:57 am
Post subject:
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


There is a limit on how long the post is, but we all should be the same, so I will restart the server just in case and let me know, and yes I noticed that you tested a comment with some letters then deleted it,

I actually added two servers to the network to scale it up, but I am still working on the configuration, but better to resatrt the server, so do not post anything yet in about 3 to 5 minutes
- Sat 18 Jul, 2009 8:58 am
Post subject:
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.



Your understanidng is certainly valid, in fact I thought about the same exact point, are we allowed to marry only from our own Ma Malakat Ayman, or form the others as well?, and I think that the logical answer is from all of them regardless who is their guardian, however first priority is from yours
- Sat 18 Jul, 2009 9:00 am
Post subject:
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


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
- Sat 18 Jul, 2009 9:03 am
Post subject:
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


This is ridiculous of course,

I believe the main guardian whould have priority in marrying of his own, however if he does not want to marry any of his own, and others want to do it, then that's it, the others can marry her and she will become his legal wife and has nothing to do with her first guardian any more

And as we understood together, only her previous status is kept known in case that she commits Fahisha, and in that case only half the punishment would apply to her.

Certainly she will have nothing to do with her original guardian any more, this is because she sought protection through another man. i.e. she is now protected but only her previous staus kept known


Can you please stop posting until I start the server because you should be able to post long posts

Cheers
- Sat 18 Jul, 2009 9:04 am
Post subject:
shindeiru wrote:
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


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



Very cool and logical indeed

this is the flexability of the words of Allah, all heading for one objective, the wellfare and care of society being in this life or the hearafter

Cheers
- Sat 18 Jul, 2009 9:14 am
Post subject:
Can you try now brother shindu?

a comment may take about 10 full pages of a word document without the need to break it

I advice you to logout, close all broswer sessions, delete cookies and all cached internet files then logon again,

I have modified your account a bit, made your quota the highest, and ticked the boxes of receiving a notification when you get a PM or one adds a comment to any thread that you are part of, i.e. from now on you should receive notifications in your email

It may be tagged with spam as my spam filter in here is very restrict with mail IN/OUT on my exchange mail server

Let me know

Salam
- Sat 18 Jul, 2009 9:35 am
Post subject:
still not working bro. i deleted cookies and restarted. ill try again later
- Sat 18 Jul, 2009 11:22 am
Post subject:
shindeiru wrote:
still not working bro. i deleted cookies and restarted. ill try again later


This very strange man, I will try with a testing account and see
- Sat 18 Jul, 2009 11:25 am
Post subject:
It seems working mate

I have a feeling that your browser is hijacked by some malware try to scan your computer online with trend micro

http://housecall.trendmicro.com/au/


Let me know

Ahmed
- Sun 19 Jul, 2009 11:04 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

Time for another Quran lesson despite that I am very limited on time to write this long comment, but it became incumbent upon me to reply, mainly to look for the truth behind the Quran Arabic words, and generally to slam dunk those from among my enemy who doubt my Arabic language knowledge.

Let me recap the story in brief so those who did not read it can catch it from here:

A goon on FFI named skynightblaze , whom I actually like and possibly consider him like a young brother in humanity or even a son (I know that he mocks my religion in clear cut stubbornness but I believe his reckless actions are due to his age and his self pride and ego, possibly when I was at his age I was more stubborn and self confident than him, later on as years passed slowly, I realized well how reckless human can be at such young age of life, no exception). The bottom line is, as long as he does not exceed the limits by not mocking Allah or any of His prophets in any dialogue with me, I will continue to reply to him if he seeks the knowledge that I have gained in such subject of religion and Arabic language.

So the goon raised a thread on FFI titled: Who is blessing Allah?

His argument was simple and concise according to the translation he is using, as follow:

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?


To be honest, his thread took me by surprise, I like to see new arguments instead of the repeated, boring and out of date crap that is parroted everyday on FFI, the surprise is simply that I expected that I should know the answer quickly because I am currently in the process of translating the Quran and almost finished 90% of the first draft as many of you know, but when I looked at his argument, I needed to look again at the verses slowly, somehow I sensed that something might be wrong, and indeed, I was stumped with the word Tabaraak during my translation as I did with many other words, however I just used the word ?????????????????????¢??blessed?????????????????????¢?? for now as I have to keep going then keep thinking about these word as I proceed and see other examples of their use in the Quran, then if I mange to find another and better English word, I go back to all these verses where a specific word appeared and edit it according to the current choice that I settled on, there is nothing that I am hiding, all my Quran translation comments show how many edits I did and when was the last time of editing, information that I can easily hide if I want.

Others must realize that my translation is unique even in the way it is done; one of the objectives is to leave no room for anyone who use the words of Allah to serve their own desires and wishful thinking. Some may say that I am doing the same by making the words suiting my own desires. I say it cannot be the case because I refer to all other verses where the word or any of its forms is used in the Quran. Yet some may say, but those whom I accuse of interpreting the Quran according to their desires do the same by bringing other Quran verses to support their arguments, I say no, they do not bring ALL verses, they only bring the ones that serve or may be compatible with the idea they came up with, like the Iranian woman in her Sublime Quran translation when she interpreted the word Daraba as to stay away from, or Free Minds in their The Message translation, or Rashad Khalifah in his translation, the examples are many.

My translation is designed with the aim to leave no room for all these Muslim people (and also the kafirs) to manipulate the Arabic words according to any wishful thiinking that they might have.

The most important problem I have is this, I cannot do this in one go, yet I am planning to do it in two, the least number possible, which I think may not be enough, however I will work harder in the second go while gathering information from all sources as much as I can to prefect my translation before final release inshaallah.

Based on sky argument and my instinct after reading the Arabic verses and my knowledge of the language, I decided to change my draft translation to suit the meaning that I managed to get from the word in question after quite some thinking, then presented the refute using my new understanding to the word Tabaraak, and as you have seen, I was quickly attacked by some tards like expose and mental, despite that I play my game with absolutely open cards, I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, it is not like I will fear you goons more than I will fear my Lord, so I manipulate His words, it does not make sense and you should know that I fear Him the most while I fear no human on earth.

My new argument in reply to sky argument was simply, the word Tabaraak is a verb to sort of mean Blessing from and not Blessed, sky replied back that no translator did it so, why I say so?

The issue of no translator did it so is not important at all to my translation, I am following myself not them. And even if all Muslims disagree with something that I supported hard enough from the Quran, I will still follow myself and not follow them.

Brother Fudgy came with his input that the word should mean sort of ?????????????????????¢??Holy, Praised, etc etc?????????????????????¢??????????????????????

I agreed with brother Fudgy that he may be right and ended my participation in the debate by stating that we now have 3 possibilities:

1) Allah is blessing others (Ahmed understanding)
2) Allah is praised by others (Fudgy understanding)
3) Allah is praising Himself (Many hadith worshippers understanding)

Then I left the thread. However sky PMed me and asked me to honestly state if Fudgy is right or wrong, so here is my PM reply to sky:

Ahmed replied to sky on PM:

To be honest, I don't know, however and with total honesty, my possible understanding is the most plausible so far, but I didn't want to debate it with him so the people in here (Muslim or not) do not think that I'm an arrogant who bully all who disagree with him

Anyway, I really answered you honestly and I lean to take it as blessing from Allah, i.e. Allah is the one who is blessing,

I will confirm that when I go through all the occurrences of the word and its variations in the Quran, I added that to things to do

Salam

So this is what this long comment is all about, I decided to go through all occurrences in the Quran to see what the word Tabaraak really means, but before I do that, let me start with some basic Arabic language stuff:

The root of the word is: برك , Ba Ra Ka, which should also represent the past tense of the word, however this three letters word past tense verb is actually never used between the Arabs (I don?????????????????????¢??t Know why), rather another 4 letters word verb of: بارك , Baraak, Blessed as in past tense.

For example: God Baraak Jesus I.e. God blessed Jesus

Therefore, the human name Baraak is technically WRONG, because if we consider that blessing is an action that is only performed by God, then it does not mean that the one named Baraak is blessed, rather it means that the person named as such is the one who is blessing someone else.

An example from the Quran is this verse:

And We made the people who were oppressed to inherit the easts of the land and its wests, which We had blessed; and the good word of your Lord was fulfilled for the children of Israel because of how they acted patiently; and We destroyed what Pharaoh and his people were fabricating and what they were building.

7:137 واورثنا القوم الذين كانوا يستضعفون مشارق الارض ومغاربها التي باركنا فيها وتمت كلمة ربك الحسني علي بني اسرائيل بما صبروا ودمرنا ما كان يصنع فرعون وقومه وما كانوا يعرشون

-> See: باركنا فيها , Baraakna Fiha, i.e. which We had blessed

The word Baraak as used above is a VERB, I.E.

Allah Baraak the earth, i.e. Allah blessed the earth

Before I continue explaining the word use as a VERB as seen above, I would like to firstly finish the explanation of the word use as a NOUN:

The most common use of a noun variation of the word between the Arabs is the word مبروك , Mabrook, which is on the wazn, مفعول, Maf?????????????????????¢??ool, i.e. the action of blessing is being done upon someone or upon an event.

For example, in a wedding party, all those who are invited MUST tell the pride, groom and their families, Mabrook, i.e. being blessed, i.e. The wedding is blessed

Simply it is used commonly to congratulate others when they go through any sort of success or achieving anything. Sort of, because of the blessing by God, these people managed to achieve such success. So we congratulate them on it by saying Mabrook, i.e. what happen to you is blessing sent to you from God that you should be proud of.

The Quran however uses another noun of the word to refer to the same meaning of being blessed, which is the proper one to use instead of Mabrook, at least for easier pronunciation. The word is:

مبارك , Mubarak, i.e. being blessed, I am sure you know this word because it is the surname of the Egyptian president Hosny Mubarak, which is certainly a proper human name, i.e. the person named as such is being blessed, unlike the illogical name Baraak

Here is all the verses in the Quran for the above word مبارك , Mubarak:

And this is a Book We have sent down, (which is) blessed; therefore follow it and fear (Allah) so that you may receive mercy.

6:155 وهذا كتاب انزلناه مبارك فاتبعوه واتقوا لعلكم ترحمون

-> See, the Quran that was sent down by Allah is also blessed by Allah: هذا كتاب انزلناه مبارك فاتبعوه , Haza Kitab Inzalnah MUBARAK Fa Itabiooh, i.e. this is a Book We have sent down, (which is) blessed; therefore follow it.

Therefore, if the translators want to translate the word Tabaraak as Blessed if it really means so, then the Arabic word should be Mubarak and not Tabaraak

i.e. Mubarak Allah, instead of Tabaraak Allah, which is not the case of course, the examples of the word Mubarak in the Quran are many, and we are going to go through all of them, no skipping:

Here is an identical example:

And this is a Book We have sent down, (which is) blessed, verifying that which is before it, and that you may warn the mother of the villages and those around it; and those who believe in the hereafter believe in it (the Quran), and they are over their prayer maintaining.

6:92 وهذا كتاب انزلناه مبارك مصدق الذي بين يديه ولتنذر ام القري ومن حولها والذين يؤمنون بالاخرة يؤمنون به وهم علي صلاتهم يحافظون

-> See: هذا كتاب انزلناه مبارك , Haza Kitab Inzalnah MUBARAK , i.e. this is a book We have sent down, (which is) blessed,

Same argument before applies: if the translators want to translate the word Tabaraak as Blessed if it really means so, then the Arabic word should be Mubarak and not Tabaraak
.
Another identical example:

A book which We have sent down to you, blessed so that they may ponder over its signs, and that those who possess minds remember.

38:29 كتاب انزلناه اليك مبارك ليدبروا اياته وليتذكر اولوا الالباب

-> See: كتاب انزلناه اليك مبارك ليدبروا اياته , Kitab Inzalnah Ilyak MUBARAK Li Yaddabro Ayatah , i.e. A book which We have sent down to you, blessed so that they may ponder over its signs,

Same argument against all translators applies.

Another similar example is this:

And this is a blessed reminder which We have sent down; will you then be towards it deniers?

21:50 وهذا ذكر مبارك انزلناه افانتم له منكرون

-> See: هذا ذكر مبارك انزلناه , Haza Kitab MUBARAK Inzalnah, i.e. this is a blessed reminder which We have sent down.

Same argument against the translators applies, if Tabaraak is noun and means blessed, then the verse above should be as follow:

هذا ذكر تبارك انزلناه ?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦.


Pronounced as follow: Haza Zikr Tabaraak Anzalnah, again it is not the case with the real text.

The word: مبارك , Mubarak is, noun, singular and masculine, but it can also be written as: مباركا , Mubaraka, the meaning should be the exact same, i.e. being blessed, just an Alif has been added at the end, but it is still noun, singular and masculine, here is all the verses in the Quran for the word Mubaraka:

The first house appointed for the people is the one at Bekka, blessed and a guidance for the creatures.

3:96 ان اول بيت وضع للناس للذي ببكه مباركا وهدى للعالمين

-> See how the house of Allah is Mubaraka: اول بيت وضع للناس للذي ببكه مباركا , Awal Bayt Wudea Li Alnas Li Alza Bi Bakkah MUBARAKA, i.e. The first house appointed for the people is the one at Bekka, blessed,

Same argument applies. So far, we have read the followings are Mubarak, i.e. Blessed by Allah:

1- The Quran
2- The first house of Allah in Bekka

Here is different entity that was blessed by Allah:

And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I am alive;

19:31 وجعلني مباركا اين ما كنت واوصاني بالصلاة والزكاة ما دمت حيا

-> See, how Jesus said that he was made Mubarak, i.e. made blessed by Allah: وجعلني مباركا اين ما كنت , Wa Jalani MUBARAKA Ayn Ma Kunt, i.e. And He has made me blessed wherever I may be.

So we have, the Quran, the Kabba and Jesus being Mubarak by Allah, i.e. all are blessed by Allah.

When Nuh and his companions were in the Ark, this is what Nuh was commanded to say when calling upon Allah:

And say: O my Lord! Make me to land at a blessed landing, and You are the best of those who bring to land.

23:29 وقل رب انزلني منزلا مباركا وانت خير المنزلين

-> See: وقل رب انزلني منزلا مباركا , Wa Qul Rab Anzilni Mazala MUBARAKA , i.e. And say: O my Lord! Make me to land at a blessed landing

See, even the action of a ship reaching shore has to be blessed by Allah to happen, i.e. has to be Mubaraka, and not Tabaraak

Even the rain that is sent down, must be blessed by Allah:

And We send down from the sky blessed water, so We cause to grow thereby gardens and the grain from the harvest.

50:9 ونزلنا من السماء ماء مباركا فانبتنا به جنات وحب الحصيد

-> See: ونزلنا من السماء ماء مباركا , Wa Nazalna Min Alsamaa Ma?????????????????????¢??aa MUBARAKA , i.e. And We send down from the sky blessed water

From all the above, it is clear that the singular masculine noun of the word Ba Ra Ka is, مبارك , Mubarak or مباركا , Mubaraka

For the word to be noun, singular and feminine, it has to be:

مباركة , Mubarakah, i.e. being blessed, i.e. she is blessed.

Here is all the verses where the word was used as such:

Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; the likeness of His light is as 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 fire touch it not, light upon light, Allah guides to His light whom He wills, and Allah strikes parables for the people, and Allah of everything is Knowing.

24:35 الله نور السماوات والارض مثل نوره كمشكاة فيها مصباح المصباح في زجاجة الزجاجة كانها كوكب دري يوقد من شجرة مباركة زيتونة لا شرقية ولا غربية يكاد زيتها يضيئ ولو لم تمسسه نار نور علي نور يهدي الله لنوره من يشاء ويضرب الله الامثال للناس والله بكل شئ عليم

-> The verse is talking about a blessed tree, and because the tree is a feminine word in Arabic, then we must use Mubarakah, see: شجرة مباركة , Shajarah MUBARAKAH, i.e. a blessed tree.


There is no blame upon the blind (human), 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 mothers' brothers, 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 you may understand.

24:61 ليس علي الاعمي حرج ولا علي الاعرج حرج ولا علي المريض حرج ولا علي انفسكم ان تاكلوا من بيوتكم او بيوت ابائكم او بيوت امهاتكم او بيوت اخوانكم او بيوت اخواتكم او بيوت اعمامكم او بيوت عماتكم او بيوت اخوالكم او بيوت خالاتكم او ما ملكتم مفاتحه او صديقكم ليس عليكم جناح ان تاكلوا جميعا او اشتاتا فاذا دخلتم بيوتا فسلموا علي انفسكم تحية من عند الله مباركة طيبة كذلك يبين الله لكم الايات لعلكم تعقلون

-> The verse is talking about a blessed greeting, and because the greeting is a feminine word in Arabic, then we must use Mubarakah, see: تحية من عند الله مباركة , Tahayah Min Ind Allah MUBARAKAH, i.e. a greeting from Allah, blessed.


And when he came to it, he was called from the right bank of the valley, in the blessed spot of the tree: O Musa! Indeed, I am Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

28:30 فلما اتاها نودي من شاطئ الواد الايمن في البقعة المباركة من الشجرة ان يا موسي اني انا الله رب العالمين

-> The verse is talking about a blessed spot of land, and because the spot of land is a feminine word in Arabic, then we must use Mubarakah, see: البقعة المباركة , Albuqaa AL MUBARAKAH, i.e. the blessed spot .


Indeed, We sent it down on a blessed night; indeed, We are Warners.

44:3 انا انزلناه في ليلة مباركة انا كنا منذرين

-> The verse is talking about a blessed night (when the Quran was sent down), and because the night is a feminine word in Arabic, then we must use Mubarakah, see: ليلة مباركة , Laylah MUBARAKAH, i.e. a blessed night.

All the above masculine and feminine examples of the use of the word as a noun, mean that a thing is being blessed. There is also another noun, which is the word to refer to the blessings itself not the things that are blessed. The Arabic word for the noun blessing is: بركة which is feminine and singular, however the Quran never used it in singular form, due to the logical fact that Allah sends more than one blessing, or the blessings sent by Allah are continues and never stop. What is used in the Quran is its plural: بركات , Barakaat, i.e. Blessings

Here is all the verses where the word used as such:

And if the people of the villages had believed and feared (Allah) We would have certainly opened upon them blessings from the sky and the earth, but they rejected, so We overtook them for what they were earning.

7:96 ولو ان اهل القري امنوا واتقوا لفتحنا عليهم بركات من السماء والارض ولكن كذبوا فاخذناهم بما كانوا يكسبون

-> The verse is talking about the blessings the may be sent by Allah if the people of the villages believe and fear Him, see: لفتحنا عليهم بركات , Lafatahna Alayhum BARAKAAT, i.e. We would have certainly opened upon them blessings.


It was said: O Nuh! Disembark with peace from Us and blessings upon you and upon nations from among those who are with you, and (other) nations whom We will grant enjoyment, then it will afflict them from Us a painful torture.

11:48 قيل يا نوح اهبط بسلام منا وبركات عليك وعلي امم ممن معك وامم سنمتعهم ثم يمسهم منا عذاب اليم

-> The verse is talking about the blessings that were sent upon Nuh after Allah saved him, see: وبركات عليك وعلي امم ممن معك , Wa BARAKAAT Alayk Wa Ala Umam Maak, i.e. and blessings upon you and upon nations from among those who are with you blessings.


They said: Are you amazed at the command of Allah? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are upon you, O people of the house, indeed, He is Praised, Glorious.

11:73 قالوا اتعجبين من امر الله رحمة الله وبركاته عليكم اهل البيت انه حميد مجيد

-> The verse is talking about the blessings the were sent upon the wife of Ibrahim, see: وبركاته عليكم , Wa BARAKAATuh Alaykum, i.e. and His blessings are upon you.

All the above verses showed the use of the word as a NOUN. All the verses below show the word use as a VERB including the verb Tabaraak. In addition to verse 7:137 which I opened my comment with as an example of the word as a VRRB, here is the rest of the verses where the word was used as a verb:

-- The first variation as a verb is بورك , Borek, i.e. is being blessed, i.e. a verb that is done by Allah upon a thing. This is the only example in the Quran

So when he came to it, he was called: Blessed who is at the fire and around it, and glory be to Allah the Lord or the worlds.

27:8 فلما جاءها نودي ان بورك من في النار ومن حولها وسبحان الله رب العالمين

-> See: بورك من في النار ومن حولها , Borek Man Fi Alnar Wa Man Halaha, Blessed who is at the fire and around it.

-- The second variation as a verb is بارك , Baraak, i.e. Blessed, as a past tense verb, for which I have given one example at the start of this comment, this is the most commonly used word to imply a verb that is being done by Allah, therefore the examples from the Quran are many:

Glory be to Him Who caused His servant to travel at night from the sacred mosque to the distant mosque around which We have blessed, so that We show him of Our signs; indeed, He is the all-Hearing, the all-Seeing.

17:1 سبحان الذي اسري بعبده ليلا من المسجد الحرام الي المسجد الاقصا الذي باركنا حوله لنريه من اياتنا انه هو السميع البصير

-> The verse is talking about the action by Allah of blessing the area around the sacred mosque, see: باركنا حوله , BARAAKna Hawlahu, around which We have blessed.


And We saved him and Lut to the land which We had blessed for the worlds.

21:71 ونجيناه ولوطا الي الارض التي باركنا فيها للعالمين

-> The verse is talking about the action by Allah of blessing a land, see: التي باركنا , Allaty BARAAKna, which We had blessed.


And to Sulaiman, (We subjected) the wind blowing, runs by his command to the land which We had blessed, and We are ever of everything Knowing.

21:81 ولسليمان الريح عاصفة تجري بامره الي الارض التي باركنا فيها وكنا بكل شئ عالمين

-> The verse is talking about the action by Allah of blessing a land, see: التي باركنا , Allaty BARAAKna, which We had blessed.


And We made between them and the villages which We had blessed visible villages, and We determined therein the journey (saying): Travel through them by nights and by days in safety.

34:18 وجعلنا بينهم وبين القري التي باركنا فيها قري ظاهرة وقدرنا فيها السير سيروا فيها ليالي واياما امنين

-> The verse is talking about the action by Allah of blessing a village, see: التي باركنا , Allaty BARAAKna Fiha, which We had blessed.


And We blessed him and Ishaq. And of their descendants is one who is doer of good (deeds), and one who is obviously unjust to himself.

37:113 وباركنا عليه وعلي اسحاق ومن ذريتهما محسن وظالم لنفسه مبين

-> The verse is talking about the action by Allah of blessing Ibrahim and Ishaq, see: وباركنا عليه وعلي اسحاق , Wa BARAAKna Alayhi Wa Ala Ishaq, And We blessed him and Ishaq.


And He made in it mountains above it and He blessed it and made therein its sustenance in four equal days, for (the information of) those who question.

41:10 وجعل فيها رواسي من فوقها وبارك فيها وقدر فيها اقواتها في اربعة ايام سواء للسائلين

-> The verse is talking about the action by Allah of blessing the earth, see: وبارك فيها , Wa Baraak Fiha, and He blessed it.

-- The third and last variation as a verb is تبارك , Tabaraak, i.e. Blessed, as past tense verb, which is almost identical to the second variation but with letter , Ta, let me put the two verbs under each other so you can see the difference:

تبارك , Tabaraak
بارك , Baraak

Both words should absolutely mean the same, i.e. the same action of blessing represented in a past tense verb, the extra Ta in Tabaraak only implies continuity by the action of the verb, the additional Ta should never change the meaning of the verb nor its tense. Let me show you a perfect example from the Quran, an example with a word that is also used to praise Allah:

The word is تعالي , Ta?????????????????????¢??alaa, i.e. Exalted, the word is almost identical as the word تبارك , Tabaraak in the following aspects:

1) The two words are identical concerning wazn, which is تفاعل , Tafa?????????????????????¢??al.
2) Both words are past tense verb.
3) Both words have the extra Ta in front.
4) Both words are used by the traditional Muslims to praise Allah.

Let me now analyze the word تعالي , Ta?????????????????????¢??alaa, i.e. Exalted

The word can also come without the Ta as seen below:
عالي , A?????????????????????¢??alaa, and certainly the meaning should stay the same, i.e Exalted, the word without the Ta may be used in something like Auctions to describe the action by one who raises the bet above others, i.e. exalted above others in winning the auction

Now, when the word with an additional Ta is used as an action (a verb) by Allah, it means that Allah is continuously exalting above any other thing that may exalt, see this compelling verse:

Glory be to Him and exalted He is above what they say by great height.


17:43 سبحانه وتعالي عما يقولون علوا كبيرا

-> See: تعالي عما يقولون علوا كبيرا , Ta?????????????????????¢??alaa Amma Yaquloon Ilwan Kabira, i.e. exalted He is above what they say by great height. , see how the meaning of the word DID NOT CHANGE when used to praise Allah by describing the verb He is doing, being higher above what they say by great height.

That should be the same and exact case with Tabaraak, having the extra Ta in front SHOULD NEVER CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE WORD THAT IT IS PAST TENSE to describe a continues action by Allah of sending His blessings upon whatever, therefore, the following translation should be the most suited to literally describe the Arabic words including the verb Tabaraak:

Indeed your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then He established Himself above the throne; He caused the night to cover the day, it seeks it slowly; and the sun and the moon and the stars are made subservient by His command; Indeed to Him belongs the creation and the command; blessings from Allah, Lord of the worlds.

7:54 ان ربكم الله الذي خلق السماوات والارض في ستة ايام ثم استوي علي العرش يغشي الليل النهار يطلبه حثيثا والشمس والقمر والنجوم مسخرات بامره الا له الخلق والامر تبارك الله رب العالمين

-> See, after Allah listed some of His blessings upon us, He said: تبارك الله رب العالمين , TABARAAK Allah Rab Alalameen, blessings from Allah, Lord of the worlds. , this is the best English words I reached after some deep thinking, simply the words is describing the action of sending the blessings of Allah. Is the sentence a praise to Allah?, of course it is, because it is stating such action of sending His blessings which is can only done by Him, therefore it is praising Allah at the same time, the bottom like is, we don?????????????????????¢??t need to change its meaning from ?????????????????????¢??Bless?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? to anything else to imply praising as the sentence on its literal meaning is enough of a praise to the Lord Who is continuously sending His blessings.


Then We made the drop a clinging (fertilized) egg, then We made the clinging (fertilized) egg a lump of flesh, then We made the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We developed him into another creation, so blessings from Allah, the best of the creators.

23:14 ثم خلقنا النطفة علقة فخلقنا العلقة مضغة فخلقنا المضغة عظاما فكسونا العظام لحما ثم انشاناه خلقا اخر فتبارك الله احسن الخالقين

-> See again, after Allah listed some of His blessings upon us, He said: تبارك الله احسن الخالقين , Fa TABARAAK Allah Ahsan Alkhaliqeen, blessings from Allah, the best of the creators.


Blessings from the One Who sent down the criterion upon His servant that he may be to the ones who know a warner.

25:1 تبارك الذي نزل الفرقان علي عبده ليكون للعالمين نذيرا

-> See in this verse, Allah listed one of His blessings upon us after He said: تبارك الذي , TABARAAK Allazy, Blessings from the One , and one of these blessings is: Who sent down the criterion upon His servant that he may be to the ones who know a warner.

I believe it will be much better to translate it as this:

Blessings (sent) from the One

Adding the virtual word ?????????????????????¢??(sent)?????????????????????¢?? after blessings should indicate the status of the word as a VERB


Blessings from the One Who, if He willed, would have made for you better than that, gardens beneath which the rivers flow, and He will make for you palaces.

25:10 تبارك الذي ان شاء جعل لك خيرا من ذلك جنات تجري من تحتها الانهار ويجعل لك قصورا

-> Even if Allah did not give us real examples of such blessings in any verse where He says Tabaraak, the meaning should stay the same without explicitly knowing what real blessings that is sent because logically speaking all blessings are sent from Him, yet the above verse is listing for us some possible blessings with which Allah may bless anyone, See: تبارك الذي ان شاء , TABARAAK Allazy In Shaa, Blessings from the One Who, if He willed, , and here is the list of the possible blessings in the future (from our perspective: would have made for you better than that, gardens beneath which the rivers flow, and He will make for you palaces. Certainly if any one of us have gardens and palaces, the rest of us must describe him as being blessed.


Blessings from the One Who made in the sky constellations, and made therein a lamp and a luminous moon.

25:61 تبارك الذي جعل في السماء بروجا وجعل فيها سراجا وقمرا منيرا

-> Here is another example: تبارك الذي , TABARAAK Allazy, Blessings from the One And here is another list of the blessings that Allah made for us: Who made in the sky constellations, and made therein a lamp and a luminous moon.


It is Allah Who made the earth for you a settlement, and the heaven a structure, and He formed you, and made your forms good, and He provided you with good things. That is Allah, your Lord, so blessings from Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

40:64 الله الذي جعل لكم الارض قرارا والسماء بناء وصوركم فاحسن صوركم ورزقكم من الطيبات ذلكم الله ربكم فتبارك الله رب العالمين

-> Another example for the same verb Tabaraak: تبارك الله رب العالمين , TABARAAK Allah Rab Alalameen, blessings from Allah, the Lord of the worlds. And before that we can clearly read another list of such blessings: It is Allah Who made the earth for you a settlement, and the heaven a structure, and He formed you, and made your forms good, and He provided you with good things.


And blessings from the One to Whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and with Him is the knowledge of the hour, and to Him you will be returned.

43:85 وتبارك الذي له ملك السماوات والارض وما بينهما وعنده علم الساعة واليه ترجعون

-> Another example: تبارك الذي , TABARAAK Allazy, blessings from the One The following list can be arguably
- Sun 19 Jul, 2009 11:07 pm
Post subject:
Read above first ^^


Blessings from the One Whose hands control the kingdom, and He is, over everything, Capable.

67:1 تبارك الذي بيده الملك وهو علي كل شئ قدير

-> Similar example to the last verse is this one: تبارك الذي , TABARAAK Allazy, blessings from the One The following list can also be arguably considered as blessings from Him: Whose hands control the kingdom, and He is, over everything, Capable.

And finally the last verse where the word TABARAAK appeared:

Blessings from the name of your Lord, Owner of majesty and honour.

55:78 تبارك اسم ربك ذي الجلال والاكرام

-> This is a tough one actually, see what came after Tabaraak: تبارك اسم ربك , TABARAAK Ism Rabuk, Blessings from the name of your Lord. Obviously some will say, see blessings cannot be sent from a name. I say, quite the contrary it can be, because the name should be explicitly referring to such entity sending the blessings, if you replace the words the name of your Lord with thr real name Allah then the words will become Blessings from Allah, consequently it should mean blessings from the entity itself, and if others continue to argue then it should be equally hard for them to understand it the other way, how come a name is blessed?

See, it is similar to when we say: In the name of Allah.

From all the above, I found it far accurate to translate the verb TABARAAK as Blessings (sent) from Allah, for the following reasons:

1) The literal meaning stays the same.

2) The verb status stays the same.

3) It complies with the identical style used with the word Ta?????????????????????¢??alaa many times in the Quran.

4) It does not conflict with other words that are used to praise Allah, like the following verse for example:

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

1:2 الحمد لله رب العالمين

-> As you can see the words used to say: Praise be to Allah are: الحمد لله , Alhamd Li Allah

5) The context of translating it as blessings (sent) from Allah still imply indirectly praise to Allah, by stating the fact that all blessings are sent from Him and can only be done by Him.

Finally, as I have shown the goons of FFI that they should also argue the fact that the Bible said so at least 5 times,of which I showed them 4 times, let me bring one passage again:

Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;
[2 Corinthians 1:3]

If you ask the Christians how God is blessed, the will quickly tell you that it does not mean blessed in such sense rather praised, which is the same excuse used by many Muslims.

Now for the translators who preferred to stick to its meaning of bless, they cannot just say blessed be God, it makes no sense unless we accept that God is doing it upon Himself, which is fine with me to accept, as God can do anything to Himself as long as it is neither demeaning nor degrading. And certainly blessing Himself cannot be a demeaning act to Himself nor will it make Him lose another superior attribute of His.

However, to leave no room of argument for the ignorant kafirs (who are only interested in disputing the words of Allah), I must do it the way I thoroughly explained above, and I repeat, it should be the most accurate way to do it considering the verb status of the word and all other arguments that I presented.

Finally, this comment above is not debatable with kafirs, only Muslims are welcome to debate it, however if no Muslim come with compelling Quran logic and it ends up that me alone from among all Muslims is the one understanding it this way, I will not be motivated to make my understanding as theirs.

Salam
- Tue 21 Jul, 2009 8:04 pm
Post subject:
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:


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.


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:

Islamic_Science2 wrote:
This is what I wrote in another forum. http://www.debatefaith.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=63


Simply he is promting his ignorance, let's see what he had to say on the other forum:

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.


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

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 .


Then the goon admitted his ognorance that he cannot translate the above, so what he did, he intrprted according to his low desire, see:

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.


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 *****:

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.


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:

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Tell me dumb bum, what the Arabic word سُطِحَتْ means?


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:

manfred wrote:
I think pretty well most people here know that one, even me...


And I am sure most goons in here are dumb ignronat bums

manfred wrote:
سطحت is feminine for سَطَّحَ


How fukin funny, lol

سطحت is a verb, mister dumb

However this is not what I asked

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)


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

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...


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...[/quote]

Ahmed says in reply to manfred:

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.


You forced me to be rude to you, so the game is fair.

manfred wrote:
Of course it's a verb, a verbs they relate to nouns, right...


Again, that was not my question, I didn't ask if it is verb or not, neither I asked if it is feminine verb or not.

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.


This is what you wrote:

سطحت is feminine for سَطَّحَ

See the underlined word that you wrote, here is what Google translate tells you what it means:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


Another slam dunk, hey

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?


Didn't I slam dunk this crap many times before?

It seems that you ran out of crap so you need to parrot what I have already slam dunked

Not to worry, you earned another slam dunk from Google

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?


Fuk most other translators, they are certainly dumb and ignorant, that is why I am doing mine

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...


Haha, the surface of the earth is its crust, mister

Ahmed adds:

What a slam dunk that is, two FFI goons slam dunking themselves with their own hands.

# 57
- Fri 21 Aug, 2009 2:24 am
Post subject:
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:


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.


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:

Islamic_Science2 wrote:
This is what I wrote in another forum. http://www.debatefaith.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=63


Simply he is promting his ignorance, let?????????????????????¢??s see what he had to say on the other forum:

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.


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

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 .


Then the goon admitted his ognorance that he cannot translate the above, so what he did, he intrprted according to his low desire, see:

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.


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 *****:

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.


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:

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Tell me dumb bum, what the Arabic word سُطِحَتْ means?


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:

manfred wrote:
I think pretty well most people here know that one, even me...


And I am sure most goons in here are dumb ignronat bums

manfred wrote:
سطحت is feminine for سَطَّحَ


How fukin funny, lol

سطحت is a verb, mister dumb

However this is not what I asked

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)


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

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...


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...


Ahmed says in reply to manfred:

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.


You forced me to be rude to you, so the game is fair.

manfred wrote:
Of course it's a verb, a verbs they relate to nouns, right...


Again, that was not my question, I didn't ask if it is verb or not, neither I asked if it is feminine verb or not.

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.


This is what you wrote:

سطحت is feminine for سَطَّحَ

See the underlined word that you wrote, here is what Google translate tells you what it means:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


Another slam dunk, hey

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?


Didn't I slam dunk this crap many times before?

It seems that you ran out of crap so you need to parrot what I have already slam dunked

Not to worry, you earned another slam dunk from Google

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?


Fuk most other translators, they are certainly dumb and ignorant, that is why I am doing mine

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...


Haha, the surface of the earth is its crust, mister

Ahmed adds:

What a slam dunk that is, two FFI goons slam dunking themselves with their own hands.

[/quote]

Hello, Ahmed

That was an excellent Slam Dunk.

Sometimes, I wonder if any FFI goon can really even understand a short passage of English literature.

Looks like there aren't any more Muslims at FFI, so the FFI goons are now flooding Topix.

Looks like the Towel-Head has started this thread there:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TBOUNEASFLNMLAJA3#c15
Anti-Jihad asked me to write on this idiotic topic but I declined by posting a clear note.

I don't know how these FFI Clowns enjoy life and appreciate the beauty of nature, prose and poetry?

Thanks for this Slam Dunk and do that when you have time.

Salaams, mate
BMZ
- Sun 23 Aug, 2009 8:39 pm
Post subject:
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


Hi Sani

I am sorry that you are totally wrong, Doccy bum asked the following question:

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


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

# 58

Cheers
- Sun 23 Aug, 2009 10:08 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
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


Hi Sani

I am sorry that you are totally wrong, Doccy bum asked the following question:

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


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


Good.

You need to do these Slam Dunks frequently, Ahmed.

I really hate it when the FFI goons and Jesus freaks, cherry-pick one verse and start talking.

They have no knowledge of sections, what is being discussed and how the verses are connected.

For example 3:139 is a part of the section containing verses 3:139-141 and once one reads the three verses, the message is quite clear.

Salaams
BMZ
- Mon 24 Aug, 2009 10:24 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

A goon on FFI block is getting high on morphene, he is spamming FFI forum with his so called Quran contradictions, I was not aware of it actually, but I had a look today and saw all his crap in there, no surprise you won?????????????????????¢??t find any other goon cheering for his crap, so I decided to reply to two of his threads:

thunderbolt of FFI said:

Koran faults 5: The Cow (2):29
Which was created first: the heavens or the earth?

Every body knows now that the universe (heavens) came into being first and then within the solar system the earth developed to its present day state.
Of course this was not the common knowledge at the time of Mohammad.
The Koran in this verse; Cow 29, states the opposite.
This verse demolishes any idea that the Koran relates in the least way with present day scientific knowledge.

This verse is in contrast to two verses in The Soul-Snatchers (79): 27&30. In the later two verses the sequence is the heavens first then the earth.

In the following translations most authors (marked in red) used the word ?????????????????????¢??then?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? meaning after He created earth He created the heavens. Some authors used ?????????????????????¢??and?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? which is very different to ?????????????????????¢??then?????????????????????¢??????????????????????, another glaring example of twisting the meaning to suite the present day audience. The authors who used and are: Shakir, Malik, QXP, Maulana Ali and Asad. Yusuf Ali used the word ?????????????????????¢??moreover?????????????????????¢??????????????????????, another twisted translation.

It is of note also to recognise the expressions: ?????????????????????¢??lifted Himself to heaven?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? (Arberry) and ?????????????????????¢??(rose over) towards the heaven?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? (Hilali/Khan). Here Allah is being presented as a mere human finishing one job (creation of earth) and heading towards the next job.


I removed zillions of translations that he brought in, so this is how I replied briefly to him:

Mister ignorant, the Arabic word 'Thumma' also means 'Moreover', don't you know that I slamed your babie alegation many times before?

And he replied back:

thunderbolt of FFI said:
Even if you use the word "moreover":
More-over is composed of two words: "more" and "over" and both give the meaning of a sequence.
More-over = further = beside
You must have something first to say "more"
You must have something first to say "over"
You must have something first to say "further"
You must have something first to say "beside"
You must have something ?????????????????????¢??under?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? (the earth) to say ?????????????????????¢??over" (the heavens).

According to this verse in the Koran:
The earth was created first then/further/beside/moreover the heavens were created, the sequence is very clear.

Sorry friend, you bet on a loosing horse.


So I replied:

Good that you may agree that it means moreover

The bottom line is this, the word moreover may mean the following if we say: "I did A, moreover I did B"

the above means any of the following:

1) A is done before B
2) B is done before A
3) A & B are done together

cheers friend


On another thread, he posted more crap:

thunderbolt of FFI said:

Koran faults 7: The Cow (2):61
One or two? Rightful killing of prophets.

It is well known that the Israelites were sent the Manna and Quails from heaven by God during the years of wilderness in the Sinai desert.
However, here the Koran states ?????????????????????¢??one food?????????????????????¢??????????????????????, so which one it is and what about the other?

Also, we notice that at the end of the verse the Koran states that:
?????????????????????¢??and (they) kill the prophets without the right?????????????????????¢??????????????????????
?????????????????????¢??slaying His Messengers without just cause.?????????????????????¢??????????????????????
So, does this mean that God consider it isgument at times rightful/justifiable to kill the prophets whom He Himself has sent?
---------------------

So I replied:

Looks like you are very desperate, friend

You keep coming with clear cut Barbie crap, well, let me slam dunk you in a hurry:

For the first childish argument, of course an ignorant like you who knows no Arabic, does not know that Mann is a sweet DRINK, therefore the Jews were indeed having ONE FOOD which is Salwa (Quails). This should constitute the first 50% of my slam dunk

For the other 50%, well, again it seems that you have not read the Quran at all, this is because if you have read it, you should realize that whenever the crime of killing the prophets by the jews is mentioned, we always read it as follow:

And their killing of the prophets without right

This statement was repeated at least 5 times, check the following verses:

2:61
3:21
3:112
3:181
4:155

What I want you to ponder upon, is another verse, verse 5:32. so let me bring it in here:

Because of that, We ordained upon the children of Israel that whoever kills a soul without a soul or without mischief in the land, it is as if he killed all the people; and whoever revives it, it is as if he revived all the people; and certainly Our messengers came to them with the signs, then many of them after that in the land are transgressors.
[Al Quran ; 5:32]

مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَلَقَدْ جَاء تْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فِي الأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ (32)

-> See: Because of that, We ordained upon the children of Israel that whoever kills a soul without a soul or without mischief in the land, it is as if he killed all the people;

In simple words:

whoever kills a soul without RIGHT

As you should know by now that such right can be any of the following:

1- a person is killed. i.e. the jews may execute the murderer.

2- a person is causing mischief in the land, i.e. the jews may execute the mischief maker.

And certainly, any prophet was neither a murderer nor a mischief maker (for the incident of Musa when he killed an innocent man, it was a mistake, and for the companion of Musa who also killed a young man, it was a command of Allah to do so, the bottom line is this, under the Quran, there is no prophet who was an intentional murderer, unlike the bible which portrays some prophets, as alcoholic, drunk, intentional murderers, rapists and fukers of their blood daughters)

Consequently the jews had no right to kill any of them unless they believed in their crap OT, therefore if a prophet killed a soul or caused mischief in the land as they portrayed their own prophets in their own corrupt scriptures, then they would have had the right to kill him, under the command of Allah that was ordained on them

SO what is your stupid point exactly?

Yeh I know, you were eager to be slam dunked, here it is so I keep you happy:

# 59
- Wed 23 Sep, 2009 1:43 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

Let me get my slam dunk show going with the next slam dunk.

Here is what an FFI dumb bum had to say:

thunderbolt of FFI wrote:

Koran faults 23: The Women (4):171: Does the Koran preaches/condones polytheism?

The massage in this verse is clear: do not say that God is three.
Implication of this is it is fine to say God is one, two, four, five, extra; as long as you do not say three.
This urge for polytheism can be found throughout the Koran as in 21:22.

Literal
but the Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son (is) God's messenger and His word/expression He threw it away to Mary, and a Soul/Spirit (could be Gabriel) from Him; so believe with God, and His messengers, and do not say: "Three."

Pickthal
The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you!

Arberry
The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three.' Refrain; better is it for you.

Shakir
the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only a messenger of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His messengers, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you;

Sarwar
Jesus, son of Mary, is only a Messenger of God, His Word, and a spirit from Him whom He conveyed to Mary. So have faith in God and His Messengers. Do not say that there are three gods.

H/K/Saheeh
The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist it is better for you.

QXP
The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was a Messenger of Allah, the fulfillment of His Word to Mary, created according to the Laws of Creation and given free will from the Divine Energy (like all human beings (15:29), (32:7-9), (38:72)). Believe in Allah and His Messengers, and say not: "Three". Cease!

Maulana Ali
The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only a messenger of Allah and His word which He communicated to Mary and a mercy from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you.

George Sale
Verily Christ Jesus the son of Mary is the Apostle of God, and his word, which he conveyed into Mary, and a spirit proceeding from him. Believe therefore in God, and his Apostles, and say not, there are three Gods; forbear this; it will be better for you.


A Muslim on FFI web site replied to him as follow:

abdullahinislam wrote:
:) 112:1 Say, He is Allah, the ONE.


So I replied to the Muslim brother:

Salam

Why go to 112:1?

Let's look at the same very verse, the ignornat dumb bum brought in and let it slam dunk him:

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لاَ تَغْلُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ إِلاَّ الْحَقِّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلاَثَةٌ انتَهُواْ خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ إِنَّمَا اللّهُ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَات وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ وَكَفَى بِاللّهِ وَكِيلاً (171)
O people of the Book! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not say against Allah except the truth; indeed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is the messenger of Allah and His word which He threw to Marium and a soul from Him; therefore believe in Allah and His messengers, and do not say three, desist, it is better for you. Indeed Allah is one God; glory be to Him that He should not have a child, to Him is whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth, and it is enough that Allah is a Trustee.
[Al Quran ; 4:171]

-> see: وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلاَثَةٌ انتَهُواْ خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ إِنَّمَا اللّهُ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ, i.e. and do not say three, desist, it is better for you. Indeed Allah is one God

A very well earned slam dunk, hey:

# 60

Salam
- Wed 23 Sep, 2009 7:28 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

The subject of killing the apostates is on FFI again, well, forgetting 2:256 which states the following:

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِن بِاللّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَىَ لاَ انفِصَامَ لَهَا وَاللّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ (256)
There is no compulsion in the religion; indeed the right path has become distinct from error; so whoever disbelieves in the evil and believes in Allah, he indeed has grasped on the firmest handle, no break in it, and Allah is all-Hearing, all-Knowing.
[Al Quran ; 2:256]

-> See: There is no compulsion in the religion , but let?????????????????????¢??s forget this for a moment.

As well, forgetting 18:29 which states the following:

وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ ۖ فَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ وَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ ۚ إِنَّا أَعْتَدْنَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ نَارًا أَحَاطَ بِهِمْ سُرَادِقُهَا ۚ وَإِنْ يَسْتَغِيثُوا يُغَاثُوا بِمَاءٍ كَالْمُهْلِ يَشْوِي الْوُجُوهَ ۚ بِئْسَ الشَّرَابُ وَسَاءَتْ مُرْتَفَقًا (29)
And say: The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve. Indeed, We have prepared for the unjust a fire, whose walls will surround them; and if they call for help, they will be helped with water like molten brass which will scald the faces; miserable is the drink and bad is the resting place.
[Al Quran ; 18:29]

-> See: so whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve , let?????????????????????¢??s also forget about this for another moment

Let?????????????????????¢??s now have a closer look at 4:137

Indeed, those who have believed then disbelieved, then believed then disbelieved, then increased in disbelief, it is not for Allah to forgive them nor guide them to a way.
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ ثُمَّ كَفَرُواْ ثُمَّ آمَنُواْ ثُمَّ كَفَرُواْ ثُمَّ ازْدَادُواْ كُفْرًا لَّمْ يَكُنِ اللّهُ لِيَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ وَلاَ لِيَهْدِيَهُمْ سَبِيلاً (137)
[The Quran ; 4:137]

-> See, Indeed, those who have believed then disbelieved, then believed then disbelieved, then increased in disbelief, , i.e. we are talking about some humans who left the belief MORE THAN ONCE, now if they should be killed, how come then they became believers then disbelievers, then even increased in disbelief after that? This verse should make such Azhar Fatwa provided by an FFI kafir, a joke. A joke at those confused Azhar Ulamaa. Let me bring such rubbish of a fatwa in here again then add my comments about it:



The above document (if genuine) is dated 23/9/1978 and it seems being issued by Al-Azhar Fatwa Division in reply to a couple of questions by a guy named Ahmed Darwish on behalf of another man who is the subject of the questions, simply that other man was a Muslim who married a German and Christian woman, so he converted to Christianity and left Islam, two questions been asked:

1) What is the Islamic punishment for him?
2) What should be the religious status of his children being Muslims or Christians?

Al-Azhar confused Ulamaa replied as follow:

Firstly they praised Mohammed by calling him Sayed Al Mursaleen, i.e. The Master of all Messengers. I say, what bloody crap is that coming from those confused Azhar Ulamaa? They clearly put Mohammed on a level higher than all the messengers. Am I right or possibly Satan is screwing me? Well, while I agree that this piece of shit Satan screws me sometimes, I don?????????????????????¢??t think that he is screwing me when I suggest that those confused Azhara Ulamaa CLEARLY put one messenger above all the rest of the messengers, by calling him, the Master of all Messengers, well, well, well, I guess, I have three messages for those dumb bums of Ulamaa, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look:

قُولُواْ آمَنَّا بِاللّهِ وَمَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالأسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى وَعِيسَى وَمَا أُوتِيَ النَّبِيُّونَ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ لاَ نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ (136)
Say: We have believed in Allah and (in) that which had been sent down to us, and (in) that which was sent down to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Musa and Isa, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him, we are submitters.
[Al Quran ; 2:136]

-> See: Say: We have believed in Allah and (in) that which had been sent down to us, and (in) that which was sent down to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Musa and Isa, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them. this is clearly a command from Allah to all believers, to again: Say:?????????????????????¢????????????????¢??????????????????????¦ we do not make any distinction between any of them. , but the matter of fact is the contrary, indeed those dumb bums of Azhar Ulamaa made a clear distinction between one messenger and the rest:

Current Score:
The Quran : 1
The confused Ulamaa of Azhar : 0

قُلْ آمَنَّا بِاللّهِ وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالأَسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى وَعِيسَى وَالنَّبِيُّونَ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ لاَ نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ (84)
Say: We have believed in Allah and in what has been sent down on us, and what was sent down on Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him we are submitters.
[Al Quran ; 3:84]

-> See again: Say: We have believed in Allah and in what has been sent down on us, and what was sent down on Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them., but the matter of the fact remains intact that the confused Ulamaa of Azhar made and continue to make a clear distinction between one messenger and the rest of them:

Current Score:
The Quran : 2
The confused Ulamaa of Azhar : 0

وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَلَمْ يُفَرِّقُواْ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ أُوْلَئِكَ سَوْفَ يُؤْتِيهِمْ أُجُورَهُمْ وَكَانَ اللّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا (152)
And those who have believed in Allah and His messengers and did not make a distinction between any of them, they are the ones whom Allah will grant their rewards; and indeed Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 4:152]

-> See again, And those who have believed in Allah and His messengers and did not make a distinction between any of them, they are the ones whom Allah will grant their rewards; , but as you know by know that by calling a person, the master of others, you clearly made a distinction between such person and the others, therefore:

Current Score:
The Quran : 3
The confused Ulamaa of Azhar : 0

How about we make it 4? Why not, let the Quran speak:

آمَنَ الرَّسُولُ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مِن رَّبِّهِ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ كُلٌّ آمَنَ بِاللّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ لاَ نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّن رُّسُلِهِ وَقَالُواْ سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا غُفْرَانَكَ رَبَّنَا وَإِلَيْكَ الْمَصِيرُ (285)
The messenger believed in what was sent down to him from his Lord, and the believers; they all believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers. We (the believers) make no distinction between any of His messengers; and they (the believers) said: We heard and obeyed, our Lord! Your forgiveness and to You is the destiny.
[Al Quran ; 2:285]

-> See: We (the believers) make no distinction between any of His messengers;

Final Score:
The Quran : 4
The confused Ulamaa of Azhar : 0

Yet those stubborn and confused so called Ulamaa insist on praising Mohammed above all other messengers and prophets.

A few years ago, I confronted one confused Muslim woman with 2:136 & 3:84 which stated, not to make any distinction between the PROPHETS, she came back with a silly reply, that 2:136 & 3:84 talk about PROPHETS and not MESSENGERS, i.e. it is OK to make a distinction between a MESSENGER and other MESSENGERS. Miss confused forgot that EVERY MESSENGER IS A PROPHET, i.e. if we should not make any distinction between all prophets, then automatically we should not make any distinction between all messengers because every messenger is a prophet, but I am sure such confused Muslims won?????????????????????¢??t understand such logic, so I slammed her with 2:285 & 4:152 which state clearly not to make distinction between ALL MESSENGERS, of course she buried her pinhead in the sand after that, and likewise should do the confused Ulamaa of Azhar.

Let me now get back to the stupid answers in such Fatwa by those confused Ulamaa of Azhar

They said that if the man does not repent, then he should be killed.

I say, how dumb, it is not like a kafir may escape the punishment of Allah, so we make sure that he reaches by killing him and sending him to Allah, it absolutely does not make any sense, in fact the message of the Quran that those kafirs wanted this life and consequently Allah will make them have of its fun more and more, the bottom line is this, at the end of time, they will not be able to escape the punishment of Allah for their disbelief. In fact they won?????????????????????¢??t be able to escape death from the first place; they will die sooner or later according to Allah?????????????????????¢??s decree, not to our decrees unless they killed innocent people, in such case we may kill them and yet that is still according to Allah?????????????????????¢??s decree.

Also how much time we should allow such people to give them a chance to repent and believe again? You cannot really put a time limit on it.

The whole idea by such Ulamaa is stupid and full of holes, that is because it is purely man made, see, I can disbelieve then before they kill me, I repent and believe, then later on I disbelieve again, and again before they kill me I repent and believe again, I can play with them the cat and mouse game for the rest of my life, see it does not make any sense. I can escape their man made punishment, but will I be able to escape Allah?????????????????????¢??s punishment? Of course not; the kafir must be the ultimate loser at the end.

What makes more non sense is the fact that no one knows if any person is a believer or not, we can say and do what we want, but only Allah knows who is sincere in the belief, and also knows who is sincere in disbelief. The whole matter of belief and its punishment is under the hands of Allah alone, no one can interfere with it, absolutely no one except Allah.

Can you also see that verse 4:137 that I brought in has stated the punishment for those who kept on believing and disbelieving until they ended up hardcore unbelievers, here it is: it is not for Allah to forgive them nor guide them to a way. , in fact Allah told Mohammad what to do with them exactly, nothing more than saying the following as stated in the following verse 4:138:

بَشِّرِ الْمُنَافِقِينَ بِأَنَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا (138)
Give the tidings to the hypocrites that they will have a painful torture.
[Al Quran ; 4:138]

-> See: Give the tidings to the hypocrites that they will have a painful torture. , of course they are hypocrites if they : believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief.

After all these compelling Quran evidences, I bet you will still see Ahl Al Sunnah and Shirk from among the Ulamaa of Azhar are not happy with Allah?????????????????????¢??s clear words regarding the apostates that their reckoning is only with Allah on the JD, they believe that the apostate must be killed, so they worked hard to justify their lies, what they did was simple. Let's steal such law from the Bible then inject it in a hearsay hadith and brainwash the believers that the hadith is as holy as the Quran. AND THEY SUCCEEDED.

The false belief among Ahl Al Sunnah and Shirk that they must kill the apostates has no basis in the Quran. It is another false belief stolen from the Bible and then passed off as teaching and Sunnah of the prophet etc. Here is the evidences of their theft from the Bible:

Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.
[Leviticus 24:16]

Here is more of let's kill the apostates' insanity from the Bible:

But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.
[Deuteronomy13:5]

According to the Bible, anyone who thinks differently (dreamer of dreams) shall be killed. This is the real teaching of the Bible. Just kill people who do not wish to believe like you anymore.

Here is yet more killing from the Bible :

If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods' you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
[Deuteronomy 13:6-10]

The Bible and the invented Sharia laws of the Ahl Al Sunnah and Shirk do not allow any freedom of belief. According to the Bible and the Sharia Laws of the Ahl Al Sunnah and Shirk, a person should be put to death when he changes from belief to disbelief. It is clear again that the Muftis of Ahl Al Sunnah and Shirk reject the teachings of Allah in the Quran. Instead they prefer to plagiaries biblical teachings and pass it off as the teachings of the prophet through nothing but hearsay that we should consider holy, yeh right.

For the second question concerning the children of such apostate, those confused Ulamaa of Azhar said the following:

As for the children, if they are young, then they should be Muslims, but when the grow older and decide to change their faith, they should be asked to repent and if they refused, then they should be killed.

Holy non sense man, this crap of all humans being born Muslims, does not make sense to any sane human, if we all bloody are born Muslims, then all kafirs and other religion followers must be killed according to those bunch of confused arseholes of Azhar Ulamaa (sorry I have to give it to such confused punks who are damaging my religion with their hardcore stupidity)

I challenge any punk of them to false me:

They bloody say that all humans are born Muslims, i.e. any one who is currently not a Muslim MUST BE APOSTATE and consequently must be killed, HAHAHAHAHAAH, I reckon that should be enough to expose their blindness and confusion.

Well, let me prove it to you that those punks are indeed confused beyond repair:

Let?????????????????????¢??s take the noble prophets Ibrahim and Ismael as examples, according to those confused Ulamaa and hadith worshippers from al-Azhar, Ibrahim and Ismael were born Muslims, let?????????????????????¢??s now look at this verse:

رَبَّنَا وَاجْعَلْنَا مُسْلِمَيْنِ لَكَ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِنَا أُمَّةً مُّسْلِمَةً لَّكَ وَأَرِنَا مَنَاسِكَنَا وَتُبْ عَلَيْنَآ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ (128)
Our Lord! And make us both submitters to You and from our offspring a nation that is submitting to You, and show us our path of worship and forgive us, surely You are the Relenting, the Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 2:128]
-> See what Ibrahim and Ismael are saying at a later time in their lives: Our Lord! And make us both submitters to You and from our offspring a nation that is submitting to You,. So I ask those confused Ulamaa, if Ibrahim and Ismael were born Muslims, how come later on they are asking Allah to be Muslims and even from their off spring a Muslim nation? It makes no sense, of course no one is born a Muslim. You are only born an innocent child who knows nothing, and because at that time you know nothing, then you cannot be a Muslim, because being a Muslim is 100% dependant on knowledge, it is not dependant on magic. In fact a good Muslim is one who is described in the Quran as SOLID IN KNOWLEDGE concerning the messages of Allah.

The conclusion is this, those confused Ulamaa of Azhar are very hard on killing others, for them killing an invaluable soul that Allah has created, is so easy, simply kill it and send it to God, as if God and His appointed team of angels cannot do it, bearing in mind that the matter of belief should concern Him alone and should not concern anyone else on this earth, simply, it is the matter of believing in Him.

Salam
- Thu 24 Sep, 2009 11:31 am
Post subject:
Hi,
Dear brother Ahmed, did you write this? I mean the argument and the explanations. The more I read about things like this, I just wonder, why the Quran is so accurate while what is happening is not. 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. 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.

I think you are taking few serious steps that are confirming what I am saying. First you do not rely much on Hadith, which was obvious to you from the start. 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. 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?????????????????????¢??????????????????????? It is a mystery. 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.

I am beginning to truly ask myself tonight, was the prophet really aware of the message he was delivering, or he was just the currier who had nothing to do with the package? The more I review the Quran, with your help, I just realise that people have listened, believed, worshiped the currier than the message itself. It is not an easy fight now; I would even dare to get involved. The number of people who believe in what Hadith, society, scholars, fundamentalists taught them, are very hard to change. Even though what you have got is possibly the word of God, you and people like youself are still facing a war that would need more than the re-coming of the prophet himself. Yet, one step is better than stillness.

May God be with you
We have never been contated.
No one knows the truth
- Thu 24 Sep, 2009 4:53 pm
Post subject:
openurmind wrote:
Hi,
Dear brother Ahmed,


Salam mate

openurmind wrote:
did you write this? I mean the argument and the explanations.


Of course mate, it took me 3 hours from start to finish including the outline of the arguments I presented
r
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.


I hardly believe that it is due to the fact that Satan is working hard to fuk all the believers, so he tries to distract them with other man made crap but only after making it look nice and perfect to them. The Quran tells us about that fact clearly

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.


During the time of the prophet I believe that the Muslims hardly fought with one another, however from the first day after his death, I believe that Satan kicked in his plans

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.


Certainly it is a very wide gap, this may imply that most of the stories we heard about the prophet are clear cut lies because they contradict the Quran, while Allah commanded him to remind the people by USING the Quran. It is written in the Quran.

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,


I do, but only to expose its massive flaws

openurmind wrote:
which was obvious to you from the start.


From as young as I can remember, the hadith never was a subject that interests me other than to expose its flaws.

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.


That is one certain reason of course, you will see most translations are very well influenced with the stories found in the hadith

However the main reason for my translation is simply, I could not find a good translation yet.

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?????????????????????¢???????????????????????


They still do it btw, they are confused, there is nothing in the hadith that should make you glorify Allah, in fact I believe that many of these hadiths are degrading to Allah might and power.

openurmind wrote:
It is a mystery.


It is a mystery because I believe it is caused by a figure that should sound mysterious to many, Satan

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.


Well, I or any man can excuse you for that, but will God excuse you for that? especially after the knowledge has reached you?

openurmind wrote:
I am beginning to truly ask myself tonight, was the prophet really aware of the message he was delivering,


He certainly was aware, but it seems that the people who received it were not and still are not aware.

openurmind wrote:
or he was just the currier who had nothing to do with the package?


Not sure what you mean by package?

Cetianly he was a carrier, but I believe that he was also a teacher, a Quran teacher who learnt it from Allah Himself. Therefore the prophet actions can never contradict the Quran and His teacher Allah.

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.


Exactly, all they care about is the messenger and not the message, how flawed they can be, man

openurmind wrote:
It is not an easy fight now;


This is going to be the fight of my life, it may ends by me getting killed, but that is fine with me, I fear no one except Allah, and certainly no one can do harm to me unless Allah allows it to happen "Wa Ma Tasha'oon Illa An Yashaa Allah i.e. And you do not will excpet that Allah wills (first)", I believe I am only living for that cause, to fight those confused believers, while at the same time try hard to redeem many of my sins with Allah will. I hope my fight with them be a reason for redemption.

openurmind wrote:
I would even dare to get involved.


I dared, and will continue to dare, I actually believe that my life would have no meaning without such cause, even if I am the richest man in the world, I am looking for what may stay after I die, my money and my possessions will be left after I die.

openurmind wrote:
The number of people who believe in what Hadith, society, scholars, fundamentalists taught them, are very hard to change.


Nothing is hard upon Allah, if He wants to change them, He will and He will also decree the reasons for it to happen.

openurmind wrote:
Even though what you have got is possibly the word of God, you and people like youself are still facing a war


Bring that war on, I can't wait till I fight those people, even in a physical fight, I will go for it. that is it man, I have made my mind and it is sealed. i.e. I cannot change it.

openurmind wrote:
that would need more than the re-coming of the prophet himself. Yet, one step is better than stillness.


It does not need the re-comoing of the prophet, it only needs that a lot of Muslims wake up and realize what had happened to them in 1200 years since the invention of the books of hadith, however to get a massive group united on one cause, is not an easy task to do by any mean.

openurmind wrote:
May God be with you
We have never been contated.
No one knows the truth


Thanks mate, and may Allah guide you too

No human (excluding messengers) knows the ultimate truth this is because they knew it from Allah, then they delivered it to us

Salam
- Sun 27 Sep, 2009 8:14 am
Post subject:
Salam all

Today, I am going to show you a clear example of one of those weak, confused and retarded so called Muslims

On Faithfreedom International web site, http://www.faithfreedom.org a punk calling himself a Muslim raised a thread to the Kafirs titled Apostasy has no death penalty., the freak so called Muslim is using the name ?????????????????????¢??AllahuAkabar?????????????????????¢??????????????????????, however I will refer to him from now on as The Tard, let?????????????????????¢??s see what the Tard had to say to the kafirs on their web site:

The Tard said on FFI:
The death penalty for apostates only exists in the hadiths which I was led to believe, were infact for political reasons to keep Muslims from getting scared and leaving Islam during war time. Also, there is no compulsion in religion like the Qur'an clearly states on 2:256 and there's nothing in the Qur'an that speaks of killing apostates. The west is on a crusade against Islam, it's a crusader/ zionist/munafiq alliance that invades countries for oil. Our history is much less bloody that the European/Western history, when Salahuddin captured Jerusalem he didn't kill innocent people. I dare you to name me one indegionous population that we have totally wiped out.
----------------------

Obviously, it seems that he wanted to defend Islam somehow, it also seems that he does not uphold the hadith, this was clear by comparing his thread title Apostasy has no death penalty with what he said above: The death penalty for apostates only exists in the hadiths which I was led to believe, were infact for political reasons to keep Muslims from getting scared and leaving Islam during war time.

Then the Tard briefly mentioned verse 2:256 which states that there is no compulsion in religion

Now, after reading the above, I thought to myself, good, we have another good Muslim in the block, however I was totally wrong, it seems that this Tard is another fake sharmoot who is pretending to be a Muslim, or at least one of those stupid Muslims who can easily fall in the kafirs simple trap

Now, let me tell ya, what is the kafirs simple trap that they use against the weak Muslims, it is Bukhari Springer Hadith, that is why the filthy kafirs who attack Islam are not allowed to use Bukhari Springer hadith and his likes in any debate with me whatsoever.Period

See, I am not a weak Muslim to fall in the kafirs simple trap unlike so many Muslims who can easily trapped, let me now show you how the kafirs came to the Tard?????????????????????¢??s thread like a bunch of hungry wolves who wants to prey on weak Muslims.

The first filthy kafir replied with some laughs:

byteresistor wrote:
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:


The second filthy kafir replied with an image:

Sten wrote:


See how they setting him up, so the Tard replied to the first kafir:

The Tard wrote:
So you laugh when you cannot refute me, Alhamdulillah I have won.


What a clear cut idiot, won what you fool?

You won nothing, because you are nothing

Then one malice enemy of Islam, replied with a few typical comments then said the following:

expozIslam wrote:
and yeah, i forgot the Bani Qurayza which your criminal pedophile MOhammad himself oversaw.


See, how such sharmoot of a filthy arse abused punk, insulted the noble prophet Mohammed, this should be enough to stop conversing with such freak then dismiss such son of a filthy kafir in the rubbish bin bound to hell, yet the Tard continued to dialogue with him. Let?????????????????????¢??s see what he had to say to the filthy retarded kafir above:

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.


Now, this is the moment when the Tard fell in their trap, because we know that Bukhari Springer is alleging to us in his stupid books of hadith that the prophet killed so many Jews from Bani Quraizah

After that, about 10 filthy kafir members joined the thread, writing so many crap which I am not going to brief you on, but if you are interested you may read page 1 in there:

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=4103

I kept myself away so far thinking that the Tard is good and will be able to handle the situation of confronting about 10 to 15 kafirs or so on their web site, however I still kept an eye on the thread, asI sensed that the kafirs successfully trapped him with Bukhari Springer alleged hadith concerning Bani Quraizah

On page 2,

The Tard replied to another comment regarding Bani Quraizah:

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.


Hmmm, it seems that all of them are nothing but a bunch of confused freaks, we suppose to be talking punishment of apostasy in Islam, now we are talking, US, Iran, Iraq, Saudi, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Armenians, Ottomans etc

Well, I told you, it seems that all of them including the Tard are nothing but drunk idiots of a bunch of time wasters.

So I was glad that I kept myself away from the thread, however staying away did not took that long, I had to interfere as you will see soon.

A hardcore enemy of islam in the name of Khalil Fariel whom I slam dunked so many times in the past, could not resist the opportunity of such fool of a so called Muslim whom I call the Tard, so he joined the party with one line directing him to read one of his articles about Bani Quraizah:

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
Read it here: The Genocide of Banu Qurayza
KF


Another Muslim whom I consider good and knowledgeable, joined and started to defend the crap allegation about Bani Quraizah, this is what he had to say:

BurgeoningKnowledge wrote:
Interestingly, this unprovoked attack had already been predicted by muhammad. WikiIslam barely constitutes an unbiased account.
AllahAkbar, don't even try.


See how BurgeoningKnowledge advised the Tard to not even try with such brainwashed bunch of hungry wolves of freak kafirs bound to hell, BurgeoningKnowledge even tried harder to advice such freak of a confused Muslim to let go and not fell in the kafir trap, see below:

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.


What a simple and very accurate advice from such wise Muslim, well, did the Tard listen? Let?????????????????????¢??s see:

At this point of time through the thread, a few new kafirs also joined, about 20 all up so far, against 2 Muslims, one of them is very wise, and another is very dumb and seems like a wannabe brainwashed, so I joined with an intimidating short comment to Khalil Fariel whom I consider a very malice enemy of Islam who will never be able to escape the punishment of his Lord inshaallah.

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?


The reason I called him cowrd, is simple, for the last week or two weeks, he was not replying to me (which is his right of course) however I won?????????????????????¢??t let it go without picking on his cowardice fearing to confront me.

On the same page, another kafir got the thread back to its subject ?????????????????????¢??Killing the apostates?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? and posted a copy of a Fatwa from Al-Azhar stating that the apostates should be killed, which I tore apart by refuting it on my slam dunk show and showing how fool and confused those so called Azhar Ulamaa. HERE. I also posted it on the same thread on FFI HERE

One of the inmates replied to my long refute against killing the apostates as follow:

charleslemartel wrote:
Ain't Islam a really funny religion, where the scholars misunderstand the Quran and the dumb bums correctly understand it? :lol:


So a filthy retarded kafir cheered for the above crap by the inmate:

expozIslam wrote:
:roflmao: :roflmao:


See, I am dealing with a bunch of confused kids in adult bodies.

On page 4 the stupidity of the kafirs continued until the Trad replied again to the allegation of Bani Quraizah (while still ignoring the wise advice of the wise Mmuslim brother on the same thread), this is what the Tard had to say:

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


Well, to be honest, I think I know who is the Tard, he is an ex member on FFI who used to be a Muslim one day and a Kafir the following day, whom I exposed big times on FFI about 18 months ago which resulted that he pissed himself off FFI, he is back again, the Tard. And indeed, this is what he was about to do, to denounce islam on a kafir web site, how shifty those filthy retarded humans can be, man. It happened like this:

The malice enemy of islam Khalil Fariel replied with a long comment:

KhaliL FarieL wrote:
The Trad 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.


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.

The Trad wrote:
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.


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?

The Trad wrote:
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.


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?

The Trad wrote:
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!)


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.

The Trad wrote:
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


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)

The Trad wrote:
"Chief of the Banu al-Nadir; executed at Medina March, 627. Ḥuyayy was a courageous warrior and the most inveterate enemy of Mohammed, so that Ibn Hisham, Mohammed's biographer, calls him "the enemy of Allah." He was also a learned man, and on one occasion had a discussion with Mohammed upon the mystical letters beginning some of the suras in the Koran. At first, when the Banu al-Naḍir were located at Medina, Ḥuyayy's hostility to Mohammed was not pronounced, and when Abu Sufyan, the Ḳuraiẓite leader and an enemy of Mohammed, presented himself before Ḥuyayy's house. Ḥuyayy, fearing to compromise himself, refused to admit him. But when the Jews, driven by Mohammed from Medina, settled at Khaibar, Ḥuyayy incited them, with the Arab tribes of Ḳuraish and Ghaṭafan, into active revolt against Mohammed. When Ḥuyayy came to Ka'b ibn As'ad, the chief of the Banu Ḳuraiẓa, the latter, having sworn allegiance to Mohammed, hesitated to receive him; but Ḥuyayy convinced him of the danger which threatened the Jews from Mohammed, and induced the Banu Ḳuraiẓa to support him. Later, Mohammed took Ḳamuṣ, the fortress of the Ḳuraiẓites, carried to Medina from seven to eight hundred Jews, among them being Ḥuyayy, and executed them in the market-place. When Ḥuyayy was brought before Mohammed, he said to him: "I reproach not myself for having carried on war against thee." Ḥuyayy's daughter Safiyyah was also captured by Mohammed, and a few months afterward embraced Islam and became a wife of the prophet."

Bibliography: Ibn Hisham, Kitab Sirat Rasul Allah, ed. W¼stenfeld, p. 351, passim;
Caussin de Perceval, Essai sur V Histoire des Arabes, iii. 83, passim;
Gr¤tz, Gesch. 3d ed., v. 100-102, 105.G. M. Sel.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=992&letter=H

Proof the Banu Qurayza betrayed Muhammad.


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


Continued below....
- Sun 27 Sep, 2009 8:14 am
Post subject:
So the Tard replied like this:

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.


See pals, this is what I am talking about, a shity freak of a dishonest arsehole pretending to be a Muslim, coming to a kafir web site pretending to be defending islam, then simply dnouncing Islam in front of everyonhe, hahahahahah, that should tell you how weak they are such bunch of shifty freaks

Here is one kafir cheering for such shifty punk of a fake Muslim:

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.


I decided to approach such traitor with caution so I told him the following in reply to his comment in which he admitted to start doubting Islam:

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 punk decided to play the shifty game with caution, sort of if he denounces Islam that quick, it should be obvious that everyone realizes that he is nothing but a fake Muslim, so after he admitted doubting Islam, he came back defending it again, by alleging that Bani Quraizah were the one who broke the treaty with the Muslims:

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?


This was the end of it to me, he insisted on ignoring the wise advice from a wise Muslim brother, he continued to entertaining the filthy kafirs with Bukhari Springer hadith, and he exposed his arse by pretending to defend Islam again after he admitted his doubt, but I knew it all along, so I replied to such Tard really hard this time:

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 filthy shifty Tard fell in my trap and replied to me:

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.


Lol, see how I quickly made him expose himself, I tell you guys, all those kafirs combined, including the shifty ones of them, are no match for me, I can eat all of them for breakfast in the morning, then digest them all day long, and finally at night piss them into the toilet then flush it.

Now, if you remember well, here is how the Tard mode changed so far:

1) He started a thread to defend Islam
2) He admitted to start doubting Islam
3) He started again to defend Islam
4) He seconded his doubt in Islam

So what you guys think, his next mode will be?

Well, according to the Quran he should turn to be a hardcore unbeliever, and this is exactly what I am aiming to help him achieve. I must say, it will be entertaining watching those shifty freaks barbecued in hell.

See what he told me in reply to my comment below:

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.


Holy crap man, what the fuk was that exactly?

As if I care if he denounces his faith or not,

Fine, how can I help you to denounce your faith sooner than later you filthy tard of a shifty punk? But please, not by asking me to reply to some Jerry Springer crap. Don?????????????????????¢??t you know that I don?????????????????????¢??t discuss Jerry Springer crap with kafirs. I only reply to Jerry Springer crap to Muslims, well, you might say that you are still a Muslim and yet to denounce your faith, I say fine, argument accepted, so let me reply to your Bukhari Springer crap above:

Look tard, my reply to Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 362 goes like this:

You should shove Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 362 up your arse.

Sorry tard, you wanted an answer, and this is exactly what I tell the hadith worshippers from among the Muslims, to shove Bukhari Springer hadith up their arses, hope you and them enjoy it though, you know it is a BIG volume.

So this is how I replied on the thread to the tard:

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



What was so funny to watch was this, an inmate of a kafir enemy of Islam pretended to be mister nice guy, so he adviced the Tard who wanted to denounce his faith, as follow:

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.


How nice from the other shifty inmate, how about a kafir group hug between all of you, filthy shifty punks?

So I replied to inmate Charles:

AhmedBahgat wrote:
What?
Far out, let him leave Islam, so I watch him barbecued in hell along with you
It's showtime



I thought that all the kafir know what I mean by It?????????????????????¢??s Showtime, but it seems an ignorant one still doesn?????????????????????¢??t, so he asked me:

pr126 wrote:
How can you watch unless you are there with them?
Does hell have a TV station broadcasting local events?
:roflmao:


So I replied:

Of course, kid, I will watch you and your kafir pals, without being in hell with you, I call it, It's showtime, so let me start the show:

50: And they will approach one another asking between themselves.
51: A speaker among them would say: Indeed, there was to me a comrade.
52: Who says: Are you indeed of those who believe?
53: Is it when we have died and become dust and bones, we will be in debit?
54: He would say: Will you look?
55: So he would look and see him in the midst of the hellfire.
56: He would say: By Allah, you almost ruined me.

[The Quran ; 37:50-56]

فَأَقْبَلَ بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ يَتَسَاءلُونَ (50)
قَالَ قَائِلٌ مِّنْهُمْ إِنِّي كَانَ لِي قَرِينٌ (51)
يَقُولُ أَئِنَّكَ لَمِنْ الْمُصَدِّقِينَ (52)
أَئِذَا مِتْنَا وَكُنَّا تُرَابًا وَعِظَامًا أَئِنَّا لَمَدِينُونَ (53)
قَالَ هَلْ أَنتُم مُّطَّلِعُونَ (54)
فَاطَّلَعَ فَرَآهُ فِي سَوَاء الْجَحِيمِ (55)
قَالَ تَاللَّهِ إِنْ كِدتَّ لَتُرْدِينِ (56)

-> See, believers will meet together in the garden and wonder how someone like you (whom we know well from FFI) would be doing at that time: And they will approach one another asking between themselves., possibly I will ask :A speaker among them would say: Indeed, there was to me a comrade., I will be talking about the kafirs whom Ii met on FFI for sure, and guess what, this is exactly what the goons of FFI tell any believer: Who says: Are you indeed of those who believe? the underlined 'who' in the verse is one like any goon of the goons or possibly YOU, and the goons also said: Is it when we have died and become dust and bones, we will be in debit? , see, that is exactly what the kafirs like you tell the believers like me, then Allah will reply to our questions and tell us :He (Allah) would say: Will you look?, that is what I call It?????????????????????¢??s Showtime, so I will look DOWN at you :So he would look and see him in the midst of the hellfire., well done kafirs, I may also tell you that I?????????????????????¢??m glad I didn?????????????????????¢??t listen to your crap unlike the new stupid kafir in the block The Tard, otherwise I would be with you in the midst of fire:He would say: By Allah, you almost ruined me.

What a show it will be


Indeed, the filthy kafirs love to turn the Muslims away from their religion, a fact stated in the Quran, which is confirmed everyday on FFI, the problem of such filthy kafirs though, that they hardly can make a real Muslim who understand his/her religion denounce their great faith, so they bring shifty punks like The Tard to pretend to be Muslim then denounce Islam after dialoguing with them, what a cheap and shifty plan by those desperate kafirs bound to the blaze, let me show you a clear example, let?????????????????????¢??s see what the shifty kafir named Charles, who pretended to be nice and advice the tard not to denounce Islam quickly and should take his time, said to me in the next page:

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).


But look how he exposed his shifty arse in the next dialogue:

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.


See how clear

This is indeed what the Quran has told me, that those shifty punks of kafirs wants me to disbelieve like them so I turn loser like them:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوَاْ إِن تُطِيعُواْ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ يَرُدُّوكُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ فَتَنقَلِبُواْ خَاسِرِينَ (149)
O you who have believed! If you obey those who have disbelieved they will turn you back upon your heels so that you will turn back losers.
[Al Quran ; 3:149]

-> See: O you who have believed! If you obey those who have disbelieved they will turn you back upon your heels so that you will turn back losers.

So put your feet again for the new loser in the block, The Tard

Flap, flap, flap, flap

Salam
- Tue 29 Sep, 2009 6:46 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

How about a new slam by which I will dunk the Federal Court of Pakistan and a Pakistani woman named Jamilah Hussain

Both claim that Alcohol is not prohibited in the Quran. It came to my knowledge through a kafir on FFI web site, I like that kafir though, because he does not insult Mohammed.

Of course, the Quran prohibited alcohol, this was proven to me by a nice Canadian Muslim lady about 3 years ago, she was a member in here but she left due to my free speech style and insults, she was a very nice and knowledgeable lady though, I will never forget her because she taught me something very valuable:

The reason of my slam is this, for the last 2 years or so, many confused Muslims are promoting that Allah did not prohibit Khamr

They go around the internet promoting their crap, that in no where in the Quran we read the following:

<b>Harram Allah Al-Khamr</b>

They claim that Allah only said, don?????????????????????¢??t come near Al-Khamr, so for them a little bit of Alcohol is ok.

Let me show you a couple of paragraphs brought on the table by a Kafir named Bunny whom I respect because he does not insult prophet Mohammed, it seems that the article source is somewhere in Pakistan:
----------------------------
Bunny of FFI http://faithfreedom.org brought on the table the following from an article posted by someone named Nadeem F. Paracha from Pakistan on 09 24th, 2009

The lingering Islamisation milieu put together by the Ziaul Haq dictatorship got a beating recently. In May this year, in an unprecedented move, <b>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.?????????????????????¢??</b>

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), <b><u>it does not outright forbid it like it does carrion meat, blood, pork, and idolatry.</u> </b> 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/
----------------------------

And this is how I replied to kafir Bunny:

Salam Bunny

The article should be interesting to expose the stupidity of such federal shariat court and that stupid woman Jamila Hussain from Pakistan, to be honest, they sound as stupid as the Ulamaa of Azhar.

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)

With that simple and compelling logic in mind, let me show you now, how those dumb bums Pakistanis are wrong:

First of all, the Quran indeed prohibited Alcohol outright, they just do 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 Pakistanis and their federal court:

I believe they mean by <b>outright prohibition</b> 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 which they are looking for. Would that mean that Zina is allowed?

Well, indeed the Quran outright prohibited both sins (Alcohol and Zina), let me first bring a verse in which we read that Allah outright prohibited a few things:

<b>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) </b>
<b>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. </b>
<i><Al Quran ; 7:33></i>

-> See mate, in 7:33, Allah has outright prohibited the following:

1) <b> الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ </b>, i.e. <b> indecencies, what is apparent of them and what is concealed, </b>
2) <b> وَالإِثْمَ </b>, i.e. <b>Sin</b>
3) <b> وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ </b>, i.e. <b> perpetration without right </b>
4) <b> وَأَن تُشْرِكُواْ بِاللّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا </b>, i.e. <b> associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority </b>
5) <b> وَأَن تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ </b>, i.e. <b> say about Allah what you do not know </b>

Now, I want you to concentrate on items 1 & 2 above:

The Arabic word for <b>Indecencies</b> is <b> فَوَاحِشَ </b>, <b>Fawahish</b>, which is plural, the singular is: <b> فَاحِشَةً </b>, <b>Fahishah</b>, i.e. <b>Indecency</b>

The Arabic word for <b>Sin</b> is <b> إِثْمَ </b>, <b>Ithm</b>, which is singular, the plural is : <b> اثامَ </b>, <b>Atham</b>, i.e. <b>Sins</b>

Now bear in mind that in the Arabic language, we can use either the singular or the plural to prohibit the plural, this is just a style and is commonly used in the Arabic language, you can see both examples under items 1 & 2

1- The plural ?????????????????????¢??indecencies?????????????????????¢?? is used to prohibit all indecencies.
2- The singular ?????????????????????¢??sin?????????????????????¢?? is used to prohibit all sins.

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:

<b>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) </b>
<b>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- </b>
<i><Al Quran ; 2:219></i>

-> See, <b> They ask you regarding the alcohol and the gambling; <u>say: In both there is a great sin</u> </b>

Now, because in 7:33 Allah prohibited all Atham (Sins), , and because in 2:219 Allah is telling us that in Alcohol is a great Ithm (sin), then according to 7:33 & 2:219 together, ALCOHOL IS HARAM as stated by Allah.

For Zina, Allah told us:

<b>وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَا ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا (32)</b>
<b>And go not near adultery; indeed, it is an indecency and an evil way.</b>
<i><Al Quran ; 17:32></i>

-> See: <b> And go not near adultery; indeed, it is an indecency and an evil way. </b>

Now, because in 7:33 Allah prohibited all Fawahish (Indecencies), and because in 17:32 Allah is telling us that Zina is Fahishah (Indecency), then according to 7:33 & 17:32 together, ZINA IS HARAM as stated by Allah.

Finally, not because there is no punishment for drinking Alcohol 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 doed that, it will humiliate you. And surely the ultimate punishment will start when it kills you.

Here you have it, mrs Jamillah Hussain and the Federal Court of Pakistan have been slam dunked and exposed.

# 61

Salam
- Thu 01 Oct, 2009 6:08 am
Post subject:
Salam all

The conversation between Bunny and myself continued further regarding alcohol and the last slam dunk, this is an edited version to the actual dialogue, I only kept what is related to the subject if you want to read the whole dialogue then you may go to:

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=4230&p=69565#p69565

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.


Cool mate, the above logic is irrefutable

If A is haram

And doing B includes a lot of A, then B must be haram

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.


You are using those Pakistanis stupid argument, well let me tell you this then

The worst sin in the Eyes of Allah, is Shirk, it is far worse than Zina, and certainly Allah did not specify a punishment in this life for Shirk in the Quran, therefore the Tom and Jerry Pakistani argument that there is no punishment for it in the Quran must be dismissed in the rubbish bin.

Also with Zina, you may be spreading diseases and infecting many other innocent people, therefore I can see the wisdom in making a punishment for it in this life while others should be watching such punishment, to scare the shit out of their arses and make them rethink before committing such sin which may harm a whole society

For Alcohol, you are only hurting yourself

For murder, certainly a killer has harmed another human, therefore a punishment in this life is warranted, for theft, likewise

How logical and compelling, man.

Psycho Bunny wrote:
Zina is already a sin that can be punished to Hadd (death by stoning) if there are 4 witnesses


Total bullshit and non sense, the punishment for Zina is 100 lashes in public, therefore no capital punishment for Zina in the Quran, as well, you do not need 4 witnesses to prove the crime of Zina, those 4 witnesses are only needed by any man who accuses a woman of adultery. And if he fails to bring 4 witnesses then he will be lashed 80 lashes in public

I think, dear bunny, that the confused Muslims totally confused the shit out of you.

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)


BS, you must show it to me, and while you are doing, that, let me ask you, who the fuk is Iranian Shia jurisdiction?, Fuk them and Fuk the Federal Court of Pakistan, they are nothing but a bunch of confused freaks bound to hell if they don?????????????????????¢??t repent promoting their lies against Allah and His Hudood which are stated clearly in 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


Cool.

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.


Cool

Psycho Bunny wrote:
But there is a great sin - and means of benefit - in both alcohol and gambling.


Well,of course there are benefits, Alcohol is used in medicine intensively to make things purified, and indeed the message of the Quran is about purification

And certainly when you won easy money for doing nothing, it should be a benefit to whoever won, no one can deny that, the verse also told us that in them are great sin, consequently, we have the following 3 facts as stated in the verse about Alcohol and Gambling:

1) There are benefits in both for humans
2) In both of them are great sins
3) Their sins outweigh their benefit

Now putting 7:33 in the picture, which states clearly that Allah prohibited all sins, which should apply to both small and big sins because the verse did not say that Allah prohibited big sins, so we must conclude that Alcohol and gambling are haram regardless that humans may classify it as major or minor sin.

Psycho Bunny wrote:
I assume this "benefit" means the possibility of winning in gambling,


Most certainly, and btw, I was answering while I was reading for the first time, so I did not know that you said so, but here you have it, both our minds think logically the same regarding that point, however here is another benefit for Gambling: Having a bloody great time especially when you are winning.

Psycho Bunny wrote:
and the pleasure of a small drink,


Far out, it seems we have very similar way of thinking, I did not read the above either before I told you my story.

Psycho Bunny wrote:
as opposed to losing one's mind and liver through alcoholism or being ruined from gambling debts.


Of course, and certainly the hatful feeling that is created from the loser against the winner, even if the winner is your best friend, I have been through it man, in fact the day I lost a large sum of money before I started cheating, was to my best friend who is still my best friend, he actually returned the money to me the following day, we lived in the same apartment building, so he was part of my cheating plan and certainly he made money of it too.

Psycho Bunny wrote:
The nature of the sins is irrelevant as being "haram", alcohol and gambling are forbidden.


Of course it is relevant, if you do harm to others then, because if you do harm to others, like killing others, or stealing from others or spreading diseases in the society then a punishment in this life is warranted and is specified by Allah

With gambling though, while the winner caused financial harm to the loser, the loser gambled with his/her own choice knowing in advance that they may lose, therefore a punishment in this life is not warranted

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.


That is what you and them are saying

2:219 however is clearly saying:

In alcohol is a HUGE SIN

And because Allah prohibited all sins, huge or small, then alcohol must be haram. Period, and its punishment is with Allah on the JD.

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." Wink

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.


Cool

Psycho Bunny wrote:
I still maintain that - because there is implied some benefit, even though it is eclipsed by the enormity of the sin,


That is if Allah did not say:

1) In it is a HUGE SIN
2) Its HUGE SIN outweigh its benefit
3) All sins, huge or small, are haram

No one can refute this, dear friend

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".


There should be no punishment in this life of course because the drinker only harms the self, however if he starts to abuse his wife or children or even others while being drunk or under the influence, then a punishment must be warranted, not because he drins, but because he did something else.

Psycho Bunny wrote:
I may be entirely wrong,


You are mate, with all sincerity

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.


It is all common sense man, and no concession is required, I only answered you for the sake of the truth that Alachol is 100% haram as stated in 2 related verses in the Quran.

Take care
- Thu 01 Oct, 2009 7:23 pm
Post subject:
The difference between a complete punk of a Muslim and a decent Kafir


Salam all

This comment is going to be a bit strange, I thought about it for a while and decided to add it to my slam dunk show, not as a slam, but a compelling proof to how Satan is fuking the Muslims so bad

Bunny, the kafir who debated with me the issue of the prohibition of Alcohol, as read in the last two comments above, has replied back, let?????????????????????¢??s read his reply:

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.....


Now, my sincere thanks to him, only for the sake of the truth being confirmed by a decent kafir, as stated in the Quran

I was not after that he comes back and says, yes Ahmed, you are right, and I am wrong, honestly, I just did not expect it from a Kafir talking about the same argument some of the Muslims themselves promote, after seeing how those confused Muslims are so stubborn to accept the truth as stated in the same very book they claim to believe in.

However let me bring a reply from Bunny, which I did not copy in here, it was straight after my long refute, Bunny said the following:

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


How decent he was, dear Muslims brothers and sisters, forget whatever positivities he wrote, just remember the following which he said above:


Thank you Ahmed
Nice to see you back here, and also providing me with education.

But thanks for taking the time to correct the points in the article.

I hope you are well

Best Regards


Now, I duplicate my articles on facebook for all family and friends, so I share it with them and also give them a chance to debate it, especially they are suppose to be Muslim audience, I actually hate facebook bad, I only joined after my brother aksed me while I was in Egypt,

So I copied my alcohol refute to facebook and added about 35 family and friends which means that my article will appear on their facebook homepage, but shortened

On eof those whom I tagged in the article is a first cousin who lives in the USA, and certainly suppose to be a Muslim, so let see what happened as I documented it on face book for all my friends and family to read:

Salam all

The reason of this very important note is this:

You may be annoyed by my notes appearing in your Wall, well, tough luck, unless you add your name in this comment specifying that you do not want my notes to appear in your Wall any more, believe me YOUR WISH WILL BE GRANTED ON THE FLY,

Well, something happened today after I posted the final part of my article, did Allah prohibit Khamr and Zina?

What happended really disappointed me, disgusted me and certainly pissed me off, let me tell you what happened so you would be aware

I have a first cousin named Mido Emad who lives in the USA, however he is far younger than me so we hardly had any contact in the past, his father however (may Allah bless his soul) was the only brother of my mother, therefore you expect that the relationship between the cousins would be charming if it is to happen

I actually never knew him personally, he sounded like a nice guy who is well into this life and its enjoyment, but that is his business not mine.

I added him as a facebook friend because he was a friend of my brother Hamdy who invited me to facebook,

Now, there is only ONE reason that I joined such cheap and low community of facebook, I am not into that at all, so I said to myself well, I will use it as a channel to spread the message of Allah, and who should you care about more than family and friends

As most of you know by now, that I write a lot, yet it is not even enough for me, I have a lot of writings that I already did and far more to write.

I am not into any other facebook activity that you may stumble into, all crap and total waste of time for me.

Now, after I posted the final part of my article about 30 minutes ago., I received a comment from the suppose to be my first cousin Mido Emad, let?????????????????????¢??s see what he had to say to me:

<b><u>Mido Emad wrote on Ahmed Wall:</u></b>
I am not quote sure of what you are trying to convince me with all the posts you have been raging me in ?
-----------------

<b><u>Ahmed says:</u></b>
How fukin rude man, he did not even say salam, the punk, and indeed he looks like a real punk.

Now, his use of the word <b>raging</b> was the end for me, you cannot fukin be more rude than this man, but that is reality, MOST AMERICANS are fukin rude and arrogant, I lived there long enough to know them until I said fuk that I will never live in such society, so I left and Allah blessed me with Australia afterward., and indeed all Australians know that Mmost Americans are nothing but a bunch of cheap poor arrogant freaks. Australians do not like Americans, because the Australians are the total opposite to such freaks

Anyway, sorry about my outbrust, this is how I replied to such rude freak who described my religious writings as raging, I guess what is not raging in his deluded mind, is the crap that he does and most here do, you know like that Arse prize he created and bloody spammed my inbox on facebook with it, so I replied to him:

<b><u>Ahmed said to his cousin, the very rude and life indulgent Mido Emad</u></b>
Well, I am not trying to convince anyone with anything, I am only sharing RELIGIOUS information, better than sharing your crap and that arse prize or whatever you call it, your crap was also annoying me too because I am only on facebook to share religious information with family and friends, I am not into your other crap that most of you here do, yet I had the courtsey to not to tell you that your were annoying me with your crap on my wall and my inbox, you know you suppose to be a first cousin and a dear family member, so I just ignored it without telling you so, but it seems that you do not have such courtsey, and was so rude even in questioning my doing which I thought it suppose to be for a benefit,

i.e. we have nothing in common and I have to dismiss you

You are dismissed.
---------------------------

And I straight deleted him from my family and friends

Now, to avoid a similar situation, please add you name on this note telling me that you do not want my notes to appear on your wall anymore.

I stress again to everyone, I am not here to share with you any facebook crap, I am only here to share my religious researches and studies which is open for debate if you wish.

Therefore putting your name here means that I have to remove you from my friends list, see, I also get annoyed with all the crap by almost everyone on my friends list when it does not have any religious flavour, and it is plenty, yet I have the courtsey not to tell you. Therefore if you do not want to read my religious work which you may classify as crap, I too do not want to read your clear cut life crap. So better off you remove me from your friends list if that is your desire. thank you very much

I hate this cheap place that is controlled by Iblis, man. But please before you remove me, get ready to read my next article, which I am writing now for two days, I chose the title <b>Iblis is winning</b> for it, it is going to be interesting.

Salam


Here you have it, a clear example between a jerk of a so called Muslim who is also a close relative and a decent kafir

Who do you think should gain my respect?

Most certainly, the decent kafir who appreciated and thanked me for my time. Indeed, you won?????????????????????¢??t even imagine how long I spend doing so, but that is between my Lord and myself, I am waiting for nothing other than forgivness and blessings from my Lord

Therefore, it is my time to thank my dear Kafir friend, Bunny

Thank you Bunny from the bottom of my heart

Salam
- Sat 10 Oct, 2009 7:01 am
Post subject:
the stagyrite wrote:
Baghat,


Yes sharmoot, sorry about that, I support the eye for an eye law of God, therefore when you call me a baghat, I will call you sharmoot, fair enough, sharmoot?

the stagyrite wrote:
I was being sincere when I said "dear",


Hahahaha, sharmoot, as I told you, stop being a clear cut hypocrite, you look really bad

See, you hate Islam bad, consequently you must hate its followers really bad, i.e. you are nothing but a confused soul to think inside your self that you are a sincere guy, yes, sincere my arse, sharmoot

the stagyrite wrote:
since I wish good to everyone and ill to no-one,


Dismissed due to your confusion

the stagyrite wrote:
even people who call me "jerk", "hypocrite" and "punk".


How about those who call you sharmoot?

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).


And how about when your master said that he was sent to create enmity between one and his family?

the stagyrite wrote:
As for your refutations,


I did not provide a refutation, however I am planning to do it now.

the stagyrite wrote:
anyone can see they are just hot air.


Fine, I am hot air that may still burns you

the stagyrite wrote:
You bluster a lot,


Not really, what I do is this, I blast the enemy of Islam from among the kafirs and the confused Muslims

the stagyrite wrote:
but where is the substance of your argument?


There might have been no substance for what I said so far because I cannot find any substance to reply to.

the stagyrite wrote:
You propose that I bring a god to give witness that my stuff is his.


That is not my proposal, this is what the Quran stated in its so called challenge as you kafirs call it, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look, shall we:

It seems that you are really tripping and do not understand what you call a challenge:

Now mister sharmoot, or mister punk or whatever you like to be called, a sura like it must follow the following criteria:

1) It has a similar context and in the same language
2) It has to be from a god

Now I'm sure you were not aware of point 2, but logically speaking mister punk, did the Quran explicitly say that the sura like it must be in the context and language only? NO, IT NEVER DID, therefore LIKE IT must be any aspect in which the two will be compared, including the author status.

Now, that non sense that you posted that you call a sura like it, can't be admissible because simply they are made by a bunch of humans like you, and not by a god as well it is not in Arabic. See you need to bring a sura like it in Arabic first so we can compare the two Arabic then we will move to the issue of its author afterwards after you prove that the linguistics of what you wrote is similar to the linguistics of the Arabic Quran, but you did not do so, therefore you failed before even reading the forged rubbish you brought in

Now let me make it easier for ya to understand:

The Quran says about itself this is a book authored by the God and it challenges humans/jinns to bring a sura like it, now that sura must be by a god as well, or we can't compare the two indeed, see the challenging word that is used means BRING, not WRITE

Now, it will be hard for the believers to confirm that the author of the Quran is the God and it will be hard for the losers like you to bring a sura like it from a god, therefore the challenge can't be met and the outcome is really simple:

The believers believe in what they believe and the losers believe in what they believe, it is not like the condition goes like this: You believe (if only) when you fail to bring a sura like it

Let?????????????????????¢??s now look at the first lot of verses talking about the sura like it:

وَإِن كُنتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِّمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَى عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُواْ بِسُورَةٍ مِّن مِّثْلِهِ وَادْعُواْ شُهَدَاءكُم مِّن دُونِ اللّهِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ (23)
And if you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to Our servant, then bring forth a sura like it and call on your witnesses other than Allah if you are truthful.
[Al Quran ; 2:23]

فَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلُواْ وَلَن تَفْعَلُواْ فَاتَّقُواْ النَّارَ الَّتِي وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ أُعِدَّتْ لِلْكَافِرِينَ (24)
But if you do not and never shall you do, then fear the fire that its fuel is the people and the stones; it is prepared for the unbelievers.
[Al Quran ; 2:24]

-> See the condition: then bring forth a sura like it and call on your witnesses other than Allah if you are truthful., NOW THAT WITNESS MUST BE THE OTHER GOD WHO MADE A SURA LIKE IT, did you get it mister confused?

-> That is why Allah said in 2:24: But if you do not and never shall you do, because Allah knows that there is NO OTHER GODS WHO WILL PRODUCE OR HAVE PRODUCED A SURA LIKE IT

Let?????????????????????¢??s look at the second verse where the challenge is set, shall we:

أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاهُ قُلْ فَأْتُواْ بِسُورَةٍ مِّثْلِهِ وَادْعُواْ مَنِ اسْتَطَعْتُم مِّن دُونِ اللّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ (38)
Or do they say: He has forged it? Say: Then bring a sura like it and invite whom you can other than Allah if you are truthful.
[Al Quran ; 10:38]

-> What I said before as confirmed in 2:23, is also confirmed here, the sura like it must be from a god and that god must come to testify and prove that he is the author: Then bring a sura like it and invite whom you can other than Allah if you are truthful. , if you so not call your witness who should be a god other than Allah then you can't be taken as truthful.

Now, if you apply the same logic on the Quran, which is what Mohammed claimed to have been given from Allah, we do not need to prove anything to your arse, because you already alleged and believed that Mohammed is not truthful, i.e. and simply, you need to shove the crap that you call sura like it which you wrote and did not BRING from a god, up your arse.

Let?????????????????????¢??s look at the last lot of verses, and you should see that what I said above will be confirmed without an atom weight of doubt, shall we:

Goons like you claim that Mohammed forged the Quran and it is not from God, which is very fine with me as a believer, I do not have to prove to you the contrary, i.e. I do not have to prove to you that it is from Allah, simply I cannot, nor anyone could in the past neither it will happen in the future during the life of this world. See if anyone proves so, then logically every single human on earth must take it as a fact and submit to Allah otherwise they will burn in hell because in such case hell will be a fact and not a conjecture, i.e. belief should not exist any more, i.e. the test in this life is over, i.e. GAME OVER.

So you goons say Mohammed forged the Quran, this is exactly what we are about to read:

أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاهُ قُلْ فَأْتُواْ بِعَشْرِ سُوَرٍ مِّثْلِهِ مُفْتَرَيَاتٍ وَادْعُواْ مَنِ اسْتَطَعْتُم مِّن دُونِ اللّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ (13)
Or, do they say: He has forged it. Say: Then bring ten forged chapters like it and call upon whom you can other than Allah, if you are truthful.
[Al Quran ; 11:13]

-> See: Or, do they say: He has forged it. Now, we should tell you, fine with us, you too goons may forge something that you claim to be like it, which you certainly did in this thread, see: Then bring ten forged chapters like it, however, you will always stay a forger in the eyes of the believers, likewise in your eyes the believers are following a forger who forged the Quran, now we do not want you to take us as truthful, however you want us to take you as truthful, therefore you need to do the following, you clear cut forger: and call upon whom you can other than Allah, if you are truthful. I hope that I made it clear to dumb bum like you.

Now, because the deluded freaks like you will never meet the condition for them to be taken as truthful, Allah is directing a message to those who chose to believe that the Quran is from Allah:

فَإِن لَّمْ يَسْتَجِيبُواْ لَكُمْ فَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّمَا أُنزِلِ بِعِلْمِ اللّهِ وَأَن لاَّ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ فَهَلْ أَنتُم مُّسْلِمُونَ (14)
But if they do not answer you, then know that it is sent down by the knowledge of Allah and that there is no god but He; will you then be submitters (to Him)?
[Al Quran ; 11:14]

-> See: But if they do not answer you, then know that it (the Quran) is sent down by the knowledge of Allah and that there is no god but He.


Here you have it, a very well earned slam dunk:

# 62


the stagyrite wrote:
Great idea, Baghat!


Read above, sharmoot, you have been slam dunked and consequently the rest of your crap must be dismissed

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.


- Mon 02 Nov, 2009 8:51 pm
Post subject:
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.18)

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
- Mon 02 Nov, 2009 10:51 pm
Post subject:
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.1Cool

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


Hello, Ahmed

Well done!

You need to put such refutations at the megalomanics' site FFI.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmed was a very intelligent man and used to debate and argue with Christian evangelists and the missionaries in the British India but he went berserk and started thinking that he was the messiah.

Qadianis believe he was the reincarnation of Jesus. lol!

Most of his coleagues, who supported him in his early days, disaccociated themselves when they saw him going nuts.

Salaams
BMZ
- Sat 07 Nov, 2009 5:46 pm
Post subject:
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



Salam brother

Thanks for the link man, I need it as I read a few years back that he himself asked Allah to die by Cholera if he is a liar and indeed he died because of Cholera, so I guess I should read that in the above link

And yes, those confused Ahmadis are nothing but another Christian sect, our duty as Muslims is to fight all those sects in the hardest and toughest way possible, including sunni, shias and others

Salam
- Sat 07 Nov, 2009 6:10 pm
Post subject:
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


lol,is that true ,
AhmedBahgat wrote:
And yes, those confused Ahmadis are nothing but another Christian sect,

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

i don't believe in sects , ahmed
each sect have their own plus and minuses
best is quran and with it is sunnah
- Sat 07 Nov, 2009 6:37 pm
Post subject:
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


I actually believe that anyone who strays away from the path of Allah, being deliberate or not, is certainly confused


AhmedBahgat wrote:

including sunni, shias and others


parvez_mushtaqi wrote:
don't believe in sects , ahmed


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:

each sect have their own plus and minuses


True, but that does not save them from being confused who strayed from the straight path of Allah

I am not talking shades of greys in here, I am talking black or white

parvez_mushtaq wrote:

best is quran and with it is sunnah


The sunnah of Allah of course, with which, any sunnah by any messenger MUST be compatible 100%


Salam
- Mon 09 Nov, 2009 6:28 pm
Post subject:
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.


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
- Mon 09 Nov, 2009 7:11 pm
Post subject:
parvez_mushtaq wrote:
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.


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


Salam bro

Thanks for your input

First of all, it seems you do not know where I stand:

I agree that there are some or even plenty of hadith that have good lessons and morality as well 100% compatible with the Quran, but that is not the issue, see a kafir may say something that is 100% compatible with the Quran, yet if that kafir damaged Islam then that kafir must be an enemy to all Muslims, regardless how kind and decent that kafir is

Now if we consider the hadith as the kafir (metaphor), then even if the hadith stated things that are cool and dandy, the hadith still stated crap and non sense that only damages our great religion, consequently the man made hadith must be our enemy, consequently all those who uphold the hadith must be the enemy of the true submitters to Allah

The bottom line is this, the great damage the hadith did to our religion outweigh all good things it stated, in fact most of the good things if not all, are stated in the Quran, i.e. even with most of the good things stated in the hadith, we do not need it.

The only thing that will fix our religion and its followers, is to burn all the books of hadith and even prosecute anyone who opposes that

Trust me mate, this is the ONLY way to unite our religion followers, if we do not do that then they will stay divided and yet because of that man made hadith

I am sorry pal, I cannot hold any hadith with any atom weight of high regards, the hadith is the seed Satan used to fuk us all, and I am glad that now I do not belong to the majority of Muslims who are fuked because of such man made hadith

Salam
- Thu 19 Nov, 2009 4:54 pm
Post subject:
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......


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)
- Thu 19 Nov, 2009 5:05 pm
Post subject:
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)


simply it diverted them from monotheism by making them MUSHRIKOON

I cannot be more specific than that, most of my comments on this web site confirms so

Salam
- Thu 19 Nov, 2009 5:45 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
simply it diverted them from monotheism by making them MUSHRIKOON


wsalam

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

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
first , you said , hadiths did damage to our religion
now , your claim is they made Muslims to get diverted from monotheism
i want haidths which did this not your comments


Mushtaq
- Thu 19 Nov, 2009 8:01 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
simply it diverted them from monotheism by making them MUSHRIKOON


parvez_mushtaq wrote:
wsalam


Salam mate

parvez_mushtaq wrote:
i mean , can you tell me one hadith which says take two gods or don't worship ALLAH


it seems mate that we are going to have a very long discussion, well, before I proceed why don't you define for me SHIRK?

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


All the arguments against the Quran are refuted by the Quran itself, the Quran too tells us about those who will try hard to discredit the Quran, so nothing is new

On the other hand all the arguments against the man made hadith are irrefutable

that should say it all

parvez_mushtaq wrote:
first , you said , hadiths did damage to our religion
now , your claim is they made Muslims to get diverted from monotheism


As well, it:

Defamed Allah
Defamed most prophets
Defamed even the Sahaba
Doubted the integrity of the Quran

parvez_mushtaq wrote:
i want haidths which did this not your comments


Well, define SHIRK for me first and I will take it from there

Cheers
- Sun 22 Nov, 2009 6:43 am
Post subject:
Salam all

It is about time for another mother of all slams. A couple of confused kafirs on faithfreedom international alleged the following:

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?


Ahmed says:

Well, let me bring 5:3 in here:

حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالْدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنْزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلاَّ مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ وَأَن تَسْتَقْسِمُواْ بِالأَزْلاَمِ ذَلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ الْيَوْمَ يَئِسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن دِينِكُمْ فَلاَ تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِ الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثْمٍ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (3)

Forbidden to you are the dead, and blood, and flesh of the swine, and that on which any other name than Allah has been invoked, and the strangled and the beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by a horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you managed to slaughter it, and what is sacrificed on the idol stones and that you seek to know the unseen by throwing arrows; that is a abomination. This day have those who disbelieved are in despair of your religion, therefore fear them not, and fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed upon you My favour and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is forced by hunger, not inclining deliberately to a sin, then indeed Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 5:3]

-> Clearly in the above verse Allah is saying: اليوم اكملت لكم دينكم واتممت عليكم نعمتي ورضيت لكم الاسلام دينا , i.e. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed upon you My favour and chosen for you Islam as a religion. Obviously the confused kafirs are picking on the underlined words, i.e. This day, for them 5:3 should be the last verse revealed in the Quran. Their problem though is this:

The kafirs cannot and will not provide reliable evidences that 5:3 was not the last verse revealed. So I decided to help those confused kafirs and accept for argument sake that 5:3 was not the last verse revealed, in fact I will even dare to assume with such confused freaks of kafirs that 5:3 was the first verse revealed in the Quran. Yet the kafirs has no bloody argument

See, the key word in the above verse is this word: اليوم , i.e. This day, or Today This will cause a huge problem for the confused kafirs because the verse did not tell us if that day spoken about is a human day or a divine day? Sounds more as a day with Allah, not a human day

Well, I did not invent what I called divine day, Allah Himself told us about it, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look, shall we:

وَيَسْتَعْجِلُونَكَ بِالْعَذَابِ وَلَنْ يُخْلِفَ اللَّهُ وَعْدَهُ ۚ وَإِنَّ يَوْمًا عِنْدَ رَبِّكَ كَأَلْفِ سَنَةٍ مِمَّا تَعُدُّونَ (47)

And they ask you to hasten the torture, and Allah will fail in His promise; and indeed, a day with your Lord is like a thousand years of what you count.
[Al Quran ; 22:47]

-> See the definition of a divine day: وان يوما عند ربك كالف سنة مما تعدون , i.e. and indeed, a day with your Lord is like a thousand years of what you count. Can you all sense the slam dunk coming?

Well, 5:3 did not tell us if it is a divine day or a human day. Most likely and logically it means a divine day, consequently the day mentioned in 5:3 is equal to 1000 years of what the humans count, therefore even if 5:3 was the first verse revealed as I assumed to please the confused kafirs as well relief their itch, the statement in 5:3 اليوم اكملت لكم دينكم واتممت عليكم نعمتي ورضيت لكم الاسلام دينا , i.e. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed upon you My favour and chosen for you Islam as a religion, is 100% accurate because on the same divine day Allah revealed the rest of the Quran, see, we know that the Quran revelation took 23 human years which is 0.023 of a divine day

Here you have it goons, another impressing mother of all slams:

- Wed 25 Nov, 2009 3:34 pm
Post subject:
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



Mushtaq
- Wed 25 Nov, 2009 5:23 pm
Post subject:
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

Mushtaq


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
- Wed 25 Nov, 2009 5:30 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
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

Mushtaq


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


wsalam

this is a request
pl don't mistake me
pl make it short and sweet


Mushtaq
- Wed 25 Nov, 2009 8:05 pm
Post subject:
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


Salam

Certainly it was, so I am not disputing that at all, the objective here is a fruitful discussion, we may be a bit aggressive, but hopefully there will be fruit at the end, I will excuse the aggression due to the amount of anger that might have been built up inside both of us (for different reasons of course) about what happened to our great religion and still happening

parvez_mushtaq wrote:
pl don't mistake me


Sure, and I hope that you do not mistake me either

parvez_mushtaq wrote:
pl make it short and sweet
Mushtaq


I am not sure how can I make it so? When I write my thoughts and studies, I hate to have a time barrier over what I need to say

Certainly the subject in hand needs a lot to say, this is because of its great importance

Are most Muslims Mushrikoon while they perceive not?

This is how I perceive it, that certainly they are, and certainly they are not aware of it. Their ignorance is due to the fact that they lack the knowledge of the Quran. Now, this knowledge is only taught by Allah, and I am sure that Allah will teach it to those who deserve it, those who care about it and admire it and take the divine laws from it only. On the other hand I also agree that so many of those so called Quran aloners have lost the plot, sounds like a contradiction, hey. Well, the Quran told us so many times about those who think of themselves as being believers while the fact of the matter that they are not, and also said by the Quran that they do not perceive such fact that they are not believers. Now, a Muslim thinking of the self to be a believer must also think of the self that he/she understands the words of Allah quite well, despite that they never ponder upon it. Now, for those who ponder upon the Quran like many of the aloners yet they are confused, I guess that only Allah knows the cause and knows why He made them confused about it. I can only guess that they are not sincere, but that is just a guess, because I will never know if a person is really sincere or not even if that person shows all the signs of sincerity all year long, I am sure you should know what I am talking about.

Now for the matter in hand, which is shirk

Well, if any person is identified as a Mushrik, then it means that such person has committed an action of shirk

Such action can be a mere saying or some deeds

The saying of shirk is quite obvious for a child, this is what we are taught when we were kids and can logically understand it with children minds, that if a person declares that there is other gods next to Allah, then such person must be a Mushrik. Of course it is logically and correctly assumed that such person believes in what he declares in public.

The above obvious type of shirk was explained clearly in the Quran using one single word, let?????????????????????¢??s see:


Then, on the Day of Judgment, He will cover them with shame, and say: Where are My 'partners' concerning whom ye used to dispute (with the godly)? Those endued with knowledge will say: This Day, indeed, are the Unbelievers covered with shame and misery,-
[The Quran ; 16:27]

ثُمَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يُخْزِيهِمْ وَيَقُولُ أَيْنَ شُرَكَآئِيَ الَّذِينَ كُنتُمْ تُشَاقُّونَ فِيهِمْ قَالَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْعِلْمَ إِنَّ الْخِزْيَ الْيَوْمَ وَالْسُّوءَ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ (27)

-> See what Allah will say to the Mushrikoon of such obvious type on the JD: أَيْنَ شُرَكَآئِيَ, i.e. Where are My partners. Can see the MY

Now we need to stop and explain what does not need to be explained, but let me do it so I am very clear:

When I say My associate, it should mean for any person, that the associate is associated TO ME, not to anyone else

I.e. Allah has SHURKAA (ASSOCIATES), i.e. there are other gods next to Allah.

An example of that is clearly the Christians who think of Isa as a god next to Allah, another clear example is the Mushrikoon of Quraish who worshipped statues to get them nearer to Allah. Clearly all these people are Mushrikoon.

Here is another example:

And on the day when He will say: Call on My associates whom you alleged to be. So they will call on them, but they will not answer them, and We will make between them a ruin.
[The Quran ; 18:52]

وَيَوْمَ يَقُولُ نَادُوا شُرَكَائِيَ الَّذِينَ زَعَمْتُمْ فَدَعَوْهُمْ فَلَمْ يَسْتَجِيبُوا لَهُمْ وَجَعَلْنَا بَيْنَهُم مَّوْبِقًا (52)

-> Again see how it was said: نَادُوا شُرَكَائِيَ الَّذِينَ زَعَمْتُمْ, Call on My associates whom you alleged to be. I.e. Allah is saying MY associates, i.e. gods like Him.

And that is the first and very obvious type of Shirk, the word شُرَكَائِيَ, Shurakaai My Associates was used 5 times in the whole Quran (16:27, 18:52, 28:62, 28:74 & 41:47), trying to be brief as per request, not sure if it is sweet though.

Now, if I say the following to you:

Your associates. Then I must mean associates who are associated to you, not to me.

Also if I say the following about an absent group of people:

Their associates. Then I must mean associates who are associated to them, not to me nor to you.

That must be very clear too and under any language by the way.

Let?????????????????????¢??s look at a few examples from the Quran:

22: And on the day when We gather them together, then We say to those who are polytheists: Where are your associates whom you were asserting?

23: Then their contention would be nothing but that they would say: By Allah, our Lord, we were not polytheists.

24: See how they lied against their own souls, and that which they forged has turned away from them.
[The Quran ; 6:22-24]

وَيَوْمَ نَحْشُرُهُمْ جَمِيعًا ثُمَّ نَقُولُ لِلَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُواْ أَيْنَ شُرَكَآؤُكُمُ الَّذِينَ كُنتُمْ تَزْعُمُونَ (22)
ثُمَّ لَمْ تَكُن فِتْنَتُهُمْ إِلاَّ أَن قَالُواْ وَاللّهِ رَبِّنَا مَا كُنَّا مُشْرِكِينَ (23)
انظُرْ كَيْفَ كَذَبُواْ عَلَى أَنفُسِهِمْ وَضَلَّ عَنْهُم مَّا كَانُواْ يَفْتَرُونَ (24)

-> The verse above is very clear, firstly it tells us about those who committed an action of shirk: ثُمَّ نَقُولُ لِلَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُواْ , i.e. then We say to those who are polytheists, this is not an accurate translation btw, I just could not find an English word to imply a VERB of shirk so I used the words those who are polytheists but literally it should be Those who committed an action of shirk. Now what comes next is very important, see what will be said to them: أَيْنَ شُرَكَآؤُكُمُ, Where are your associates, i.e. associates who are associated to them not to Allah.

-> And as I told you earlier that those Mushrikoon do not perceive that they are indeed Mushrikoon, see: Then their contention would be nothing but that they would say: By Allah, our Lord, we were not polytheists. See, a clear cut Mushrik who is worshipping another god as a god next to Allah (the first type of Shirk we talked about) cannot really deny the crime. But with those who commit the second type of shirk which does not involve any physical worshipping to other gods rather obeying other man made laws which made associated to Allah, they really think that they are not Mushrikoon, I am sure that they are surely confused and misguided, such confusion and misguidance are clearly explained in the next verse: See how they lied against their own souls, and that which they forged has turned away from them. So what is that which they forged, you reckon? I can tell you with high certainty that it is all these laws they invented and associated to Allah through their man made books of hadith then through their so called Ulamaa, those so called Ulamaa are nothing but THEIR ASSOCIATES

Let me show you another clear verse of how those Ulamaa forge lies about Allah:

And do not say, as what your tongues describe is already lies: This is lawful and this is prohibited, in order to forge against Allah lies; indeed, those who forge against Allah lies will not succeed.
[The Quran ; 16:116]

وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُكُمُ الْكَذِبَ هَذَا حَلاَلٌ وَهَذَا حَرَامٌ لِّتَفْتَرُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ الْكَذِبَ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى اللّهِ الْكَذِبَ لاَ يُفْلِحُونَ (116)

-> See how the verse started And do not say, as what your tongues describe is already lies: , see how what might be against Allah is already described as FALSE before we are told what is that that we should not say, let?????????????????????¢??s see what we should never say : هَذَا حَلاَلٌ وَهَذَا حَرَامٌ , i.e. This is lawful, and this is prohibited, again it was described as lies associated to Allah: لِّتَفْتَرُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ الْكَذِبَ ٌ , i.e. in order to forge against Allah lies; the problem for those who suggest that this is halal and that is haram without any sanction by Allah is simply as follow: indeed, those who forge against Allah lies will not succeed. Well, I am sure you have seen millions of Muslims who say this is halal and that is haram, every Muslim Dick and Harry can be a Mufti on a flash, your mosque Imam, your teacher, your friend, your father, you mother, your bother, bloody oath, every one of them, almost.

I am not sure what is the reason of the warning of the above verse then? Yep, bloody ignore it and follow the crap man made books of invented hearsay and doubted hadith that is bloody full of, that is haram and this is halal.

Well, let me tell you something dear brother, if you follow any human in their suggestion that something is halal and another is haram, then such adviser of yours will be your associate, and you will be clearly committing the crime of shirk. See this verse:

Or are there for them associates who have prescribed for them of the religion what Allah has not sanctioned? And if not for the decisive word, it would have been judged between them; and indeed, the unjust will have a painful torture.
[The Quran ; 42:21]

أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاء شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةُ الْفَصْلِ لَقُضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (21)

-> See, أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاء شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ, i.e. Or are there for them associates who have prescribed for them of the religion what Allah has not sanctioned? Please tell me, does not verse 42:21 clearly describes the shirk action by most Muslims for over 1200 years? See the words are there for them associates, i.e. THEIR associates the ones we talked about earlier through verses 6:22-24

How many Shiekhs, Mullahs, Imams and Muftis prescribed and still prescribe for us so many things in the religion that Allah never sanctioned in His Quran? Can't get clearer than this.

Let's have a look at another example of such type of shirk, a shirk for which you have associates, i.e. your associates, and see something that is prescribed by them which Allah never sanctioned:

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)

-> See how it was said: شُرَكَآؤُهُمْ, i.e. Their associates, not the associates of Allah: And thus have their associates made it pleasing to most of the polytheists - and here is what they prescribed: - the killing of their children

The problem for those who obey other humans with Allah in matters that are related to the religion and are never sanctioned by Him is this, they think they are not Mushrikoon, even those who are obeyed (their associates) will deny that those who obeyed them (the polytheists) were worshipping them:

28: And on the day when We will gather them all together, then We will say to those who associated others (with Allah): Stay in your places, you and your associates; then We will separate between them, and their associates will say: You did not worship us:

29: And sufficient is Allah as Witness between us and you that we were unaware of your worshipping.
[The Quran ; 10:28-29]

وَيَوْمَ نَحْشُرُهُمْ جَمِيعًا ثُمَّ نَقُولُ لِلَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُواْ مَكَانَكُمْ أَنتُمْ وَشُرَكَآؤُكُمْ فَزَيَّلْنَا بَيْنَهُمْ وَقَالَ شُرَكَآؤُهُم مَّا كُنتُمْ إِيَّانَا تَعْبُدُونَ (28)
فَكَفَى بِاللّهِ شَهِيدًا بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ إِن كُنَّا عَنْ عِبَادَتِكُمْ لَغَافِلِينَ (29)

-> See, there is a huge difference between the first type of shirk for which Allah refers to as My associates and the second type of shirk for which Allah refers to as Your associates & Their associates

The alleged associates of Allah do not really exist, and even if they do exist as creatures, like Isa or the sun, or the angels etc etc (all these creatures were and still worshipped as gods by many people), will these creatures be punished because some idiot people took them as gods? Of course not, certainly Isa cannot be punished for the crime of shirk committed by some other people and he has nothing to do with it, likewise the sun and any other creature that is worshipped by some ignorant humans.

But certainly with the other type of shirk in which some people (polytheists) take religious rules from other humans (their associates) in the religion which were never sanctioned by Allah, we expect that both parties should be punished:

- The polytheists for being polytheists
- Their associates for prescribing in the religion of Allah that which is never sanctioned by Him.

So you should logically expect a conflict and an argument between the two parties on the day of account. And that is exactly what the above two verses are telling us: And on the day when We will gather them all together, then We will say to those who associated others (with Allah): Stay in your places, you and your associates; see how both parties will be stunned: Stay in your places, you and your associates , then both will be separated, then their associates will deny that the polytheists were worshipping them: then We will separate between them, and their associates will say: You did not worship us. They are not lying actually, they are only confused because they did not know that by others obeying them in matters that are related to the religion of Allah which Allah never sanctioned, they took them as their associates while becoming polytheists themselves. Their associates will even seek the testimony of Allah's knowledge that they were unaware that those polytheists were worshipping them, so the associates will say: And sufficient is Allah as Witness between us and you that we were unaware of your worshipping. Again, how clear is that.

Indeed Allah mentioned the second type of Shirk using the two words شُرَكَآؤُكُمُ Shurakaakum & شُرَكَآؤُهُمْ Shurakaahum, i.e. Your associates & Their associates respectively 15 times, compared with the 5 times He talked about the first type of Shirk represented by the word شُرَكَائِيَ, Shurakaai My associates this implies that the second type of shirk is far more common by humans as far as I believe.

It is also clear that the majority of the Muslims are committing shirk without even realizing it, just look at how most Muslims talk about the hearsay hadith and prophet Mohammad while they hardly talk about Allah through His Quran, they even reach the extreme level of shirk when they mention Allah and His prophet in the same sentence they only praise the prophet and not Allah, they even abbreviate the name Allah to the letter A in (SAW) while the name Mohammad is written in full and never been abbreviated, we have seen the kafirs on FFI web site doing it with the name Mohammad by abbreviating it to Mo, so the Mushrikoon from among the Muslims followed their footsteps and did it with the name Allah and made it A, no wonder we read the following verse in the Quran

And most of them do not believe in Allah except while being polytheists.
[The Quran ; 12:106]

وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ بِاللّهِ إِلاَّ وَهُم مُّشْرِكُونَ (106)

In fact most Muslims are committing both types of shirk, shirk type 1 in which they put Muhammed in a position that is higher or above all prophets in total rejection to what Allah commanded them in the Quran, and almost putting him at the same level of Allah. And shirk type 2 in which they invented and made divine so many religious laws through their man made books of hadith, laws that were never sanctioned by Allah, like killing the married adulterers, despite the fact that married adulterers may already have young children through their marriage, it is like punishing the criminals and the innocents at the same time, the innocent children of married adulterers when they lose one or even both parents in the most cruel way, yet the outcome is silly, the outcome of killing them makes no sense, because they will eventually die and return to their Lord For Whom it does not matter if they lived 20 years or 950 years, they will eventually get their divine punishment from Allah and on that day, even living 950 years will be like living for an hour of day.

The above shirk by most Muslims is so wide spread, the problem we are talking about in here is severe and rooted, the solution must be very radical, and I believe it will eventually happen by Allah Himself, by radically sending His wrath upon the earth and those who live on it.

Here is a simple example of how such shirk problem is very rooted between so many Muslims, in a cemetery in Egypt I photographed this photo myself, the photo is about a grave of someone with the names of Allah & Muhammed next to each other, even the name Muhammed is slightly bigger than the name Allah:



From all the above, this is what I meant by two types of shirk:

1- Shirk type 1 by committing a certain action, i.e. by taking other creatures as gods next to Allah

2- Shirk type 2 by committing a different action, i.e. by taking invented religious rules from humans which are never sanctioned by Allah

Salam
- Thu 26 Nov, 2009 5:22 am
Post subject:
Salam brother parvez

Can you please not reply to my above comment yet, as I just read something in one of today's Egyptian newspapers which I believe should relates to something that I stated above, so I copied the Arabic news into another comment that I have to compose after thinking for quite some time, so bloody shpcking

I will compose it when I come back from work today inshallah, i believe it is worth sharing it especially under the view of my last comment

Salam
- Thu 26 Nov, 2009 9:36 am
Post subject:
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
- Mon 21 Dec, 2009 4:08 pm
Post subject:
Hey pussy cat

Time to slam dunk you and your ignorant pals

You say the Arabic word نصارى Nasara which means Christians should not mean so because it has the same root ن ص ر Na Sa Ra as another Arabic word انصار Ansar which means Supporters, therefore for a dumb ignorant bum like you and your pals, the Arabic word نصارى Nasara which means Christians should not mean so, rather it should mean Supporters.

Well dumb pussy bum, as I told you in my first comment, I have demolished such non sense on the freaks web site free-minds.org, and explained to you that the root method cannot be used to understand the meaning of the words. The moment a new word is derived from any root, is the same bloody moment that the word will be totally independent from such root

I know well that your deluded ego won?????????????????????¢??t allow you to concede, as the freaks of free-minds.org did before ya, so what I am going to do is to shut your stupid mouth up by using the same source of evidence you and them used.

See dumb pussy bum, you used the Quran only to extract two different words that happened to have the same root and you want both to mean the same.

Using your own stupid and ignorant method, I am going to show your arse four different words from the Quran all having the same root, yet each one means something totally different to the other and the meaning cannot be exchanged between them:

1- The first word: سُلَّمٌ , Sullum, i.e. Ladder, its root is س ل م Sa La Ma

Quran example:

أَمْ لَهُمْ سُلَّمٌ يَسْتَمِعُونَ فِيهِ ۖ فَلْيَأْتِ مُسْتَمِعُهُمْ بِسُلْطَانٍ مُبِينٍ (38)
Or do they have a ladder upon which they listen? Then let their listener come with an obvious authority.
[Al Quran ; 52:38]


2- The second word: الْمُسْلِمِينَ , Al Muslimeen , i.e. The followers of the religion of Islam (the submitters) , its root is س ل م Sa La Ma

Quran example:

وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ ۚ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ ۚ مِلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ۚ هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَفِي هَٰذَا لِيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ شَهِيدًا عَلَيْكُمْ وَتَكُونُوا شُهَدَاءَ عَلَى النَّاسِ ۚ فَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِاللَّهِ هُوَ مَوْلَاكُمْ ۖ فَنِعْمَ الْمَوْلَىٰ وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ (78)
And strive to Allah with striving that is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not made upon you in the religion any blame; the faith of your father Ibrahim; he (Ibrahim) named you submitters before and in this, that the messenger may be a witness over you, and that you may be witnesses over the people; therefore stand up for prayer and pay Zakah (Alms) and be united by Allah; He is your Guardian; excellent is the Guardian and excellent is the Helper.
[Al Quran ; 22:78]


3- The third word: السَّلاَمَ , Al Salam, i.e. Greeting of peace , its root is س ل م Sa La Ma

Quran example:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِذَا ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَتَبَيَّنُواْ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ لِمَنْ أَلْقَى إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلاَمَ لَسْتَ مُؤْمِنًا تَبْتَغُونَ عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فَعِندَ اللّهِ مَغَانِمُ كَثِيرَةٌ كَذَلِكَ كُنتُم مِّن قَبْلُ فَمَنَّ اللّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ فَتَبَيَّنُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا (94)
O you who have believed! If you travel in the way of Allah, then investigate; and do not say to one who offers you greeting of peace, ?????????????????????¢??You are not a believer?????????????????????¢??, desiring the life of this world; while with Allah are many acquisitions. Like that, you were before; then Allah conferred His favours upon you, so investigate. Indeed, ever is Allah of what you do Acquainted.
[Al Quran ; 4:94]


4- The fourth word: مُّسَلَّمَةٌ , Musalamah, i.e. Delievered, its root is س ل م Sa La Ma

Quran example:

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ أَن يَقْتُلَ مُؤْمِنًا إِلاَّ خَطَئًا وَمَن قَتَلَ مُؤْمِنًا خَطَئًا فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ وَدِيَةٌ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ إِلاَّ أَن يَصَّدَّقُواْ فَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَّكُمْ وَهُوَ مْؤْمِنٌ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ وَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِّيثَاقٌ فَدِيَةٌ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةً فَمَن لَّمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةً مِّنَ اللّهِ وَكَانَ اللّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا (92)
And it is not for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake, then freeing of a believing slave, and compensation should be delivered to his family except that they remit it for charity. And if he was from a people enemy to you and he was a believer, then freeing of a believing slave. And if he was from a people who have with you a treaty, then compensation should be delivered to his family and freeing of a believing slave. And whoever cannot find (a slave), then fasting for two consecutive months, seeking acceptance of repentance from Allah. And indeed, ever is Allah Knowing, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 4:92]

So what is the story, mister ignorant pussy cat?

Same source of evidence you used (the Quran), same language you used (Arabic) and same flawed method you used (the root method)

What seems to have gone wrong in your pinhead, dear pussy cat?

Well, possibly if I slam dunk you, you might wake up and learn properly from those who possess knowledge instead of learning from the dumb ignorant bums like you:

# 64
- Wed 23 Dec, 2009 9:40 am
Post subject:
Salam all

FFI kafir Ugly bin lyin asked the Muslims in there to provide a verse confirming what Muslim brother Eagle and myself stated which is, that the test in this life is to collect the evidences against the criminals, so they convict themselves, it is not a test for Allah to know what the humans will do, Allah knows the future in advance.

See bunch of confused FFI Kafirs, we need a crime to be committed before evidences can be collected and charges to be laid, after all that is done, the court time comes, and in court, those criminals will read the evidences against themselves then convict their own selves:

Here is the court scene set by the Quran:

وَعُرِضُوا عَلَىٰ رَبِّكَ صَفًّا لَقَدْ جِئْتُمُونَا كَمَا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ ۚ بَلْ زَعَمْتُمْ أَلَّنْ نَجْعَلَ لَكُمْ مَوْعِدًا (48)
And they will be presented before your Lord in rows. (It will be said to them:) Certainly you have come to Us as We created you the first time. Rather you thought that We will not make for you an appointment.
[Al Quran ; 18:48]

-> See: And they will be presented before your Lord in rows., the idiots like bun lyin never thought that they cannot miss the court appontment: Rather you thought that We will not make for you an appointment.

And here are the evidences against the criminals presented:

وَوُضِعَ الْكِتَابُ فَتَرَى الْمُجْرِمِينَ مُشْفِقِينَ مِمَّا فِيهِ وَيَقُولُونَ يَا وَيْلَتَنَا مَالِ هَٰذَا الْكِتَابِ لَا يُغَادِرُ صَغِيرَةً وَلَا كَبِيرَةً إِلَّا أَحْصَاهَا ۚ وَوَجَدُوا مَا عَمِلُوا حَاضِرًا ۗ وَلَا يَظْلِمُ رَبُّكَ أَحَدًا (49)
And the book will be placed, then you will see the criminals fearing from what is in it, and they will say: Oh! Woe to us, why this book does not leave a small (deed) nor a great (deed) except that it recorded it; and they will find what they had done present; and your Lord does not deal unjustly with anyone.
[Al Quran ; 18:49]

-> See: And the book (the evidences) will be placed, then you will see the criminals fearing from what is in it, and they will say: Oh! Woe to us, why this book (the evidences) does not leave a small (deed) nor a great (deed) except that it recorded it;, see how the evidences must be presented: and they will find what they had done present;

Consequently the criminals like bin lyin must convict themselves:

فَاعْتَرَفُوا بِذَنْبِهِمْ فَسُحْقًا لِأَصْحَابِ السَّعِيرِ (11)
And they will admit their sins, and destroyed will be the companions of the blaze.
[Al Quran ; 67:11]

-> See: And they will admit their sins

Here you have it: and destroyed will be the companions of the blaze. , and slam dunked is ugly bin lyin

# 65
- Thu 21 Jan, 2010 1:19 am
Post subject:
Salam all

This is not a new slam, rather something that I talked about before, however I have rewritten it in a better way when I responded to one of my friends on Facebook:

Today we need to discuss very important subject, a subject that I believe most Muslims lack understanding, the subject is when Allah said: إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا , i.e. Indeed, Allah and His angels send blessing upon the prophet; O you who have believed! Seek blessings upon him, and ask (Allah) to grant him peace.

This issue is very complicated and confusing for most Muslims indeed, let me start by saying that the confusion is caused by the word صلى , Salla this word can be used literally (or I should say commonly) to mean to establish prayer, however the ritual Salat in the Quran is most of the times stated using two words اقام الصلاة , Aqam Al Salat, i.e. To establish the ritual physical prayer, therefore the word Salla alone does not necessarily mean to perform the ritual prayer.

The word Salla alone means to communicate or to be in touch or to be in contact, therefore any type of communication can be described using the word Salla, for example if you are calling upon Allah, this can be described that you تصلى , Tussali to Allah (communicating with Allah), however if you are establishing the ritual prayer then what you are doing should be described as تقيم الصلاة , Tuqim al Salat.

If I call upon Allah, however my call upon Him is to grant SOMEONE ELSE (not myself) mercy and forgiveness, then I اصلى على Ausalli Ala that person. i.e. I seek from Allah to respond to my salat on that person.

In effect, when I say اللهم صلى على ابويا or عسى الله ان يصلى على ابويا it should mean that I am asking Allah to respond to my call concerning my father, or to respond to the calls of my father to Him when my father was alive.

Now if الله صلى على ابويا , Allah Salla Ala Aboya, it should mean that Allah responded to my call by granting what I asked for my father.

Again, when Allah responds back by granting a wish being asked by anyone then it means that Allah صلى , Salla on that person, sort of, Allah blessed that person. But when the angels yusallo on a person, it means that they are communicating with Allah to seek mercy, forgiveness and guidance for that person, and if Allah grants mercy, forgiveness or guidance to that person, i.e. Allah replied to the angels communication, then Allah salla on that person, this is very important to understand before we look on the following 2 verses:

Indeed, Allah and His angels send blessing upon the prophet; O you who have believed! Seek blessings upon him, and ask (Allah) to grant him peace.
[The Quran ; 33:56]

إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا (56)

-> The first important note in the above verse is this: we never read that الله سلم على محمد , Allah Sallam Ala Muhammed, i.e. Allah granted Muhammed peace or Allah greeted Muhammed with peace, which must put the common saying by most Muslims: صلى الله عليه و سلم , Salla Allah Alayhi Wa Sallam, in shame, because it cannot be an accurate saying, in fact it may fall under saying things about Allah that we do not know, because the greeting part in such saying by most Muslims WAS NEVER METIONED IN THE VERSE ABOVE.

-> Verse 33:56 can be divided in two parts, for the first part : إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ, Ina Allah Wa Malaakatihu Yussaloon Ala Al Nabi, Indeed, Allah and His angels send blessing upon the prophet;, we have the verb Yussalli that is performed by Allah and by the angels concerning the prophet, as you can see that it cannot mean the ritual salat because we don't read the word Yuqimu before salat, so the verb Yussali for Allah means that He sends His blessings to the prophet but for the angels it means they seek from Allah blessings, mercy, guidance and forgiveness for the prophet, for indeed, the angels cannot grant blessing to any one.

-> Now, the salat that Allah and the angels do concerning the prophet, is also done to all believers, and is also done by Allah and His angels. Let's look at the following verse before I discuss the second half of 33:56, amazingly the verse is in the same sura:

هُوَ الَّذِي يُصَلِّي عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَلَائِكَتُهُ لِيُخْرِجَكُمْ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ ۚ وَكَانَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَحِيمًا (43)
He is the One Who responds to you, and (so do) His angels, that He may bring you out from darkness into the light; and ever is He, to the believers, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 33:43]

-> See : هُوَ الَّذِي يُصَلِّي عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَلَائِكَتُهُ, Hua Allazy Yusalli Alaikum Wa Malakaatuhu, i.e. He is the One Who responds to you, and (so do) His angels, , again it should mean that Allah sends His blessings, mercy, forgiveness and guidance to all of the believers, i.e. Allah Yusalli on the believers as He does with Mohammad, but for the angels, it should mean that they seek from Allah blessings, mercy, forgiveness and guidance for us The angels Yusallo on the believers as they do with Mohammad. Can you see how such purpose of Salat by Allah and the angels is stated in the verse: لِيُخْرِجَكُمْ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ ۚ وَكَانَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَحِيمًا , i.e. that He may bring you out from darkness into the light; and ever is He, to the believers, Merciful. , i.e. His salat on us or on the prophet means to send to us and to the prophet, His blessings, His mercy, His guidance and His forgiveness.

-> From 33:43 and 33:56, it is proven that all believers and the prophet are equal in regard to the communication by Allah and the angels, i.e. the prophet is not unique that Allah and the angels Yussalu on him because it is also done by Allah and the angels to all of us (the believers).

Let me continue with the second half of 33:56

-> يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا , Ya Ayuha Al lazin Amanu Sallo Alahihi Wa Salimu Taslima, i.e. O you who have believed! Seek blessings upon him, and ask (Allah) to grant him peace. , obviously the verse is covering two periods, when the prophet was alive and after he died, when we Nussali on Muhammad it means that we should seek the forgiveness, blessings and mercy to him, but that does not mean that we cannot do the same to the other prophets, in fact if Allah ordered us not to make any distinction between the prophets then we should Nussali on all of them, i.e. we seek Allah blessings, forgiveness and mercy for all of them equally, it is not conclusive that 33:56 means we should only do it to Mohammad, in fact Mohammad was referred to as Nabi, I.e. i.e. we can Nussali on any Nabi the exact same, remember that Allah and His angels do the same for all believers, therefore I believe the sunni and shia sect followers got it totally wrong by making it that in order to Nussali on Mohammad we need to recite the words Salla Allah Ala Mohammad while his name was never mentioned in the verse, it makes no sense other than stating A FACT using a past tense verb (فعل ماضى). Therefore to Nussali properly on anyone, we have to say it grammatically correct to sound like a wish or a duaa, I.e. the words اللهم , Allahum, or عسى الله Asa Allah which means a call to Allah to grant a wish, must precede the wish. EXACTLY AS WE SAY IT IN THE PHYSICAL SALAT WHEN RECITING TASHAHUD, in fact the past tense of the word Salla as recited in Tashahud is only stated about Ibrahim: اللهم صلى على محمد كما صليت على ابراهيم , i.e. O Allah, send you blessings, guidance, forgiveness and mercy to Muhammed as You did with Ibrahim.

And if we want to do the right thing then we should seek mercy, forgiveness guidance and blessings to all Anbiaa and even to anyone who is close to us. Muhammed cannot be exclusive in here otherwise it implies clear cut shirk.

Also, as we were commanded to Nussali ala Muhammed, Muhammed too was commanded the same, i.e. Muhammed was commanded to Yusalli on us, i.e. Muhammed was commanded to seek from Allah to send His mercy, His forgiveness, His blessings and His guidance to us. See this verse:

خُذْ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ صَدَقَةً تُطَهِّرُهُمْ وَتُزَكِّيهِم بِهَا وَصَلِّ عَلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ صَلاَتَكَ سَكَنٌ لَّهُمْ وَاللّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ (103)
Take from their money alms to purify them and increase them thereby, and seek forgiveness (of Allah) for them; indeed your prayer is a security for them; and Allah is all-Hearing, all-Knowing.
[Al Quran ; 9:103]

-> See the clear command from Allah to Muhammed: وَصَلِّ عَلَيْهِمْ , and seek forgiveness (of Allah) for them; , i.e. Muhammed was commanded the same concerning us as we were commanded concerning him. Let me put the two commands of Allah under each other:

- 33:56, صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ , Sallu Alayhi, i.e. a command to the believers to seek blessings of Allah for him.
- 9:103, صَلِّ عَلَيْهِمْ , Salli Alayhum, i.e. a command to the prophet to seek blessings of Allah for the believers..

How clear, also Muhammed was commanded to not to Yussali on those who refused to fight the enemy with him and preferred to stay back at their homes:

وَلاَ تُصَلِّ عَلَى أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُم مَّاتَ أَبَدًا وَلاَ تَقُمْ عَلَىَ قَبْرِهِ إِنَّهُمْ كَفَرُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَمَاتُواْ وَهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ (84)
And never seek blessings (of Allah) for any one of them who has died and do not stand at his grave; indeed they have disbelieved in Allah and His messenger and they died while they were transgressors.
[Al Quran ; 9:84]

-> See how clear: وَلاَ تُصَلِّ عَلَى أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُم مَّاتَ أَبَدًا , i.e. And never seek blessings (of Allah) for any one of them who has died

The confused Mushriks from among the sectarian Muslims only take such salat on Muahmmed as a mean to boast about him and as a mean to show how exalted he is above all the rest including all other messengers and prophets. And to do so, they use the words of Allah in 33:56 despite that in 33:43 we read that Allah and His angels do the exact same to all sincere believers, and while they totally ignored verse 9:103 in which Muhammed was also commanded to do the same to us. THIS FOR ME IS ANOTHER EVIDENCE TO THEIR CLEAR CUT SHIRLK.

Let me now summarize the above so my argument is clear, in fact you may only read below to understand my argument:

1- When the name of Muhammed is ever mentioned in any sayings, most Muslims quickly say: صلى الله عليه و سلم , Salla Allah Alayhi Wa Sallam, their intention is clearly understood as PRAISE for Muhammed, i.e. they are using Allah to show how Muhammed is praised and raised over the rest of the prophets.

2- What they say is 100% wrong in many aspects:

a- The command of Allah in 33:56 is for us to SEEK the blessings of Allah to him, not to STATE a fact that Allah did (past tense) that to him.

b- The fact mentioned in 33:56 that Allah Yusalli Ala Muhammed is also stated in 33:43 but concerning us, i.e. Allah and His angels do the same exactly to us as Allah and His angels did with Muhammed.

c- The fact mentioned in 33:56 never stated that Allah Yussalim Ala Muhammed, but the confused Muslims still say Wa Sallam, after they say Allah salla ala Muhammed.

d- Muhammed too was commanded to Yusalli on the sincere believers and NOT Yussali on the insincere believers.

3- When humans Yussalu on another human, it means that they are seeking the blessings, mercy, forgiveness and guidance of Allah to such person.

4- When the angels Yussalu on any human, it means that they are seeking the blessings, mercy, forgiveness and guidance of Allah to such person.

5- When Allah Yussali on any human, it means that Allah granted His blessings, His mercy, His forgiveness and His guidance to such person.

One of my dear friends told me that the past tense can be used to express a wish. I told him that as such can be impossible because using the past tense is only to express a fact that HAS HAPPENED, while I do understand that TIME does not apply on Allah, i.e. Allah uses past tense to express future events, as for Allah all future events He told us about WILL HAPPEN for sure, then it can be considered PAST for Him, in other words FUTURE FACTS

But to seek the forgiveness/blessings/mercy/guidance of Allah to anyone cannot be expressed in such way, as in this case we are saying that it is a future fact. Rather we should express it in a way that does not imply so, see this verse:

فَأُوْلَئِكَ عَسَى اللّهُ أَن يَعْفُوَ عَنْهُمْ وَكَانَ اللّهُ عَفُوًّا غَفُورًا (99)
As for those, perhaps Allah may pardon them. And ever is Allah Pardoning, Forgiving.
[Al Quran ; 4:99]

-> See: عَسَى اللّهُ أَن يَعْفُوَ عَنْهُمْ , i.e. perhaps Allah may pardon them

فَقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ لاَ تُكَلَّفُ إِلاَّ نَفْسَكَ وَحَرِّضِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَسَى اللّهُ أَن يَكُفَّ بَأْسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ وَاللّهُ أَشَدُّ بَأْسًا وَأَشَدُّ تَنكِيلاً (84)
And fight in the way of Allah; you are not responsible except for yourself, and encourage the believers that perhaps Allah may restrain the power of those who have disbelieved. And Allah is stronger in power and stronger in punishment.
[Al Quran ; 4:84]

-> See: عَسَى اللّهُ أَن يَكُفَّ بَأْسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ , i.e. perhaps Allah may restrain the power of those who have disbelieved

وَآخَرُونَ اعْتَرَفُواْ بِذُنُوبِهِمْ خَلَطُواْ عَمَلاً صَالِحًا وَآخَرَ سَيِّئًا عَسَى اللّهُ أَن يَتُوبَ عَلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (102)
And others have admitted their sins, they have mixed a good deed with another that is evil. Perhaps Allah may accept their repentance; indeed Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 9:102]

-> See: عَسَى اللّهُ أَن يَتُوبَ عَلَيْهِمْ , i.e. Perhaps Allah may accept their repentance

And many verses more

The biggest challenge that is facing most Muslims today is freeing themselves from all the brainwasings they went through for over 1200 years, exactly like all other religions?????????????????????¢?? followers.

Salam
- Wed 27 Jan, 2010 9:55 pm
Post subject:
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


salams

dear ahmed

i apologies for my sudden disappearance

Insha ALLAH

i will replay your message in couple of days

regards

Mushtaq
- Thu 28 Jan, 2010 3:40 am
Post subject:
Salam Pervez

No apologies required mate, take your time

Take care
- Sat 30 Jan, 2010 6:41 am
Post subject:
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 .


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
- Tue 02 Feb, 2010 2:19 am
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
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 .


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


Salaams, Ahmed

Thanks for slam dunking both idiots. Where did they write that? At the FFI Cesspool?

Good job.

Gun Bandana down such idiots, who do not know and write nonsense.

BMZ
- Wed 03 Feb, 2010 5:13 pm
Post subject:
Salam Manfred

Let me clear your ignorance which was motivated by the ignorance of inmate pisscohot. And I trust that you are far smarter than such idiot whose subsequent arguments are only motivated by his obvious hatred to Islam, unless of course you carry the same blind hate to Islam as such retard of an inmate has.

Let me bring both verses in here along with my own translation before any changes I will make to it, i.e. the same translation that inmate pisscohot referred to:

Here is the first verse that is talking about undisputable scientific fact that was is no way discovered 1400 years ago:

أَوْ كَظُلُمَاتٍ فِي بَحْرٍ لُجِّيٍّ يَغْشَاهُ مَوْجٌ مِنْ فَوْقِهِ مَوْجٌ مِنْ فَوْقِهِ سَحَابٌ ۚ ظُلُمَاتٌ بَعْضُهَا فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ إِذَا أَخْرَجَ يَدَهُ لَمْ يَكَدْ يَرَاهَا ۗ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَجْعَلِ اللَّهُ لَهُ نُورًا فَمَا لَهُ مِنْ نُورٍ (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]

And here is the verse talking about the Hour:

إِنَّ السَّاعَةَ آتِيَةٌ أَكَادُ أُخْفِيهَا لِتُجْزَىٰ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ بِمَا تَسْعَىٰ (15)
Indeed, the hour is coming, I am almost hiding it, so that every soul is rewarded according to that for which it strives.
[Al Quran ; 20:15]

The key words in verse 24:40 are: لَمْ يَكَدْ يَرَاهَا , Lam Yakid Yaraha, and was translated in my first draft as follow: he is almost unable to see it;

The key words in verse 20:15 are: أَكَادُ أُخْفِيهَا , Akadu Okhfiha, and was translated in my first draft as follow I am almost hiding it

Now for an ignorant of the tough Arabic language like you and inmate pisscohot, I need to break each Arabic sentence above to its elements (words), while explaining each element (word), as well explaining the similarities and un-similarities between the two sentences

For 24:40

لَمْ يَكَدْ يَرَاهَا , Lam Yakid Yaraha

لَمْ , Lam : Denial device to deny the present or the near past = Not

يَكَدْ , Yakid : A present tense verb = Almost in a verb sense. i.e. He is getting so close, the present verb form is when I talk about someone doing a verb.

يَرَاهَا , Yaraha : Is two words attached together, so let me break it to its elements (words) as well:

- يَرَا , Yara : A present tense verb = See, , the present verb form is when I talk about someone doing a verb.

- هَا , Ha : A damir (damir means a word to refer to something but not by using its real name) = It

Now if you compose the above, word for word, it should be as follow:

لَمْ يَكَدْ يَرَاهَا , Lam Yakid Yaraha = Not almost see it
Which should sound a bit silly under English, so if we make it = Not almost seeing it , by just adding ing to the verb see, it should sound more sensible. But I still need to explain it:

You can not deny two consecutive VERBS with one denial device. You must use a denial device for each verb if you want to deny both verbs. Now the Arabic verb Yakid, i.e. getting close to, or in simple English term: Almost, must be used in conjunction with another verb, i.e. getting close to do something

Now, because we only have ONE denial device Lam and two verbs, then the denied verb out of the two MUST be the one which follows the denial device, i.e. what is denied by Lam in this sentence, is the verb getting close to, the second verb see CANNOT BE DENIED by Lam. i.e. the sentence means he does not get close to see it, i.e. He does not see it at all, in effect denying getting close to do something effectively but virtually denied the following verb.

Now if you want to deny the second verb See, then the sentence must be as follow:

يكاد لا يراها , Yakadu La Yaraha, i.e. He almost does not see it, and this is my mistake in my translation, in fact, I thank inmate pisscohot because indirectly he is helping me to fine tune my translation to make it IRREFUTABLE by any one even to the most minute words. You can see here that I have to use another denial device, this is to make it sound better under Arabic, however the Lam may be used, i.e. يكاد لَمْ يراها , Yakadu Lam Yaraha, i.e. He almost does not see it, which in effect means that he sees a bit of it, or sees a little of it, which is 100% the wrong translation to the actual words that appeared in 24:40

Therefore my translation will be changed for these 4 words: لَمْ يَكَدْ يَرَاهَا , Lam Yakid Yaraha to be any of the followings, I still to make up my mind after I consult with a few fluent Arabic speakers:

He does not get close to see it

Or:

He does not see it at all

Or, if I want to stay literal:

not almost seeing it

But as I discovered in the last 3 years or so working on my translation that I cannot stay at all times literal, otherwise I will end with many translated text that sound weird. I think I will go for He does not get close to see it

For 20:15

أَكَادُ أُخْفِيهَا , Akadu Okhfiha

أَكَادُ , Akadu : A present tense verb = Almost in a verb sense. i.e. I am getting so close, the present verb form is when I talk about myself doing something.

أُخْفِيهَا , Okhfiha : Is two words attached together, so let me break it to its elements (words) as well:

- أُخْفِي , Okhfi : A present tense verb = Hide, the present verb form is when I talk about myself doing something.

- هَا , Ha : A damir (damir means a word to refer to something but not by using its real name) = It

Now if you compose the above, word for word, it should be as follow:

أَكَادُ أُخْفِيهَا , Akadu Okhfiha = I am almost hiding it or I am getting close to hide it. In effect, it means it is not hidden totally, and as I said in my 2012 article in which I used this verse that the Hour is not totally hidden, and as the Quran told us that there will be signs for it that should make us realize that the hour is very near, yet we will never know its actual time until it starts to happen

Finally, the similarities and un-similarities between the two sentences are as follow:

1- Both 24:40 & 20:15 use the verb Kada, which means in simple English term Almost
2- Both 24:40 & 20:15 have a verb following the first verb Kada
3- 24:40 ONLY uses a denial device Lam to deny the verb Kada, and because almost is denied by Lam, it should totally deny the second verb See

And here you have it, this must be another slam dunk # 68 btw, not against you, but against inmate piss to shut his filthy mouth up. But as for you, you have two options:

1- To act like a confused ignorant by taking inmate pisscohot as a good example then insist on your ignorance.

2- To concede. And what you need to concede is simply, 24:40 is indeed talking about a scientific fact that was never known 1400 years ago to anyone in the world.

On the other hand, I am going to pass on your accusation that I stretch the Quran verses to make a scientific miracle in it, indeed you are certainly confused, as I am not a fan of those scientific miracles in the Quran, however, what 24:40 stated that you cannot see you hands at all in deep water cannot be overlooked nor not discussed neither not defended by me. In fact this is the only scientific fact in the Quran that I talk about strongly.

And here is the slam for inmate piss to enjoy in his cell:

# 68
- Thu 04 Feb, 2010 5:16 am
Post subject:
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.


Well, if I am the only fluent in Arabic on this site, then you should learn from me, of course you can qualify what I said by looking for a kafir who speaks Arabic, this should be your chance to corner me if I make mistakes

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 ?


Let's bring the verse here again, as well the verse before it:

وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَعْمَالُهُمْ كَسَرَابٍ بِقِيعَةٍ يَحْسَبُهُ الظَّمْآنُ مَاءً حَتَّىٰ إِذَا جَاءَهُ لَمْ يَجِدْهُ شَيْئًا وَوَجَدَ اللَّهَ عِنْدَهُ فَوَفَّاهُ حِسَابَهُ ۗ وَاللَّهُ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ (39)
And those who have disbelieved, their deeds are like mirage in lowland, which the thirsty one thinks to be water; until when he comes to it he finds it not to be a thing, and he finds Allah there, so He pays him his reckoning in full; and Allah is swift in the reckoning.
[Al Quran ; 24:39]

-> See, it is talking about the deeds of the kafirs by telling us how such deeds will be nullified: And those who have disbelieved, their deeds are like mirage in lowland,, Then the verse is talking about how one of those kafirs will be dragged by such mirage into destruction, i.e. dragged by his/her deeds into destruction: which the thirsty one thinks to be water; until when he comes to it he finds it not to be a thing,, and here is the destruction waiting for him/her: and he finds Allah there, so He pays him his reckoning in full; and Allah is swift in the reckoning.

Now, the next verse 24:40 (the one in question), is continuing to give us another metaphor about one of those kafirs whose deeds will be nullified while at the same time is dragged thereby into destruction:

أَوْ كَظُلُمَاتٍ فِي بَحْرٍ لُجِّيٍّ يَغْشَاهُ مَوْجٌ مِنْ فَوْقِهِ مَوْجٌ مِنْ فَوْقِهِ سَحَابٌ ۚ ظُلُمَاتٌ بَعْضُهَا فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ إِذَا أَخْرَجَ يَدَهُ لَمْ يَكَدْ يَرَاهَا ۗ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَجْعَلِ اللَّهُ لَهُ نُورًا فَمَا لَهُ مِنْ نُورٍ (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]

-> Here is the key word to inform us that another metaphor is about to be said: Or, and here is what the metaphor is: like darkness in a deep sea which is covered by waves above which are waves,, i.e. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DARKNESS IN DEEP SEA, as well INTERNAL WAVES IN DEEP SEA, i.e. one of those kafirs whose deeds will be nullified is like dived into dark and deep water while above him there are waves, and above such waves there are more waves, so I do not get what is your problem exactly? But let me continue the metaphor, we started from deep water and going up, we met waves above him and we stull going up until we reach the surface waves, i.e. such kafir should be in deep trouble. The verse then is telling us what will be above the surface waves, which is the clouds: above which are clouds,, you feel like there is a heavy storm as well, in fact the next word confirms that: darkness, some of it are above others; i.e. DARKNESS OVER DARKNESS, it is like the verse is telling us indirectly that there is not even any light above the surface to penetrate the deep water, it is like the kafir has no hope at all for any light, this was confirmed with the next fact mentioned about such kafir who is in deep water to imply that he is indeed in deep trouble: when he holds out his hand, he is almost unable to see it; as translated in my first draft, however it is going to be like this now and in this way it is 100% more accurate: when he holds out his hand, he will not get close to see it;

Then the verse ended with the moral of the story: and to him whom Allah does not make light, then there is no light for him. can you see how it is all about the light and darkness, i.e. guidance and misguidance

Amazing metaphor indeed, and scientifically correct too. I love this verse.

Brendalee wrote:
The sea does not even necessarily need to be very deep to be impenatrable to the eye.


But the verse is taking about VERY DEEP SEA, the key word is BAHR LUJA i.e. VERY DEEP SEA, in fact I should add the word VERY to my translation because this is what LUJA means, VERY DEEP

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.


The light from the sun can only penterate the layers of the sea or ocean or river water to a certain level, after that point, nothing pass through, because the layers of water keeps reflecting part of the light penetrating it, this is known fact that was only discovered in the last 200 years or so

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.


Well, but there is no such thing in Mecca, keep wishful thinking, darling, it is not going to take you any where.

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.


Well, we are talking about the SEA in here, i.e. BAHR, now you tell me what is the level under water at which it will be total darkness, assuming that we have a bloody clear sky above it and the sun is shining at noon?

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.


Again the verse is talking about the SEA while at the same time it is telling us that above it was dark already, DARKNESS OVER DARKNESS, but we are still talking about a guy IN VERY DEEP WATER, so let's just assume for argument sake as i did once already that it is clear sky and the sun is shining, you tell me how deep the depth would be for the light to not penetrate any further, I am telling you MUST BE VERY DEEP indeed, we are talking at least 1 km down, beyond which there will be no light? Or better read this and educate yourself a bit:
--------------
Visible radiation, or light, from the Sun is important to the world's ocean systems for several reasons. It provides the energy necessary for ocean currents and wind-driven waves. Conversion of some of that energy into heat helps form the thin layer of warm water near the ocean's surface that supports the majority of marine life. Most significantly, the transmission of light in sea water is essential to the productivity of the oceans.

Visible wavelengths of light are captured by chlorophyll-bearing marine plants, which then make their own food through the process of photosynthesis . The organic molecules created by this process are an important energy source for many small organisms that are the base of the entire marine food chain . All life in the oceans is ultimately dependent upon the light and the process of photosynthesis that it initiates. Similarly, light transmission is a key factor in the ecology of lakes and streams, which are discussed elsewhere in this encyclopedia.

Reflection, Refraction, and Color
The uppermost, sunlit layer of the ocean where 70 percent of the entire amount of photosynthesis in the world takes place is called the euphotic zone. It generally extends to a depth of 100 meters (330 feet). Below this is the disphotic zone, between 100 and 1,000 meters (330 and 3,300 feet) deep, which is dimly lit. Some animals are able to survive here, but no plants. Although the amount of light is measurable at this range of depths, there is not enough available for photosynthesis to take place. The layer of the ocean where no light at all penetrates?????????????????????¢??over 90 percent of the entire ocean area on Earth?????????????????????¢??is called the aphotic zone, where depths are more than 1,000 meters (3,300 feet).

Light Penetration.
A certain amount of incoming light is reflected away when it reaches the ocean surface, depending upon the state of the water itself. If it is calm and smooth, less light will be reflected.

If it is turbulent, with many waves, more light will be reflected. The light that penetrates the surface is refracted due to the fact that light travels faster in air than in water. Once it is within the water, light may be scattered or absorbed by solid particles. Most of the visible light spectrum is absorbed within 10 meters (33 feet) of the water's surface, and almost none penetrates below 150 meters (490 feet) of water depth, even when the water is very clear.

Greater abundances of solid particles in the water will decrease the depth of light penetration. Therefore, water near the seashore that is more turbid (cloudy) due to particles will show a decrease in light transmission, even in shallow water. This is due to large numbers of particles brought in by river systems, and biological production by microorganisms , as well as waves, tides, and other water movement picking up debris on the ocean floor.

Light Spectrum.
Water selectively scatters and absorbs certain wavelengths of visible light. The long wavelengths of the light spectrum?????????????????????¢??red, yellow, and orange?????????????????????¢??can penetrate to approximately 15, 30, and 50 meters (49, 98, and 164 feet), respectively, while the short wavelengths of the light spectrum?????????????????????¢??violet, blue and green?????????????????????¢??can penetrate further, to the lower limits of the euphotic zone. Blue penetrates the deepest, which is why deep, clear ocean water and some tropical water appear to be blue most of the time. Moreover, clearer waters have fewer particles to affect the transmission of light, and scattering by the water itself controls color. Water in shallow coastal areas tends to contain a greater amount of particles that scatter or absorb light wavelengths differently, which is why sea water close to shore may appear more green or brown in color.

Read more: Light Transmission in the Ocean - river, sea, depth, oceans, percentage, important, plants, source, marine http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/La-Mi/Light-Transmission-in-the-Ocean.html
-----------------

24:40 is talking about VERY DEEP water where total darkness is found, i.e. at least 1 KM down, no human can do that darling, even the lady diver who tried to break the record, died when she tried to go a few hundred meters down, while at the same time she spent years training and preparing as well needed high tecj equipment to shoot her up like a rocket after she reaches the destined depth, and in fact she died because such water parachute failed to shoot her up quickly and she drowned

We are talking risky business in here mate, i.e. very deep sea, not the swimming pool at you backyard.

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.


But we are not talking about you standing on your cruise looking down in water, we are bloody talking about a diver in deep water looking at his own bloody hands in front of his bloody eyes a few cm away from him

Please darling, stop spinning like lyin and others

Salam
- Mon 08 Feb, 2010 7:53 pm
Post subject:
Pussy Cat of FFI said:

Is ar-Rahman merely an epithet for Allah, or are we dealing with two different gods blended together for monotheist convenience?

The Qur'an opens with the Bismillah: Bismi Allahi alrrahmani alrraheemi. Translated:
YUSUFALI: In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
PICKTHALL: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
SHAKIR: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

The whole sura 55 (Chr.97th) is named after ar-Rahman which then becomes a different account of the creation than that of Allah!
Otherwise, his name is concentrated in some 'Meccan' suras: 50(17th); 44(19th); 45(20th); 73(21th);41(36th); 42(42th); 77(67th).

From what we know, ar-Rahman was the divinity of Musaylima, the contemporary powerful prophet of the Banu Hanifa tribe.
Rahman is not Arabic but Syriac, and the original is Rahmono, meaning ?????????????????????¢??the merciful?????????????????????¢??. D. B. MacDonald in the Encyclopaedia of
Islam wrote: ?????????????????????¢??It is almost certain that the prophet has borrowed the sentence ?????????????????????¢??Bism-el Rahman?????????????????????¢?? from Southern Arabia?????????????????????¢??????????????????????...

Kuran 43.45 (63th): ?????????????????????¢??Ask our prophets that we have sent before you: Have we created gods to worship apart from Rahman??????????????????????¢??????????????????????

This ayat is most troubling: Can Allah have the power to create an omnipotent divinity that is equal with him? Or is it an admission
that Allah created Himself? Then why would a supreme being creates another supreme being just as worthy as Him to worship? Isn't
it rather polytheism is disguise? If Allah created another divinity equaling Himself, yet separated, we're not into a one god faith!

If through ar-Rahman Allah created Himself, it logically means that He was a created creator from the first and this comes down
to a circular argument imploding the uncreated notion of Allah! Now, if Muslims maintain that Allah did not create Himself but an
emanation of Him out of the Universe set in motion then we are facing an uncreated entity, contrary to 43.45!

How can Muslims say that they worship 'one' god when the Koran states otherwise?[/quote]
----------------

Ahmed says:

You stupid manipulator and piece of ignorant trash, 43:45 does not have the word CREATE, you conman:

وَاسْأَلْ مَنْ أَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ قَبْلِكَ مِنْ رُسُلِنَا أَجَعَلْنَا مِنْ دُونِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ آلِهَةً يُعْبَدُونَ (45)
And ask those whom We sent before you of Our messengers: Did We make, other than the Compassionate, (other) gods to be worshipped?
[Al Quran ; 43:45]

-> See conman, أَجَعَلْنَا مِنْ دُونِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ آلِهَةً يُعْبَدُونَ , i.e. Did We make, other than the Compassionate, (other) gods to be worshipped?


i.e. Allah did not ASSIGN anything to be worshipped other than Himself

Dismiss yourself, conman. You have been slammed


# 69
- Tue 09 Feb, 2010 4:20 pm
Post subject:
Muslim Traitor debunker of FFI said:
In case you missed it, I only used 86:3 as my SECOND example for Bahgat to convince him that stars collectively referred to all little shiny objects in the sky, including shooting stars.
--------------

Ahmed Bahgat says:

Again you stupid and ignorant traitor, you may mislead with your crap the confused kafirs on FFI or some children for whom, stars, planets, meteors, comets, are all the same

Only dumbs like you who spew such crap, the Quran used different words for Meteor, Stars and Planets, therefore traitor, you have no fukin point other than exposing how filthy of a confused traitor of a Muslim you are

Any sane human knows well that a planet can not be a star, nor a meteor neither a comet. All are different objects you confused and the Quran mentioned 3 of those objects each with its unique name. But if you are dumb enough like many to interchange them, then fine if you want to look dumb and uneducated, the fact remains intact that the Quran used a unique Arabic word for each of these objects, Planets, Stars and Meteors:

See what google translate stated for each word of them:

Shuhub = Meteors
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


Nigm = Star
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


Kawkab = Planet
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


And even if we translate Shooting star into Arabic, we get Naizak which is the Arabic and scientific name for Meteor:

Shooting star = Naizak = Meteor
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


Now, if we translate Naizak into English, we should get Meteor:

Naizak = Meteorite
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


Here you have it traitor, NOTHING IS INTERCHANGED, this shows how confused, dumb and stupid you are. It is like I replayed the tape when i got you red handed alleging that Banin means children

The bottom line is this, if you even know Arabic, then your level is street/public at max, but when it comes to professional and scientific level, you should know now what to do, dismiss your ignorant and trait-ting arse. sharmoot

I must add you to my slam dunk show, so I can use you as a perfect example of a filthy, retarded, confused and stupid Muslim for my students

# 70
- Wed 10 Feb, 2010 12:50 pm
Post subject:
Ahmed chose to reply to the filthy sharmoot traitor and fake muslim, debunked

Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
@ LYING Bahgat

What a lying pathetic freak you are Bahgat!


You are indeed a shameless tard of sharmoot fake Muslim, don't you have any shame Ya Khawal?

I have let Google translate to slam dunk you and expose your ignorance on FFI web site, yet you have balls to come and insist on spewing your ignorance, well, let me see what you have to spew after you have been slam dunked by Google translate:

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?


What a stupid Metnak of a fake muslim you are, the verse says HAWA, not SHOOT, you confused piece of traitor trash

Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
What say you?


I already said you Labwah, the verse never talked about stars chasing jinn, nor stars to shoot jinn, even Bunny who is not a Muslim slam dunked you. You need to go and burry your pinhead in the filthiest public toilet on the planet

Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
This verse PROVES that the Quran did use this expression: a falling STAR!


That is right you filthy sharmoot, a star that sets, not a star that shoots the jinn.

Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
The Arabs COLLECTIVELY referred to all shiny objects (except the sun and the moon) as STARS.


The arabs in your Barbie world you deluded and molested male prostitute?

Who the fuk are you to speak on behalf of the Arabs? You are nothing but a piece of traitor trash who should not be a human from the first place

It is indeed degrading to me to dialogue with a filthy retraded piece of shit and full of envy like you, however I will continue to do it until you piss off from FFI web site

Isn't that what you wanted us to do when you sent PMs to all Muslims on FFI to leave the site? How about you leave you double faced and confused freak?

Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
Because they did NOT know ANYTHING about them except how they looked...


You stupid piece of confused traitor trash, the Aabs 1400 years ago did not write the Quran, it is Allah who did it you filthy sharmoot. Is that what you are saying, that Allah did not know that Shuhub means Meteors, or possibly He did not know that Nijm means star, or possibly He did not know that Kawkab means planet.

Again your retarded dog, it was not the Arabs back then who authored the Quran, stop taking drugs you retarded sharmoot

Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
pretty lights adorning the sky!!!


The verse is talking about LAMPS, you stupid. Had you said that Lamp is a metaphor to refer to any object that produces its own light, i.e. Lamp can be referring to Stars and Meteors, I would have accepted what you say, but certainly you do not even know that Lamp cannot be used to refer to planets because planets cannot produce their own light, that is why Allah flagged the planets explicitly as being adornment for the sky, letls have a look, turd:

إِنَّا زَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِزِينَةٍ الْكَوَاكِبِ (6)
Indeed, We have decorated the lowest sky with the adornment of the planets.
[Al Quran ; 37:6]

-> See you retarded and fake Muslim: بِزِينَةٍ الْكَوَاكِبِ , Bi Zinat Al-Kawakib, i.e. with the adornment of the planets. So mister debunked, what went wrong with your lies to the kafirs on FFI? Why the verse above is flagging the PLANETS alone as being adornment of the sky?

That should exposes you fair and square, and if I am you, I would have killed myself, this is because in no way one who claims to be an Arabic speaker does not know that Shuhub are not Kawakib and are not Nijum

Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
And some of them did fall (like the verse where God swears by falling stars)..


Is that what Satan is telling you while he is fuking you doggy style in your Bum?

Again and again ad again, a star that is falling is not the shooting star you stupid, in fact falling does not in anyway imply that a missile has been shot

Go and put yourself in the toilet, then flush your dumb arse, this would be better for the environment

Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
Now, idiot,


Is it me the idiot or the one who does not know the difference between the clear Arabic words Shuhub, Kawakib and Nijum?

Well, you are not only an idiot, you are deluded as well, and indeed, anyone on FFI web site who buys your crap should be deluded as well, your dishonesty and envy have been exposed more than once.

Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
I did say that sometimes they used the word Kawkab to refer to BRIGHT stars...


Hahaha, who is they Ya Kos Tizak? Speak for yourself you stupid jerk of a punk. What a deluded sharmoot, Khawal and Metnak you are.

So what you say for the following verse again:

إِنَّا زَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِزِينَةٍ الْكَوَاكِبِ (6)
Indeed, We have decorated the lowest sky with the adornment of the planets.
[Al Quran ; 37:6]

Let's see how Pikthal translated it:

37:6 Lo! We have adorned the lowest heaven with an ornament, the planets;

See you dumb: with an ornament, the planets;

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!!!


Who is them again you filthy male prostitute? Well, fuk you and them, I do not care if the whole world is as dumb as you are, we are talking the words in the Quran, you aids infected fag

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...


Funny indeed, we are not talking about the Arabs who molest you in your Barbie world, we are talking about the words in the Quran that were not made by any human. How deluded and confused you are. I know that well from day one since you joined FFI, and I am sure many kafirs in there know the same about you. Don't forget your history you punk, that you were a mere apostate who is always doubting his religion.

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.


So you decided to keep repeating your crap after I slam dunked you, well it is not going to work you Metnak, or I should say it should only work with the ignorant kafirs in here. But any educated kafir should know well that you are nothing but a deluded freak who is only trying to control the damage. Let me repeat what I said again, ya Khawal:

Funny indeed, we are not talking about the Arabs who molest you in your barbie world, we are talking about the words in the Quran that were not made by any human. How deluded and confused you are. I know that well from day one since you joined and I am sure many kafirs in here know the same about you. Don't forget your history you punk, that you were a mere apostate who is always doubting his religion.

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.


Lol, thanks for bringing the 71th slam in action, let me show the kafirs how you tried to fool them:

In the above verse, the flame is referred to by two Arabic words: شهاب قبس , Shihab Qabas, i.e. Flame

Yet the conman and deluded fake muslim debunked only highlighted the word Shihab to fool the ignorant

See you punk, you cannot use the word Shihab alone to refer to a flame, IN FACT NO ARAB WILL EVER USE SHIHAB TO REFER TO FLAME, YOU MUST USE THE WORDS SHIHAB QABAS TOGETHER TO REFER TO FLAME. And this should be slam dunk # 71

# 71

Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
In conclusion,


In conclusion, you are nothing but a confused ignorant whore of a fake muslim who is full of envy.

Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
1- using 62:1 I proved that shooting stars were referred to by Arabs literally as falling stars.


Lol, you lying whore, the verse never said that the star shoots anything. The verse said the star is falling, i.e. it is setting.

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).


You lying male prostitute, the verse used two words to refer to FLAME: شهاب قبس , Shihab Qabas, i.e. Flame

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:


And you are one of those primitives infected whores, again you lying sharmoot, we are not talking about the Arabs who molest you in your barbie world, we are talking about the words in the Quran that were not made by any human. How deluded and confused you are. I know that well from day one since you joined and I am sure many kafirs in here know the same about you. Don't forget your history you punk, that you were a mere apostate who is always doubting his religion.

Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
1- Kawkab meant bright star.


Let's see what Kawkab means from Google translate, Ya Sharmoot:

Kawkab = Planet
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
2- Shihab meant falling star.


Let's see what Shuhub means from Google translate, Ya Metnak:

Shuhub = Meteors
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


Traitor and fake muslim debunked wrote:
3- Stars meant pretty lights adorning the night sky (other than the moon).


Let's see the verse about the Planets adorning the sky, Ya Ars:

إِنَّا زَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِزِينَةٍ الْكَوَاكِبِ (6)
Indeed, We have decorated the lowest sky with the adornment of the planets.
[Al Quran ; 37:6]

Let's see what Nijm means from Google translate, Ya Khawal:

Nijm = Star
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.


And what that has to do with the Quran of Allah?

See how dumb, confused, turd, sharmoot, labwah, metnak and khawal you are

You have been exposed again, you filthy pimp and male prostitute
- Wed 10 Feb, 2010 4:05 pm
Post subject:
Let me slam the arse of dedunked one more time, and possibly one later:

If you have read the argument between myself and that ignorant piece of traitor trash dedunked, you should have known that he is lying when he said that Shihab is interchanged with Kawkab and Nijm

His only evidence was nothing but his whorey wishful thinking that back then the Arabs were uneducated and did not know the difference between the 3 objects (Meteor, Star and Planet) so they were freely interchanging the 3 words between them. Yet I made his perverted wishful thinking to be true and agreed that fine all the fukin Arabs back then were a bunch of uneducated bums who knew not the difference and interchanged the words. But again, it was not the Arabs who wrote the Quran and certainly the pervert who claim to believe in the Quran should concede that Allah knows the difference between the 3 objects and He cannot be confused like debunked's Arab pals, And because Allah is the author of the Quran, then the three words in there must mean what we know them now, sounds like another proof that the Quran is for all generations. Anyway, male prostitute debunked tried to fool the ignorant kafirs on FFI led by ugly bin lyin and brought verse 27:7 while highlighting one word Shihab as the one to mean flame, while the matter of the fact that it was two words next to each other شهاب قبس, Shihab Qabas that suppose to mean Flame, the word Shihab that he highlighted to fool the ignorant can never mean Flame on its own, rather it has to be used as an adjective or Mudaf to MudaF ilayhi to mean burning in conjunction with another word to refer to that which is burning.

If the word is used alone as an indepnedant noun and not as an adjective, THEN IT MUST MEAN METEOR

Let me bring Quran verse 20:10 in here which is talking about the same incident verse 27:7 talked about:

إِذْ رَأَىٰ نَارًا فَقَالَ لِأَهْلِهِ امْكُثُوا إِنِّي آنَسْتُ نَارًا لَعَلِّي آتِيكُمْ مِنْهَا بِقَبَسٍ أَوْ أَجِدُ عَلَى النَّارِ هُدًى (10)
When he saw a fire, so he said to his family: Stay (here), indeed, I have seen a fire, perhaps I may bring to you from it a torch or find at the fire guidance.
[Al Quran ; 20:10]

-> See what Musa said in here: ِقَبَس, Qabas, i.e. Flame or Torch, we do not read the adjective or Mudaf word Shihab in here to describe the flame that it is burning, i.e. Shihab on its own cannot be used to mean Flame, rather to mean Meteor, as seen in the next obvious verse:

وَأَنَّا لَمَسْنَا السَّمَاءَ فَوَجَدْنَاهَا مُلِئَتْ حَرَسًا شَدِيدًا وَشُهُبًا (8)
And indeed, we touched the sky but we found it filled with strong guards and meteors.
[Al Quran ; 72:8]

-> See what Allah is telling us what the Jinn said when they discovered the method of protection for the heaven: مُلِئَتْ حَرَسًا شَدِيدًا وَشُهُبًا, Mulua'at Harasa Shadida Wa SHUHUBA, i.e. filled with strong guards and METEORS.

And here is what Google translate stated regarding the exact word Shuhuba used in 72:8

Shuhub = Meteors
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


# 72
- Wed 10 Feb, 2010 8:53 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

Time to slam pervert debunked again. The pervert said the following:

Pervert and fake Muslim debunker wrote:
Yep, that's right... a whole vast night sky cannot be "adorned" with only ~5 planets,


Ahmed says:

Obviously the dumb filthy turd does not know the difference between an object that produces light on its own, and an object that only reflects light while it does not produce it by itself, while the main difference between the two should be known by a child, there is another huge difference between the two when we refer to them via a metaphor. Simply any object that produces light on its own may be referred to using the metaphor Lamp, which should be quite obvious because the lamp produces its light by itself, the lamp does not reflect light. This metaphor may apply to, Stars, Meteors, Super Novae, Comets and possibly other objects that we know nothing about yet. On the other hand Planets and Moons CAN NEVER be described using the metaphor Lamp, because Planets and Moons only reflect light, planets and moons do not produce light on their own.

Now, I showed pervert debunked the verse about making the planets decoration for the sky (37:6), for which pervert debunked replied that in no way 5 planets will be decoration to the whole sky. So I say, and who said that the planets only are made decoration for the sky? Certainly not me, rather it is another perverted wishful thinking by pervert debunked.

What I said that the planets were flagged explicitly as being decoration for the sky, along with other decoration made for the sky, lets have a look, shall we:

فَقَضَاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ فِي يَوْمَيْنِ وَأَوْحَىٰ فِي كُلِّ سَمَاءٍ أَمْرَهَا ۚ وَزَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ وَحِفْظًا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ (12)
So He decreed them seven skies in two days, and revealed in every sky its command. And We decorated the lowest sky with lamps and a guarding (system); that is the determination of the Mighty, the Knower.
[Al Quran ; 41:12]

-> See: وَزَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ , i.e. And We decorated the lowest sky with lamps , i.e. the metaphor using lamps must apply to all objects in the sky that produce light on their own, like Stars, Meteors and Comets

The above metaphor was repeated again:

وَلَقَدْ زَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ وَجَعَلْنَاهَا رُجُومًا لِلشَّيَاطِينِ ۖ وَأَعْتَدْنَا لَهُمْ عَذَابَ السَّعِيرِ (5)
And We have certainly decorated this lowest sky with lamps and We have made it to be thrown at the devils, and We have prepared for them the torture of blaze.
[Al Quran ; 67:5]

-> See: وَلَقَدْ زَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ , i.e. And We have certainly decorated the lowest sky with lamps , i.e. the metaphor using lamps must apply to all objects in the sky that produce light on their own, like Stars, Meteors and Comets

Therefore and in effect, the Quran mentioned all objects that we see in the sky as decoration for it:

1- Stars, meteors, comets and all objects that produce light on their own like a lamp: 41:12 & 67:5
2- Planets (which cover moons as well) that reflect light only and are not like a lamp: 37:6

And that should take us to slam dunking pervert and ignorant debunked with slam dunk #73

# 73
- Wed 10 Feb, 2010 10:16 pm
Post subject:
What should also slam such pervert of confused ex-apostate and fake muslim debunked of FFI is the following fact:

The most two obvious decorations in the sky are:

1- The Moon
2- The Sun

And of course everyone knows that the Moon cannot be a star nor a meteor, i.e. it cannot be a lamp, therefore the moon as one of the main highlights of the sky must fall under this verse:

إِنَّا زَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِزِينَةٍ الْكَوَاكِبِ (6)
Indeed, We have decorated the lowest sky with the adornment of the planets.
[Al Quran ; 37:6]

Had the quran not mentioned the planets which cover moons as a decoration for the sky, we would certainly have a problem

In addition to that both the sun which is a star and the moon which can be considered a planet, are expliciltly highlighted using the metaphor of a lamp for the sun, and just stating that the moon is illiminated:

وَجَعَلَ الْقَمَرَ فِيهِنَّ نُورًا وَجَعَلَ الشَّمْسَ سِرَاجًا (16)
And He made the moon therein a light and made the sun a lamp.
[Al Quran ; 71:16]

-> See how accurate the Quran words are: جَعَلَ الْقَمَرَ فِيهِنَّ نُورًا وَجَعَلَ الشَّمْسَ سِرَاجًا, He made the moon therein (in the heaven) a light and made the sun a lamp.

How compelling.
- Fri 12 Feb, 2010 5:06 am
Post subject:
Salam all

skynightblaze of FFI said:

One thing is sure that the verses you quoted clearly contradict the claim that Allah is all knowing.You cannot deny that. Your question does stand valid . Now to answer this question of yours as to how an author could contradict himself at this point when after every page he is uttering the same claim that "Allah is all knowing" one has to look at the context of the verse. Here the rules of the game are changed and bent as and when required by Muhhamad. These verses are talking about battle of Badr when the meccans stormed with a huge army to defeat Muhhamad. Now the believers were pretty scared and Muhhamad had to encourage them .

The initial claim made by Muhhamad/Allah seems to be that 1 muslim can kill 10 pagans but it seemed rather difficult during the battle of badr so the claim gets changed to 1 muslim to fight 2 pagans. So you see this crafty gentlemen whom you call a prophet was indeed very cunning. He changed what Allah said because he knew that the previously uttered statement was stupid and not practical.Also note that this could have had an impact on the moral of the believers who were fighting So the claim gets changed but I guess in the process he had to contradict his claim of Allah being All knowing.In short I see that Muhhamad was forced to utter this but at the cost of contradicting the claim of Allah being an all knowing GOd. This would answer your question.

I think this is the only plausible explanation as to why we see a contradiction here despite quran repeating itself a no of times about Allah being an All knowing God.I dont know whether you would believe this because you dont even believe to start with that Muhhamad was a liar.
----------------------------

Ahmed says:

Let me teach you something new kid, so I can put this thread to bed, as well teach everyone on this thread the same lesson. What you are about to hear is only said by a few who know the Arabic language A to Z along with knowing the Quran very well.

I believe most Arabs misread (mispronounce) the Arabic word: يعلم , four letters as follow: ي ع ل م , Y A L M, which can be read in many ways using different diacritical marks, as follow:
---------------
1- With a Fatiha on the first letter ي so it is pronounced Ya, and a Sikoon on the second letter ع so it is pronounced A, and a Fatiha on the third letter ل so it is pronounced La, and a Fatiha on the fourth letter م so it is pronounced Ma

i.e. Ya A La Ma, which is a present verb to mean: To know
---------------
2- With a Dummah on the first letter ي so it is pronounced Yo, and a Fatiha on the second letter ع so it is pronounced Aa, and a Shuddah + Kasirah on the third letter ل so it is pronounced LLi, and a Fatiha on the fourth letter م so it is pronounced Ma

i.e. Yo Aa LLi Ma, which is a present verb to mean: To mark, or To flag, or To make evident
---------------
3- With a Dummah on the first letter ي so it is pronounced Yo, and a Fatiha on the second letter ع so it is pronounced Aa, and a Shuddah + Fatiha on the third letter ل so it is pronounced LLa, and a Fatiha on the fourth letter م so it is pronounced Ma

i.e. Yo Aa LLa Ma, which is a present verb to mean: to teach
---------------
Therefore with the second meaning (same letters but different pronunciation), the Quran verses mean, that Allah will flag, or mark, or make evident all believers and unbelievers

See this verse which is using the word عَلَامَاتٍ , Aalamat which is a plural noun to mean Marks, derived from the verb: يعلم , YoAaLLiMa, which is a present verb to mean: To mark, or To flag, or To make evident

وَعَلَامَاتٍ ۚ وَبِالنَّجْمِ هُمْ يَهْتَدُونَ (16)
And marks; and by the stars they seek guidance.
[Al Quran ; 16:16]

Take the above to the best Arabic professor on the planet and let him mother slam dunk you too. This should send all the ignorant on this thread to the nearest desert to burry their pinheads for good:

- Fri 12 Feb, 2010 5:22 am
Post subject:
Ahmed chose to reply to one of the filthiest inmates

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....


You stupid lying whore and piece'of traitor trash

Sura 72 verses never ended with AN, rather AA

So you are not only confused about reading Arabic rather more confused when you read it and hear it. Let me let your filthy abused arse slams yourself:

Filthy pervert and traitor debunked wrote:
And this is Surah 72 recited in Arabic:

Link


Hear hear, you filthy confused male prostitute and fake Muslim

Does it end with AN, or AA, Labwah

Another slam dunk, hey:

# 75
- Sat 13 Feb, 2010 7:29 am
Post subject:
yeezevee of FFI (yekee) wrote:
eagle says
Quote:
Yes, meteors started chasing jinns in the times of Revelation. Those jinns used to venture freely in the skies before the times of Revelation, they were allowed to sit in high places where they attempted to listen.
I says rubbish., ridiculous nonsense.. yeezevee


That is why you are called an unbeliever bound to hell

See, you are missing very important points:

1- We the Muslims only believe that meteors shoot the jinn who try to spy up there, as well we believe that jinn cannot be seen (what we believe in are all stated in the Quran, we did not invent anything, we just BELIEVE in it), therefore we the Muslims cannot prove that meteors shoot the jinn, consequently we (again) only BELIEVE in it, and that is why we are called believers

2- You kafirs bound to hell claim that the Quran is scientfically wrong in claiming so, however you cannot just use your unbelieving wishful thinking to prove so, you need to prove beyond an atom weigght of doubt that jinn cannot be shot because jinn do not exist, which should take us to the next argument

3- We the Muslims only believe that jinn exist, we cannot prove their existence because we cannot see them according to the laws in the Quran

4- You kafirs claim that jinn do not exist,

i.e. your claim against our BELIEF

Therefore the onus is upon your bum to prove your case, it is not upon us to prove it because we only BELIEVE in it, in fact we do not even want you to believe it.

So we are being stupid people or not to believe so makes no difference to us, it is you who is the itchy kafir freak bound to hell who is having an issue with those who believe so, consequently and after your failure to control your itch, you are coming here calling those who believe so, stupid people

This shows how mentally perverted and how sick you are and how low you are, therefore we have only 4 words for you

Keep it itchy kafir
- Sun 21 Feb, 2010 3:49 pm
Post subject:
Time to slam pussy cat again:

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.....


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
- Tue 23 Feb, 2010 8:57 pm
Post subject: Testing
Hello, Ahmed

Wanted to post something for your slam dunking but could not. Tried PM but that did not go through too.

Salaams
BMZ
- Tue 23 Feb, 2010 9:05 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Time to slam pussy cat again:

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.....


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


Well done, mate

Keep on Gun Bandana
- Wed 24 Feb, 2010 3:10 am
Post subject: Re: Testing
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


Salam Mate

do you still have a problem posting?
- Wed 24 Feb, 2010 4:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Testing
AhmedBahgat wrote:
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


Salam Mate

do you still have a problem posting?


One just went through. I will try the other one for inclusion in your Slam Dunks.

Salaams
BMZ
- Wed 24 Feb, 2010 4:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Testing
AhmedBahgat wrote:
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


Salam Mate

do you still have a problem posting?


If I reply, it does not go through.

If I use 'quote' to reply, it does. Let us see if it goes thru.

Salaams
BMZ
- Wed 24 Feb, 2010 11:03 pm
Post subject:
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?


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
- Thu 25 Feb, 2010 12:10 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
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?


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


Salaams, mate

That is why, I call the FFI posters, GOONS.

BMZ
- Wed 03 Mar, 2010 4:12 am
Post subject:
Time to slam dunk Pussy cat of FFI, again:

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.


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


Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


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

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


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
- Sat 06 Mar, 2010 11:59 am
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Time to slam dunk Pussy cat of FFI, again:

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.


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


Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


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

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


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


These guys are amazing, Ahmed.

Well said and well slam dunked! Keep Gun Bandana

Salaams
BMZ
- Wed 10 Mar, 2010 5:14 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

Time for a new slam. The issue in hand is how many times the word Month appeared in the Quran, but before we start counting, we must know well that we are only going to count THE SINGULAR form of the word, this makes sense of course because what we say is this:

The Quran used the word month 12 times, i.e. 12 months, therefore counting the plural or the dual form cannot be valid, however I will still bring the verses where the plural and the dual forms are used just for the record and not for counting them

Mordegast wrote:
Regarding Ahmed's monthly miracle:


First of all, I did not claim it to be a miracle, rather something very impressive. Also any noun being with the definite article Al or not, or preceded by a device or not, must have the same form of being plural or dual or singular, therefore any specific form of the word with or without the Al, or preceded by a device or not, will be grouped under one group:

Mordegast wrote:
An independent check from: http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/statistical-miracles-quran


It would have been better for you to check it yourself instead of blindly following some ignorant jerks for the assured outcome of making a complete fool of yourself. You can use my software (download from my site) to help you out looking smart.

Mordegast wrote:
2 for the dual form شهرين


A- The dual form:
شهرين , Shahrayn, i.e. Two months

Appeared 2 times (should NOT be counted because it is not singular):

1 ?????????????????????¢??
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ أَن يَقْتُلَ مُؤْمِنًا إِلاَّ خَطَئًا وَمَن قَتَلَ مُؤْمِنًا خَطَئًا فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ وَدِيَةٌ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ إِلاَّ أَن يَصَّدَّقُواْ فَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَّكُمْ وَهُوَ مْؤْمِنٌ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ وَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِّيثَاقٌ فَدِيَةٌ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةً فَمَن لَّمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةً مِّنَ اللّهِ وَكَانَ اللّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا (92)
And it is not for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake, then freeing of a believing slave, and compensation should be delivered to his family except that they remit it for charity. And if he was from a people enemy to you and he was a believer, then freeing of a believing slave. And if he was from a people who have with you a treaty, then compensation should be delivered to his family and freeing of a believing slave. And whoever cannot find, then fasting for two consecutive months, seeking acceptance of repentance from Allah. And indeed, ever is Allah Knowing, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 4:92]

2 ?????????????????????¢??
فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ يَتَمَاسَّا ۖ فَمَنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَإِطْعَامُ سِتِّينَ مِسْكِينًا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لِتُؤْمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ۚ وَتِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللَّهِ ۗ وَلِلْكَافِرِينَ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ (4)
And whoever does not find (a slave), then the fasting for two consecutive months before they touch each other; and whoever is not able (to fast), then the feeding of sixty needy persons. That is for you to believe in Allah and His messenger, and those are the limits of Allah. And for unbelievers is a painful torture.
[Al Quran ; 58:4]

THE ABOVE 2 OCCURRENCES SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED

But isn?????????????????????¢??t this another impressing point that the word شهرين , Shahrayn, i.e. TWO months appeared TWO times in the Quran.

Mordegast wrote:
اشهر the indefinite plural gives 5 results
and الأشهر the definite plural gives 1 result


B- The plural forms:
اشهر , Ashhur, i.e. Months
الأشهر , Al-Ashhur, i.e. The Months
الشهور , Al-Shuhur, i.e. The Months

Appeared 7 times (should NOT be counted because it is not singular):

1-
الْحَجُّ أَشْهُرٌ مَّعْلُومَاتٌ فَمَن فَرَضَ فِيهِنَّ الْحَجَّ فَلاَ رَفَثَ وَلاَ فُسُوقَ وَلاَ جِدَالَ فِي الْحَجِّ وَمَا تَفْعَلُواْ مِنْ خَيْرٍ يَعْلَمْهُ اللّهُ وَتَزَوَّدُواْ فَإِنَّ خَيْرَ الزَّادِ التَّقْوَى وَاتَّقُونِ يَا أُوْلِي الأَلْبَابِ (197)
The pilgrimage is known months, so whoever undertakes therein the performance of the pilgrimage, there should be no approach (to women) nor wickedness nor dispute during pilgrimage. And whatever good you do, Allah knows it. And take provisions; indeed, the best provision is the fear and fear Me, O those who possess minds.
[Al Quran ; 2:197]

2-
لِّلَّذِينَ يُؤْلُونَ مِن نِّسَآئِهِمْ تَرَبُّصُ أَرْبَعَةِ أَشْهُرٍ فَإِنْ فَآؤُوا فَإِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (226)
For those who took an oath not to approach their wives, they should wait four months; and if they return, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 2:226]

3-
وَالَّذِينَ يُتَوَفَّوْنَ مِنكُمْ وَيَذَرُونَ أَزْوَاجًا يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنفُسِهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ وَعَشْرًا فَإِذَا بَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا فَعَلْنَ فِي أَنفُسِهِنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَاللّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرٌ (234)
And those who die among you and leave wives behind, they (the wives) should wait for four months and ten (days); and if they have reached their specified time, then no blame is upon you for what they did with themselves lawfully. And Allah of what you do is Acquainted.
[Al Quran ; 2:234]

4-
فَسِيحُواْ فِي الأَرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِي اللّهِ وَأَنَّ اللّهَ مُخْزِي الْكَافِرِينَ (2)
So travel freely in the land for four months and know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the unbelievers.
[Al Quran ; 9:2]

5-
فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلاَةَ وَآتَوُاْ الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (5)
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and establish prayer and give Zakat, then let them go their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 9:5]

6-
وَاللَّائِي يَئِسْنَ مِنَ الْمَحِيضِ مِنْ نِسَائِكُمْ إِنِ ارْتَبْتُمْ فَعِدَّتُهُنَّ ثَلَاثَةُ أَشْهُرٍ وَاللَّائِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ ۚ وَأُولَاتُ الْأَحْمَالِ أَجَلُهُنَّ أَنْ يَضَعْنَ حَمْلَهُنَّ ۚ وَمَنْ يَتَّقِ اللَّهَ يَجْعَلْ لَهُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ يُسْرًا (4)
And those who have despaired of menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their waiting period is three months, and also for those who do not menstruate (between menstruations). And the pregnant women, their waiting period is until they deliver their burden; and whoever fears Allah He will make for him through his affair easiness.
[Al Quran ; 65:4]

7 ?????????????????????¢??
إِنَّ عِدَّةَ الشُّهُورِ عِندَ اللّهِ اثْنَا عَشَرَ شَهْرًا فِي كِتَابِ اللّهِ يَوْمَ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَات وَالأَرْضَ مِنْهَا أَرْبَعَةٌ حُرُمٌ ذَلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ فَلاَ تَظْلِمُواْ فِيهِنَّ أَنفُسَكُمْ وَقَاتِلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ كَآفَّةً كَمَا يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ كَآفَّةً وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ (36)
Indeed, the number of the months with Allah is twelve month in the book of Allah the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the valuable religion, so be not unjust to yourselves during them and fight the polytheists collectively as they fight you collectively and know that Allah is with the pious.
[Al Quran ; 9:36]

THE ABOVE 7 OCCURRENCES SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED

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


C- The singular forms:
شهر , Shahr, i.e. Month
الشهر , Al-Shahr, i.e. The Month
شهرا , Shahra, i.e. Month
بالشهر , Bi Al-Shahr, i.e. for the month

Appeared 12 times (should be counted because it is singular):

1 & 2 ?????????????????????¢??
شَهْرُ رَمَضَانَ الَّذِيَ أُنزِلَ فِيهِ الْقُرْآنُ هُدًى لِّلنَّاسِ وَبَيِّنَاتٍ مِّنَ الْهُدَى وَالْفُرْقَانِ فَمَن شَهِدَ مِنكُمُ الشَّهْرَ فَلْيَصُمْهُ وَمَن كَانَ مَرِيضًا أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِّنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ يُرِيدُ اللّهُ بِكُمُ الْيُسْرَ وَلاَ يُرِيدُ بِكُمُ الْعُسْرَ وَلِتُكْمِلُواْ الْعِدَّةَ وَلِتُكَبِّرُواْ اللّهَ عَلَى مَا هَدَاكُمْ وَلَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ (185)
The month of Ramadan is that in which the Quran was sent down , a guidance for the people and proofs of guidance and criterion; so whoever among you witnesses the month, then he should fast it, and whoever is sick or in a journey, then a counted number of other days. Allah wants for you easiness and does not want for you difficulty; and you should complete the count and you should magnify Allah for that to which He has guided you, and that you may give thanks.
[Al Quran ; 2:185]

3 & 4 ?????????????????????¢??
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]

5 ?????????????????????¢??
يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ قِتَالٍ فِيهِ قُلْ قِتَالٌ فِيهِ كَبِيرٌ وَصَدٌّ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ وَكُفْرٌ بِهِ وَالْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ وَإِخْرَاجُ أَهْلِهِ مِنْهُ أَكْبَرُ عِندَ اللّهِ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَكْبَرُ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ وَلاَ يَزَالُونَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ حَتَّىَ يَرُدُّوكُمْ عَن دِينِكُمْ إِنِ اسْتَطَاعُواْ وَمَن يَرْتَدِدْ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُوْلَئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ وَأُوْلَئِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُونَ (217)
They ask you about the sacred month, about fighting therein. Say: Fighting therein is great and hindering from the way of Allah and disbelieving in Him, and (in) the sacred mosque by forcing its people out of it are greater (sin) with Allah. And discord is greater (in sin) than killing; and they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they could. And whoever among you turns back from his religion and dies while he is an unbeliever, then those are the ones whose deeds will be nullified in this life and the hereafter; and they are the companions of the fire, they will be therein abiding.
[Al Quran ; 2:217]

6 ?????????????????????¢??
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تُحِلُّواْ شَعَآئِرَ اللّهِ وَلاَ الشَّهْرَ الْحَرَامَ وَلاَ الْهَدْيَ وَلاَ الْقَلآئِدَ وَلا آمِّينَ الْبَيْتَ الْحَرَامَ يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلاً مِّن رَّبِّهِمْ وَرِضْوَانًا وَإِذَا حَلَلْتُمْ فَاصْطَادُواْ وَلاَ يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ أَن صَدُّوكُمْ عَنِ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ أَن تَعْتَدُواْ وَتَعَاوَنُواْ عَلَى الْبرِّ وَالتَّقْوَى وَلاَ تَعَاوَنُواْ عَلَى الإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ إِنَّ اللّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ (2)
O you who have believed! Do not violate the symbols of Allah or the sacred month, or the offerings, or the garlands, or those coming to the sacred mosque seeking grace from their Lord and (His) pleasure. And when you finish pilgrimage, then you may hunt. And do not let the hatred of the people if they hinder you from the sacred mosque lead you to perpetrate. And help one another in righteousness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and transgression; and fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in punishment.
[Al Quran ; 5:2]

7 ?????????????????????¢??
جَعَلَ اللّهُ الْكَعْبَةَ الْبَيْتَ الْحَرَامَ قِيَامًا لِّلنَّاسِ وَالشَّهْرَ الْحَرَامَ وَالْهَدْيَ وَالْقَلاَئِدَ ذَلِكَ لِتَعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ وَأَنَّ اللّهَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ (97)
Allah has made the Kabah, the sacred house, a place of (prayer) standing for the people, and (has made) the sacred month and the offerings and the garlands. That is so you may know that Allah knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth and that Allah is of everything Knowing.
[Al Quran ; 5:97]

8 ?????????????????????¢??
إِنَّ عِدَّةَ الشُّهُورِ عِندَ اللّهِ اثْنَا عَشَرَ شَهْرًا فِي كِتَابِ اللّهِ يَوْمَ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَات وَالأَرْضَ مِنْهَا أَرْبَعَةٌ حُرُمٌ ذَلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ فَلاَ تَظْلِمُواْ فِيهِنَّ أَنفُسَكُمْ وَقَاتِلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ كَآفَّةً كَمَا يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ كَآفَّةً وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ (36)
Indeed, the number of the months with Allah is twelve month in the book of Allah the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the valuable religion, so be not unjust to yourselves during them and fight the polytheists collectively as they fight you collectively and know that Allah is with the pious.
[Al Quran ; 9:36]

9 & 10 ?????????????????????¢??
وَلِسُلَيْمَانَ الرِّيحَ غُدُوُّهَا شَهْرٌ وَرَوَاحُهَا شَهْرٌ ۖ وَأَسَلْنَا لَهُ عَيْنَ الْقِطْرِ ۖ وَمِنَ الْجِنِّ مَنْ يَعْمَلُ بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِ ۖ وَمَنْ يَزِغْ مِنْهُمْ عَنْ أَمْرِنَا نُذِقْهُ مِنْ عَذَابِ السَّعِيرِ (12)
And to Solaiman, (We subjected) the wind, its morning journey is (like) a month and its afternoon journey is (like) a month, and We melted for him a spring of copper, and of the jinn there were those who worked before him by the permission of his Lord; and whoever deviated among them from Our command, We made him taste of the torture of the blaze.
[Al Quran ; 34:12]

11 ?????????????????????¢??
وَوَصَّيْنَا الْإِنْسَانَ بِوَالِدَيْهِ إِحْسَانًا ۖ حَمَلَتْهُ أُمُّهُ كُرْهًا وَوَضَعَتْهُ كُرْهًا ۖ وَحَمْلُهُ وَفِصَالُهُ ثَلَاثُونَ شَهْرًا ۚ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ أَشُدَّهُ وَبَلَغَ أَرْبَعِينَ سَنَةً قَالَ رَبِّ أَوْزِعْنِي أَنْ أَشْكُرَ نِعْمَتَكَ الَّتِي أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيَّ وَعَلَىٰ وَالِدَيَّ وَأَنْ أَعْمَلَ صَالِحًا تَرْضَاهُ وَأَصْلِحْ لِي فِي ذُرِّيَّتِي ۖ إِنِّي تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَإِنِّي مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ (15)
And We have enjoined upon the human, to his parents, the doing of good. His mother carried him in hardship and delivered him in hardship; and his gestation and his weaning is thirty month; until when he reaches his maturity and reaches forty years, he says: My Lord! Enable me to give thanks for Your favour which You has bestowed upon me and upon my parents, and to do good which pleases You, and make good for me my offspring; indeed, I have repented to You, and indeed, I am of the submitters (to You).
[Al Quran ; 46:15]

12 ?????????????????????¢??
لَيْلَةُ الْقَدْرِ خَيْرٌ مِنْ أَلْفِ شَهْرٍ (3)
The night of the decree is better than a thousand month.
[Al Quran ; 97:3]


THE ABOVE 12 OCCURRENCES SHOULD BE COUNTED

I.e. The Quran used the singular form of the word Month 12 times


Mordegast wrote:
brining the total to 18"


WRONG

The total occurrences of the words Month and Two Months and Months are 21 times grouped as follow:

1- Month (singular) appeared 12 times
2- Two months (dual) appeared 2 times
3- Months (plural) appeared 7 times

Therefore you are certainly dumb to follow some ignorant jerks without qualifying what they spew of crap and lies.

Mordegast wrote:
Ahmed will have to provide examples.


I did and slam dunked you too, welcome to my slam dunk show:

# 79
- Wed 10 Mar, 2010 5:59 pm
Post subject:
Look brother BMZ how one of the goons replied to my slam dunk #79:

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*?



Ahmed said to the FFI goon:

Read the start of my slam dunk, then dismiss yourself, jerk
- Fri 12 Mar, 2010 2:04 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Look brother BMZ how one of the goons replied to my slam dunk #79:

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*?



Ahmed said to the FFI goon:

Read the start of my slam dunk, then dismiss yourself, jerk


Hello, Ahmed

Most of the FFI goons have no brains, no knowledge and are clueless.

They need this "Ashaddal Azaab" known as Slam Dunk Punishment at the right time. Keep on dismissing these clowns.

I don't see KhaliL Fariel writing anymore there. Has he left FFI?

Salaams, mate
BMZ
- Fri 12 Mar, 2010 2:15 pm
Post subject:
BMZ wrote:
I don't see KhaliL Fariel writing anymore there. Has he left FFI?

Salaams, mate
BMZ


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
- Fri 12 Mar, 2010 7:03 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
BMZ wrote:
I don't see KhaliL Fariel writing anymore there. Has he left FFI?

Salaams, mate
BMZ


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


I am sorry to hear that and hope he recovers, fully. If, you can, please post a "Get Well soon" message to KhaliL.

I will look forward to SD #80

Salaams, mate
BMZ
- Fri 12 Mar, 2010 7:58 pm
Post subject:
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


Just did bro, on FFI Lounge, thanks for the nice idea

Salam
- Sat 13 Mar, 2010 12:05 am
Post subject:
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.


Good, I hope it is something new, not one that I slammed before, you know I want the show to be entertaining not bloody boring. So let the show begins:

Wootah wrote:
I'll make my point again.


Good, and to make it take my attention, you as the accuser of whatever need to be short and brief, however me as the defender can talk as much as I want, sounds not fair, but in reality and logically it is very fair, you can have a re-refute which I welcome as it will extend the slam dunk show, possibly a couple more slams.

Wootah wrote:
This sura has 3 ayat in it that are very disturbing to my sensibilities.


Fair enough, now I hope your sensibilities are not as stubborn and dumb as most if not all the kafirs on FFI web site. Crossing my fingers, not pointing the finger nor raising the finger.

Wootah wrote:
Here were my comments on my understanding of them:


Thanks for being very descriptive and organised, the signs look good to me

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.


I think I slam dunked anything said about sura 9 before, so let me bring the verse in here from my site and continue?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦

وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتُ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاء بَعْضٍ يَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلاَةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَيُطِيعُونَ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ أُوْلَئِكَ سَيَرْحَمُهُمُ اللّهُ إِنَّ اللّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (71)
And the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other; they command what is good and forbid what is evil and establish prayer and give Zakat and obey Allah and His messenger. Those are the ones to whom Allah will grant mercy; indeed, Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 9:71]

Hmmmm, that is something new I never replied to before. I say you should never have a problem with it, this is something for the believers, a command from Allah to them and a promise, here is the command: they command what is good and forbid what is evil and establish prayer and give Zakat and obey Allah and His messenger. And here is the promise: Those are the ones to whom Allah will grant mercy;

So it is a mere command and a promise, unless your itch is caused by this part from the verse: they are guardians of each other; ? Hmmm, so what? Do you want the sincere believers (men and women) to be described as enemies of each other or something?

Now, it seems that you also misunderstand the above verse, the believers are described as guardians (protectors) to each other, however they were commanded to يَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ , i.e. they command what is good and forbid what is evil APPLIES TO ALL, i.e. the sincere Muslims (men ans women) who establish prayer and give Zakat and obey Allah and His messenger. , not any Muslim for that matter.

Therefore the verse above is directed at ONLY the SINCERE MUSLIMS, not every Muslim. For sure you know a lot of Muslims who do not pray at all, drink alcohol everyday and hardly give money to the poor, therefore the above verse does not apply to them.

Wootah wrote:
9:73 - Be harsh with unbelievers. I would imagine that would entail doing harsh things?


Let me bring the verse in here:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ (73)
O Prophet! Strive against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh to them. And their refuge will be hell, and miserable is the destination.
[Al Quran ; 9:73]

Lol, I have replied to this before. Again, the above applies to the Muslims ON A MUSLIM LAND against the Kuffar who work hard to violate the SHARIA ON THE MUSLIM LAND, specifically Mecca. Try to read the surah from the beginning to end so you come to grasp to its message and moral of the story, do not be dumb as those freaks on FFI who pick and choose what suits their crap.

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?

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 by chasing those who attacked them complies 100% with the above message and command from Allah

For me the Kuffar and Hypocrites are those who commit atrocities in the land and kill masses of innocent humans.

Therefore being harsh against the enemy who attack you on your land is the message of the above verse, and it is indeed adhered to by anyone all over the history without exception, being on individuals or on societies levels

If I know that someone is working hard to kill me and take my land, I must work harder to kill him, but not to take his land.

You have no point, pal

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.


Let me bring the verse in here:

يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللّهِ مَا قَالُواْ وَلَقَدْ قَالُواْ كَلِمَةَ الْكُفْرِ وَكَفَرُواْ بَعْدَ إِسْلاَمِهِمْ وَهَمُّواْ بِمَا لَمْ يَنَالُواْ وَمَا نَقَمُواْ إِلاَّ أَنْ أَغْنَاهُمُ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ فَإِن يَتُوبُواْ يَكُ خَيْرًا لَّهُمْ وَإِن يَتَوَلَّوْا يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللّهُ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ وَمَا لَهُمْ فِي الأَرْضِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلاَ نَصِيرٍ (74)
They swear by Allah that they did not say. And they have certainly said the word of disbelief and disbelieved after their ISLAM (to Allah) and intended that which they would not attain. And they did not resent except that Allah and His messenger enriched them out of His grace. 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.
[Al Quran ; 9:74]

The verse above is talking about the hypocrites from among the fake Muslims, so you have no point again.

Now your argument concerning this bit: وَمَا لَهُمْ فِي الأَرْضِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلاَ نَصِيرٍ , i.e. and there will not be for them on earth any guardian or a helper. is nothing but wishful thinking motivated by your programmed hatred to Islam. If you read the whole verse and not picking a sentence from it to stimulate your corrupt mind, you should know that the verse is talking about the hypocrites from among the Muslims who will be punished by Allah for their hypocrisy in the life of this world and in the hereafter and through such punishment, they will have no guardian or helper (being from the kafirs or being from the Muslims or being from any other man made gods) to repel such punishment, see this:

يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللّهِ مَا قَالُواْ وَلَقَدْ قَالُواْ كَلِمَةَ الْكُفْرِ وَكَفَرُواْ بَعْدَ إِسْلاَمِهِمْ , i.e. They swear by Allah that they did not say. And they have certainly said the word of disbelief and disbelieved after their ISLAM (to Allah) , i.e. the verse is talking about the hypocrites from among the Muslims not the kafirs, so you need to butt out of it. Try to bring something related to you as a kafir. I hope you got it now.

Wootah wrote:
I would regard each 3 of these ayat as evidence of the following.


Ok, you are very organised, so what I am about to read is your summary of the above, very good.

Wootah wrote:
- Muslims are to only be friends with each other


To translate the word Awliaa as Friends is very dumb or at best nothing but an act of ignorance, the word Awliaa means Guardians or Protectors, not Friends, the Quran used the explicit words for Friends Ashab or Sadiq zillions of times.

And of course Muslims have to be protectors and guardians to each other, but hey, do you see them doing so? Of course not, most Muslim nations are fighting each other, in fact within the same nation, different sects are fighting together, and even more, within the same sect, Muslims are fighting together, therefore while the above message is certainly moral and practical in any society (being Muslim or whatever) i.e. to be guardians to each other, most Muslims do not do that. So you have no bloody point again.

Wootah wrote:
- Muslims are not to be friends with non-Muslims


The dumb conclusion above was based on the wrong stimulate for your faulty brain which is motivated by your hidden hatred to Islam which is making you fukin blind to see that what the Quran is talking about is currently and always practised (or at least should be practised) by any bloody nation or religion or group in any bloody generation

Wootah wrote:
- Muslims are to be harsh with non-Muslims.


Anyone should be harsh while defending their land and themselves against those who want to make mischief in their land or those who attack them on their land. The Americans are very good example for that and I totally support them. I support them because it is logically so, and because that is the exact moral of the story from verse 9:73

Wootah wrote:
- Non-Muslims have no protection on earth and as such Muslims should not help or assist non-Muslims.


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:
Now is it your turn?


My turn must end your next turn, because the subject has been slammed, here it is and let?????????????????????¢??s move on and talk the next new slam:

# 80

Cheers
- Sat 13 Mar, 2010 4:23 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

Slam dunk #80 continued a bit, so let?????????????????????¢??s see what happened:

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.


No pal, you dont need saws, this is a further insult to Allah by abbreviating His name to letter a in saws, just call him Muhammed, do not make it hard for yourself, just take it easy:

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.


I like FFI site because their moderators and owners are very fair, I don?????????????????????¢??t like tyranny on any level from anyone one

And thanks for editing the name Muahmmed, I think what I asked for is fair, that is if you want to have a civil and logical discussion with me, on the other hand my civility does not prevent me from using tough words that may be classified as insults, you can do the same to me, I have no problem with that, in fact it is very good way of learning how to control anger.

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.


Fair enough. I asked for the verses before it and after because the Quran explains itself, ad most answers are found in the verses before or after the verse the kafirs are picking on, so I asked you to bring it to make you have another look on them just in case, however the answer for some arguments may be in the same verse or the same sura or in the rest of the Quran, but the majority are in verses before or after the verse in question.

The idea of the Quran explains itself is not something that I invented, it is actually stated in the Quran, Allah said n the Quran that upon Him is its explanation, therefore we must use His own words in the rest of the Quran to look for answers, this is how the logical and practical way of Him explaining it, it is not like He will come down ad explain it to us face to face.

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.


The relationship regarding belief between believers has to be different to the relationship between the kafirs and the believers, this is bloody logical, now the whole surah 9 is talking about Mecca and the re-claiming of the House of Allah, i.e. we are talking about purely Muslim land and its laws, if you are not happy with it as a kafir, then do not bloody live there and you will be better off living in a kafir land, despite the fact that if you live as a peaceful kafir in a Muslim land, you will be treated with hospitality and honour just in case you might get the message of belief, this was explained clearly in the same surah, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look, shall we:

وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ اللّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ (6)
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. That is because they are a people who do not know.
[Al Quran ; 9:6]

-> 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. How clear, the verse stated to protect the kafirs if they seek protection so he can hear the word of Allah, then we should deliver him to his place of safety, the verse did not even conditioned that for us to deliver them to their places of safety, they should believe first after they hear the words of Allah, of course the verse never stated the condition of believing for such good treatment and protection.

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?


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.

The Quran only commands the Muslims not to seek protection from or protect the kafirs in religious matters, 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.

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.


Oh please, you just shot the dumb kafirs between the eyes, they accuse the Muslims of Tu quque or whatever they fukin 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.

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

If he was that nice to his people, why you think that they conspired to humiliate him in public then kill him?

Don?????????????????????¢??t come back with that Christian crap that he had to die for our sins, this is just fukin 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 fukin forgive the sins, how fukin 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:
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.


Dismissed

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?


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.

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.


Of course Allah can do anything at anytime and without being questionable about what He does.

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.


Come on, you are not going to get me some stupid stories from Bukhari Springer and his pals hadith show.

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 fuking 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:
But this is why Jesus was God and we aren't.


How fukin 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:
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.


Dismissed

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.


No one will be able to do anything to me unless Allah permits, therefore I have nothing to fear from and certainly I fear not anyone from my home country whom I am sure read my content on facebook using my real name, I travel a lot to Egypt and have no problem

I am not politically motivated, I am only religiously motivated.

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.


So fukin 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 fukin hypocrite you are, America killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians including women ad children wiping two developed cities out of existence in a fukin flash

So let me use the American excuse then:

The Quran commands us to kill our enemy so by doing so we prevent more killings. Hahahaha fukin hahahahaha

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.


I explained the part of ?????????????????????¢??If they turn away?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? above, read again

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.


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:
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.


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:
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.'


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.

Wootah wrote:
Q:What on earth is an insincere muslim that does not repent and turns away?


Was explained before, read again

Wootah wrote:
A: An apostate.
B: A really really insincere Muslim.


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:
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?


Wishful thinking is dismissed

You need to move on to the next argument, your argument inhere is thoroughly smashed not just slammed
-------------------------

Then one of the hardcore enemy of Islam and my stalker (for over 5 years now) pisscohot came in to cause confusion and disturbance to any dialogue I have any decent kafir, so inmate pisscohot said:

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?


Then wootah said to him:

Wootah wrote:
I know I've seen that somewhere as well. Where is that said?


So I had to say to wootah:

Oh come on wootah, dont listen to filthy freak who is harassing me for over 5 years now, that is why I have to put him where he belongs, the life dismissal wing, my cyber jail, I once was really nice and polite to him, on another web site though, but after his clear hatred and black intentions was confirmed, he was life dismissed and I also have the power to life dismiss anyone who goes hand in hand with my clear cut enemy who hates me very much (but ironically they like something in me somehow)

So do not bloody ask him, I will kow how to get you the verse quicker than anyone, in fact and I swear by the mighty Allah that while writing my reply, I thought that you might come back with such counter argument so I am fully ready for it and I know well how the Quran replies to it, so if you want to continue this slam through such stupid line of argument, go for it, it will just adds another slam to my show

Also I have no problem that you seek the help of, or go hand in hand with, another decent kafir that is not one of my clear cut enemies. Like Khlail, or Bunny for examples and possibly some nice ladies in here, Ariel and a few others, but please stay away from the following lowlifes and life dismissal inmates through any dialogue you have with me,

Pisscohot
Bin Lyin
Cassie

I have no obligation to continue talking with one who seeks the help of my clear cut enemies

They only come to cause disturbance and confusion through my dialogues with others

So it is all in your hands to control this

Salam
-----------------------

Then I decided to slam dunk inmate pisscohot to send him where he belongs, the lowlife wing in my Cyber prison:

Ahmed chose to reply to one of the filthiest inmates.

My reply will also include a slam dunk to send him back to his cell where his boyfriend is waiting eagerly for him:

piscohot wrote:
hypocrites need to repent their hypocrisy?
you meant they need to become muslims again after their disbelief?


Ahmed says

Who is that?

Inmate piss. Look inmate I warned you before not to come out of your cell without a written permission from me, therefore your stuidity has to be exposed and slammed, but that is not all, after the slam, I will send you to solitary confinement for the next 2 months. So let the slam begins:

You dumb filthy arse said: they need to become muslims again after their disbelief

I say, let me bring the verse in here again you blind:

يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللّهِ مَا قَالُواْ وَلَقَدْ قَالُواْ كَلِمَةَ الْكُفْرِ وَكَفَرُواْ بَعْدَ إِسْلاَمِهِمْ وَهَمُّواْ بِمَا لَمْ يَنَالُواْ وَمَا نَقَمُواْ إِلاَّ أَنْ أَغْنَاهُمُ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ فَإِن يَتُوبُواْ يَكُ خَيْرًا لَّهُمْ وَإِن يَتَوَلَّوْا يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللّهُ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ وَمَا لَهُمْ فِي الأَرْضِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلاَ نَصِيرٍ (74)
They swear by Allah that they did not say (the word of disbelief). And they have certainly said the word of disbelief and disbelieved after their ISLAM (to Allah) and intended that which they would not attain. And they did not resent except that Allah and His messenger enriched them out of His grace. 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.
[Al Quran ; 9:74]

See the first few words in the verse you dumb:

They swear by Allah that they did not say (the word of disbelief). i.bloody e., they are claiming and swearing by Allah that they are Muslims

How about we try it in bigger font, possibly you will be able to see it:

They swear by Allah that they did not say (the word of disbelief).

Was that big enough, or you like it he biggest? How dumb I am, certainly an inmate like you, likes it the biggest, so let's try the biggest:

They swear by Allah that they did not say (the word of disbelief).

You happy now?

I dont think so, let me try something else to make you feel great:

They swear by Allah that they did not say (the word of disbelief).

I can see the smile on your face now, punk, but hold on, the slam is coming:

# 81

Back to your cell inmate to serve your two months solitary confinement
---------------------------

Then I decided to slam dunk wootah again for seeking the help of one of my clear cut enemies and stalkers:

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.


Ahmed says:

That was not a threat, I do not threaten people, I just play with open cards, so I was honest to tell you in advance, so if you see me changing my attitude with you to be far worth or just totally ignore you, you should know why

Now, you asked me the question, so let me bring the verses in here. Not strangely that they are from the same sura # 9. You do not even want to do what I asked you to do, which is to read sura 9 from start to finish more than once, this is not for my benefit, it is certainly for your benefit, not to believe in it, but at least to understand it so you do not ask the Muslims stupid questions

The verse being in sura 9 while you did not know nor that freak inmate pisscohot, confirms without a doubt how ignorant you kafirs are with the Quran, let me bring the verse in here:

قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُّؤْمِنِينَ (14)
Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the hearts of a believing people.
[Al Quran ; 9:14]

-> The verse clearly says: Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them, i.e. we are talking about a war in here, in fact if we read a couple of verses before we will be able to see the clear black intentions of the kafirs towards the Muslims on a Muslim land where the House of Allah is located:

وَإِن نَّكَثُواْ أَيْمَانَهُم مِّن بَعْدِ عَهْدِهِمْ وَطَعَنُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ فَقَاتِلُواْ أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ إِنَّهُمْ لاَ أَيْمَانَ لَهُمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَنتَهُونَ (12)
And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there is no oath to them. Perhaps they might cease.
[Al Quran ; 9:12]

Can you see their crimes toward the Muslim on a Muslim land: they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion,, and even that was said as if they do that then we should do that وَإِن, i.e. And if

The verse above to encouraging the Muslims to fight the enemy of the Muslims, not to fight the peaceful kafirs, that was obvious by the possible action of the kafirs as stated in the verse that IF they do that crimes, then we should fight them, in fact the next verse listed another crime to their crimes, let's see:

أَلاَ تُقَاتِلُونَ قَوْمًا نَّكَثُواْ أَيْمَانَهُمْ وَهَمُّواْ بِإِخْرَاجِ الرَّسُولِ وَهُم بَدَؤُوكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ أَتَخْشَوْنَهُمْ فَاللّهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَوْهُ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤُمِنِينَ (13)
Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and intended to expel the messenger, and began (to attack) you the first time? Do you fear them? And Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you should be believers.
[Al Quran ; 9:13]

How clear, pal, see their crimes against the Muslims:

broke their oaths and intended to expel the messenger Can't it get clearer than that? Well it can actually, the same verse is telling us that even the kafirs are the ones WHO STARTED IT, see: وَهُم بَدَؤُوكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ, i.e. [size=150]and began (to attack) you the first time[/size]

Here you have it, and as I told you, it will be another irrefutable slam added to my slam dunk show:

# 82

Stay away from freak pisscohot, pal, he is going to secure your seat in hell
- Sat 13 Mar, 2010 4:49 pm
Post subject:
Another comment by Wootah that I replied to:

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.


Then under your own golden rule which is nothing but an ethical code that states one has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others. The kafirs and Mushriks of Mecca should be right and just to the original owners of the House of Allah, the worshippers of the One God, not bloody:

1- Break their treaty that they took with the Muslims
2- Defame the religion of Islam on a Muslim land
3- Work hard to expel the prophet of Islam from the land of Islam

Therefore under your own golden rule and with what we learnt from sura 9, you have no bloody point. If your pals from among the kafirs and Mushriks of Mecca do not adhere to the golden rule, why should the Muslims do?

Well, the Muslims are adhering to the common and logical rule which is a common rule also in your Bible, which is simply, an eye for an eye

If you are going to attack me, I will attack you

And if you are going to be peaceful kafir and seek my protection, then I am obliged to provide such protection for you as commanded by Allah in 9:6

You are not on the money; rather you are on your way to hell, pal.

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....


Well, I showed enough verses, however if you intimidate me again, I may think about walking you through all sura 9, but that is a lot of work for me and I am a busy man, therefore I have to see if it will be a mother of all slams first to be encouraged to do it (I explained most verses in sura 9 many times before anyway), but if it will be just another slam, I don?????????????????????¢??t think I will be that encouraged, I have slammed you enough and I think, there will be a possible slam in this reply.

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.


Are you dumb or something? I said bloody the peaceful kafirs have higher degree than any Muslim because the Quran flagged those peaceful kafirs as one to whom the Muslim are obliged to provide protection to and deliver them to their places of safety, which was not said about the Muslims. So dismiss yourself

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,


There is no faults in here, but if there is any, then it is your fault to not to understand the common sense that the owners of the land are bloody free to implement any bloody laws they want, if the foreigners do not like it, then simply they need to piss off and find another place, let me give you three examples, ignorant:

- In Egypt, they issued a law to prevent wearing Niqab in schools, Muslims went mad, but hey, if you do not like it, bloody leave and try to live in Iran, Afghanistan or something like that.

- In Sweden or possibly another country, they issued a law to prevent building any new mosques with long towers in them (Muslim style), the muslims went mad, but hey, if they do not like it, tough luck, they need to piss off and possibly live in Egypt, the land of million mosques

- In France, they issued a new law to prevent wearing al Burqah, Muslim went mad, but as we know, tough luck, they can piss off if they do not like it, possibly Saudi Arabia will be a good country for them, that is, if the Saudis are generous enough to allow them to live there and obtain a Saudi citizenship.

Look I started to get the sense that you are only robbing me of my valued time, which is no in my books, it seems to me that you are not living a real world, possibly a world you created in your Barbie world where your golden pinky rule is the only rule.

But I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to reply but if I will find you continuing on that crap that can only be by one in his late teen or possibly early twenties, sorry I will not be able to continue, I will have to salvage every second of my time. And if you are in your twenties, try to come up to me in my forties, I am sick and tired of going down to you, pal.

Wootah wrote:
you know it and I know it. Silly West, wake up.


Well, that was total crap,

For me it is, silly Muslims, smart west

You have no bloody point again, I told you pal, you are in your twenties

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.


Well or the Americans who killed 200,000 innocent heads in under one second

You are nothing but a confused deluded blind kafir bound to hell

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.


And how many times the word sword appeared in your corrupt bible?

Yeh let?????????????????????¢??s play that game:

The word sword appeared in your corrupt Bible at least 400 times (KJV)

Now let?????????????????????¢??s see how many times the word appeared in the Quran?

Zero

LOL, dismiss yourself, confused Christian

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.


So Jesus the god could not even convince his creatures when he even appeared to them face to face. What a laughable man made god that is

Dismiss yourself, confused Christian

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.


And why so?

Is it justice to punish someone else for others?????????????????????¢?? crimes, confused Christian?

Wootah wrote:
Have you ever been to court?


LOL, can you guess?

Look pal, I have the ability to beat lawyers, prosecutors, police officers/sergeants, expert witnesses and even influence the Judges to rule for me, that is an experience of over 25 years btw, in two countries. So watch out who you are talking to.

So what is special about courts, mister courtney? I have a feeling that I may learn something new in here about courts that I am not aware of, let me see:

Wootah wrote:
Imagine if I robbed from you and we went to court and the judge said, "I forgive you Wootah.


And all evidences convicts your arse?

Then the Judge is a jerk or possibly corrupt and will be expelled sooner than later

The one who should forgive in here is not the Judge mister. Judges have no power to forgive criminals, judges are only restricted to use clauses in laws that were made by the law makers. If a law gives the judge right to use leniency under special circumstances, then so be it, but it cannot be offered freely on a plate of gold, it seems to me that you have not been in court before, or possibly you have, but courts in your Barbie world of imagination.

The only one who has right to forgive will be me as the victim, and this will earn you that I wont chase other ways in civil courts to reclaim damages you caused to me especially psychological damage and fear of public places, or even fear for my own safety in my own home, but even if I do that, the Judge still has to convict you for violating the criminal laws.

Courts are not like giving your second cheek, confused Christian.

Wootah wrote:
" You would think the judge was unjust.


It cannot happen, pal

I do not want to live with you your Barbie world of imagination.

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?


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.

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.


Then you have no point, please dismiss yourself.

Wootah wrote:
But as I said, Muslims would not be kind to someone that even Allah wants to castigate.


Well, then they are wrong, because for those who have an issue with God, the issue is between them and their God, others need to butt out of it, being whoever.

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.


Dismissed

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.


You cannot from the first place, because you know well that I will dismiss them on the fly.

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?


Because Allah is guiding them to the truth in the Quran.

Wootah wrote:
Western morality is superior and not compatible with so much that is traditional Islam.


Morality is morality, I refuse to put an adjective before it to categorise it by races, cultures or religions,

There is bad and good things in what you call western morality, and there is bad and good things in other moralities

For religions, moralities can only be judged by what their scriptures state, now if you dare to go there, we will be starting a very long Quran/Bible show that will end with the Quran scoring all the slams and your Bible scoring 0. So I advice you to not to go there, and if you do, I will just ignore you.

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.


There will be a lot of issues you will need to defend especially if I raise it using my own words, dare not, pal

Wootah wrote:
Forget Jesus for now,


Of course not, because your Bible confirms that he could have never been a god who died for others?????????????????????¢?? sins.

Wootah wrote:
Mohammad was immoral in so many ways ... how can't you see that?


In many of the hearsay stories from Bukhari Springer and his pals hadith show, I totally agree, but again, these are man made stories which are the results of many hearsay by many people, and as you might know that hearsay in any court is dismissed. Not sure about your Barbie court though, I guess Judge Barbie accepts all hearsay presented to her honour as evidences

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.


Which was explained thoroughly that it means those kafirs and hypocrites who plot for the Muslims on their Muslim land to:

1- Break the treaty they signed
2- Defame the religion of Islam
3- Expel the prophet from his Islamic land

Now, if you to apply your Barbie golden rule, then it should be applied on the perpetrators first.

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.


Well, let me say it clear as light then. Anyone will be my enemy if they:

1- Defame Allah
2- Defame any of the prophets
3- Defame any of the angels
4- Defame the religion of Islam

And when I say anyone, I mean anyone, even those confused Muslims from among the sectarian Muslims.

In effect, if you say lies about my religion you will be treated the same as those who lied about my religion in the man made books of hadith and sirah, no bloody exception

Now, how I treat my enemy?

Very simple

1- An eye for an eye
2- An insult for an insult
3- A mock for a mock
4- A cartoon for a cartoon
5- A punch for a punch
6- A kick for kick
7- And if my enemy plots to kill me or expel me from my land on the account of my religion belief, then I must plot to kill them if they refused peaceful resolution.

And that is my Golden Rule.

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.


I called those who do not establish prayer and other obligatory laws ordained by Allah upon the 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.


Well, read what I said before concerning surah 9, which I walked others through from verse 1 many times before, you should find it on my slam dunk show on my web site.

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.


An apostate who leaves the religion, then work hard to defame it and cause harm to it, can not be dealt with an apostate any more, rather an enemy, who should be dealt with according to my Golden Rule, which is based on the Quran btw.

Now, in regards to dealing with peaceful apostates, they should be left untouched according to the Quran.

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.


Deluding yourself won?????????????????????¢??t help you. You are on your way to hell.

Wootah wrote:
I wasn't confident at first,


And you still are and I will make sure to keep you as such in any debate you have with me.

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.


Bring them all, pal

The slam dunk machine is 100% ready all the times but still if I choose so.

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)


The unbelievers and the hypocrites who do the followings:

1- Break the treaty they signed
2- Defame the religion of Islam
3- Expel the prophet from his Islamic land

Wootah wrote:
9:74 If they repent then stop being harsh but if they turn away God will get them.


If they repent from doing the followings:

1- Break the treaty they signed
2- Defame the religion of Islam
3- Expel the prophet from his Islamic land


Wootah wrote:
Your reply is that this verse is for insincere Muslims which are called hypocrites. Well what is a hypocrite that turns away?


Again I explained this many times, go and read sura 9 again, the hypocrites are mentioned 8 times in there, as well hypocrisy is mentioned 3 times.

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.


And even so, what we should do to the apostates according to the Quran?

We should leave them untouched unless they defame the religion and in this case they should be dealt with as enemies according to my Golden Rule

Wootah wrote:
I would regard each 3 of these ayat as evidence of the following.


As if your regards have any value after I totally demolished your crap, possibly you want to entertain the dumb kafirs on FFI, which is fair, at the end of the day FFI is a kafir web site designed to attack and defame Islam.

Wootah wrote:
- Muslims don't follow the golden rule.


Of course they do not follow your Barbie golden pinky rule

Muslims should follow my Golden Rule which I based on the Quran and even common laws practiced by most developed countries.

Wootah wrote:
- Muslims are to be harsh with non-Muslims. (Sure not to the Dhimmi's but who wants to be a dhimmi)


Repeating your crap and confusion will not help you, Muslims should be harsh with any group of people who do any of the followings:

1- Break any treaty they signed
2- Defame the religion of Islam
3- Expel the Muslims from his Islamic land

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 ....


They will have no protection on earth and on he hereafter from the punishment of Allah by anyone except by Allah

Wootah wrote:
ps: Ahmed you aren't really going to use the sword verse in your defence are you?


What sword verse?

The one in your Bible?

Why not? The sword is mentioned in your Bible at least 400 times, so we have plenty of material with which I can play with you for very long time. Now, how many times the word sword is mentioned in the Quran?

Zero

Haha

Have a nice day
- Sat 13 Mar, 2010 4:56 pm
Post subject:
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:

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?


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
- Sat 13 Mar, 2010 11:49 pm
Post subject:
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:

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?


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


Well done, Ahmed

The problem is that most of the polemicists and FFI goons really have no knowledge of Qur'aan at all.

If this poster had read Qur'aan, he would have known of this verse from 4:116

إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاء وَمَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللّهِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلاَلاً بَعِيدًا



Salaams
BMZ
- Sun 14 Mar, 2010 8:08 am
Post subject:
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".


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 (88)
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

Wootah wrote:
Does this mean repent or convert? You offered 4 answers earlier:


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

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?


They belong to # 4 above. CLEARLY

Wootah wrote:
Is the notion of 'turn away' the same as 'turn back'?


Sort of,

Walla = turn away

Walla Zahrahu = turn away while showing his back

Simply: Reject something.
- Mon 15 Mar, 2010 3:47 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
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".


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 (8Cool
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

Wootah wrote:
Does this mean repent or convert? You offered 4 answers earlier:


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

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?


They belong to # 4 above. CLEARLY

Wootah wrote:
Is the notion of 'turn away' the same as 'turn back'?


Sort of,

Walla = turn away

Walla Zahrahu = turn away while showing his back

Simply: Reject something.


Hello, Ahmed

Mate that was not only a Slam Dunk but you really pissed both of them out so well. Clap

Salaams
BMZ
- Tue 06 Apr, 2010 4:37 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
BMZ wrote:
I don't see KhaliL Fariel writing anymore there. Has he left FFI?

Salaams, mate
BMZ


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


i think he must have found the truth about Islam and became Muslim
but i really miss him a lot

Mushtaq
- Wed 07 Apr, 2010 6:42 am
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
BMZ wrote:
I don't see KhaliL Fariel writing anymore there. Has he left FFI?

Salaams, mate
BMZ


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


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
- Fri 09 Apr, 2010 1:39 am
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
BMZ wrote:
I don't see KhaliL Fariel writing anymore there. Has he left FFI?

Salaams, mate
BMZ


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


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


There must be some good reason. Looking at the Khalil, we saw, he would not miss FFI at all.

Yes, quite possible. Parvez may be right.

Shall we say, "Reborn"? Very Happy

I don't see many Muslims on FFI either. Looks like FFI will start creating their own Muslims.

Salaam, bros.
- Fri 09 Apr, 2010 3:25 pm
Post subject:
BMZ wrote:
I don't see many Muslims on FFI either. Looks like FFI will start creating their own Muslims.

Salaam, bros.


Lol mate, you always crack me up laughing

Salam
- Fri 09 Apr, 2010 7:50 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
BMZ wrote:
I don't see many Muslims on FFI either. Looks like FFI will start creating their own Muslims.

Salaam, bros.


Lol mate, you always crack me up laughing

Salam


Very Happy

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
- Fri 09 Apr, 2010 8:09 pm
Post subject:
BMZ wrote:
Very Happy

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


I can actually hit her with 5 group slams in one post, however she is too dumb to reply to, but when I have sometime to waste, I will hit her kafir arse with 5 slams at once

Thanks for bringing this to my attention mate, I think she will be slamed pretty soon as I get bored quickly, and when i get bored, my medicine is my slam dunk show
- Sun 18 Apr, 2010 8:53 am
Post subject:
Stoning half the adulterer and adulteress

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:
-----------------------
Salam all

Last year I have written a note titled as follow:

<b>الله لا يشرك في حكمه احدا</b>. I.e. <b>Allah does not take partners for His judgement from ANYONE</b>.

You can read it on the following link: Click here

In which I posted the following verse:

قُلِ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا لَبِثُوا ۖ لَهُ غَيْبُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ أَبْصِرْ بِهِ وَأَسْمِعْ ۚ مَا لَهُمْ مِنْ دُونِهِ مِنْ وَلِيٍّ وَلَا يُشْرِكُ فِي حُكْمِهِ أَحَدًا (26)

Say: Allah knows best how long they stayed; to Him is the unknown of the heavens and the earth; how Seeing is He and how Hearing. They do not have other than Him any guardian, and He does not share His judgment with anyone.
[Al Quran ; 18:26]

Then I explained an important information in the above verse as stated below:

<b>ولا يشرك في حكمه احدا </b>, <b> and He does not share His judgment with anyone.</b>

I.e. <b> الله لا يشرك في حكمه احدا </b>, <b>Allah does not take partners for His judgement from ANYONE</b>

Then I explained that the word <b> احدا </b>, i.e. <b>anyone</b> in the above verse should cover EVERYONE you can imagine, then I gave you some examples which the word should cover:

Muhammed, Isa, Musa, Ibrahim, Bukhari, your mosque Imam, your Mufti, your Mullah, your Sheikh, you and certainly me.

Then I explained for the zillion and one time : <u><b> حكم الله على الزانى و الزانية </b></u>, i.e. <b>The judgement of Allah concerning the adulterer and adultereress</b>, which is stated clearly in the Quran as shown below:

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ ۖ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُمْ بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۖ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (2)

The woman and the man who commit adultery, lash each of them a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let their torture be witnessed by a group of the believers.
[Al Quran ; 24:2]

But the whole world knows now that Al-Mushrikoon from among the Muslims are not happy with the above clear law from Allah; Al-Mushrikoon from among <b>اهل السنة و الجماعة</b> <b>Ahl Al-Sunnah wa Jamaa?????????????????????¢??a</b>, I mean <b>اهل السنة و الشرك</b>, <b>Ahl Al-Sunnah wa Al-Shirk</b>, are telling us that Allah took a partner for His judgment from among the humans, i.e. they are telling us that: <b>الله اشرك فى حكمه احدا</b>, i.e. that <b> Allah took a human as a partner for His judgement </b>.

They are telling us that Quran verse 24:2 only covers any Zani and Zania from among <u>the unmarried men and women</u>, i.e. it only covers half the judgment. Consequently they made a partner to Allah to create the second half of the judgment which should cover any Zani and Zania from among <u>the married men and women</u>

They are telling us that, for any Zani and Zania from among the married men and women, the punishment is to kill them by stoning as stated by someone or a few. Something that was never stated in the Quran. Their actions clearly means that they committed shirk by taking half judgment for adultery from Allah, <u>WHILE</u> taking the other half from a human, at the same time.

Let me assume for a moment that they are right; in this case it will be evident that those Mushrikoon from among the Muslims have created a huge and unsolveable contradiction in the judgment of Allah as follow:

- We know well that Zina (adultery) is Fahisha as seen below:

وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَا ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا (32)

And do not go near adultery; indeed, it is ever an indecency and an evil way.
[Al Quran ; 17:32]

- We also know that any women from among <b>ما ملكت ايماننا</b>, i.e. from <b>what our oaths possess</b> who commits adultery, should be punished with <u>HALF</u> the punishment of a free woman. Here is the verse from Quran telling us what to do with a <u>MARRIED</u> woman from <b>ما ملكت ايماننا</b>, i.e. from <b>what our oaths possess</b>, if she commits adultery:

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَن تَصْبِرُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (25)
And whoever among you cannot afford to marry the protected and believing women, then (marry) of those whom your oaths possess from among your believing young women. And Allah is most Knowing of your oaths between yourselves; so marry them with the permission of their families, and give them their rewards lawfully if they seek protection (for themselves) not fornicating or receiving paramours. And if they protect themselves (through marriage) then commit an indecency, then upon them is half the torture which should be upon the protected women. That is for one who fears affliction from among you. And if you are patient, it is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 4:25]

Clearly, the verse above is talking about a married woman from <b>ما ملكت ايماننا</b>, i.e. <b>what our oaths possess</b>, who commits adultery, see the following key sentences:

<b> ومن لم يستطع منكم طولا ان ينكح المحصنات المؤمنات<u> فمن ما ملكت ايمانكم</u> من فتياتكم المؤمنات </b>

I.e. <b>And whoever among you cannot afford to marry the protected and believing women, then (marry) of those whom your oaths possess from among your believing young women.</b> And that should be after taking the permission of their parents:
<b>
فانكحوهن باذن اهلهن واتوهن اجورهن بالمعروف
</b>
I.e. <b> so marry them with the permission of their families, and give them their rewards lawfully </b>

But the same verse is telling us that if anyone of those <u>married</u> women from <b>ما ملكت ايماننا</b>, i.e. from <b>what our oaths possess</b> commits adultery, we should punish her with <u>HALF</u> the punishment of a free married woman:
<b>
فاذا احصن فان اتين بفاحشة فعليهن نصف ما علي المحصنات من العذاب
</b>
i.e. <b> And if they protect themselves (through marriage) then commit an indecency, then upon them is half the torture which should be upon the protected women.</b>

Now, the punishment for any Zania (adultereress) from among the married free women should be stoning her to death according to Al-Mushrikoon from among the Muslims.

So my dear friend Hany Mohsen and myself ask those dumb bums from among Al-Mushrikoon:

What is the punishment of a married adultereress from among <b>ما ملكت ايماننا</b>, i.e. from among <b>what our oaths possess</b>?

They should answer that it should be half the punishment of an adultereress from among the free women according to 4:25

Which is certainly the right answer; so we ask them again, what is half the punishment of stoning a married woman to death, who committed adultery, ?

<b>Is it, to stone her to half death?</b>

Or

<b>Is it, to stone half of her to death?</b>

Of course the above question can never be answered by anyone from among those dumb bum Mushrikoon, even by the hard core Mushriks from among them.

This mother of all slams by my dear friend Hany Mohsen should send all those Mushrikoon and their followers to the dumbest rubbish bin on the planet; possibly they might give heed and listen to Allah words alone and realize that <b>الله لا يشرك في حكمه احدا</b>, i.e. <b>Allah does not take partners for His judgement from ANYONE</b>, otherwise we must have a clear cut contradiction in the judgment of Allah.

Now, if we take the judgment of Allah alone without shirking it with man made judgment, we should have no problem, because:

According to Allah alone, an adultereress from the free/married or free/unmarried women <b>should be lashed 100 lashes in public.</b>

Consequently , an adultereress from among the married women of <b>ما ملكت ايماننا</b>, i.e. from <b>what our oaths possess</b>. or the unmarried women of <b>ما ملكت ايماننا</b>, i.e. from <b>what our oaths possess</b>, should be lashed <b>50 lashes in public.</b>

What a mother of all slams by my dear friend Hany Mohsen. Irrefutable, and my sincere thanks to him. May Allah bless him for that.

Let?????????????????????¢??s see how Al-Mushrikoon will tap dance and spin around trying hard to find an excuse for the above contradiction they created by their own shirk through their submission to Iblis.

I seek refuge in Allah; and indeed, His Quran:

لَا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِنْ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ ۖ تَنْزِيلٌ مِنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ (42)
Falsehood cannot come to it from before it nor from behind it; descended from a (Lord Who is) Wise and Praised.
[Al Quran ; 41:42]

And here is the mother of all slams:



Salam
- Sun 18 Apr, 2010 12:10 pm
Post subject:
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:


Well done, Ahmed.

The problem is that these folks shamelessly try to justify unreliable hadith by misinterpreting Qur'aan, which is a big crime.

There is no death punishment prescribed for adultery or fornication or any other kind of fucking or illicit sexual relationship.

The word Zina covers all.

Good slam dunk.

Salaams
BMZ
- Tue 27 Apr, 2010 6:39 pm
Post subject:
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
- Tue 27 Apr, 2010 7:21 pm
Post subject:
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



Ahmed, narrate this story to the hardcore Jesus freaks and goons at FFI. This is from the Christian Hadith collection, known as the Apocalypse of Peter. You will enjoy this:

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."



Note that Peter was a bloody coward!

Salaams
BMZ

Forgot to add that the goons will say he flashed his sword and cut off a piece of the ear. lol! No swordsman can ever flick his sword that way, without damaging shoulder, neck and jaw!
- Fri 07 May, 2010 6:33 pm
Post subject:
Salam FFI goons

Hope everyone is ok. Now, I am aware that the word intimidate gets on FFI moderators nerve which makes them jump on their guns quickly and ban innocent FFI members, so I am not going to use it despite it can never mean troll as I had been accused then banned for 24 hours on FFI. Well, at least I am glad that a few of you confirmed that such ban was unjustified by all means. Not that I would have been that upset if being banned, but to be honest I have been slightly upset and again because it can never be justified. The bottom line is this, I really have no time for you goons, yet because I like you, I always find a bit of time for you, just to make you drink from the same cup of which you want the Muslims to drink. However I am not going to say, time to intimidate you, rather, time to tease you, or even better, time to mother slam dunk you.

Today, I am going to talk about the Song of Songs from the Torah, I for myself did not pay much attention to such Song due to the fact that it uses some words in very horny way that do not sound right in a so called religious scripture. It looks to me that it was there but was corrupted by some horny Jews. So let me ignore the horny part of it and jump quickly to verse 16 in chapter 5 which talks aboit a prophecy of a man yet to be born:

16 His mouth is most sweet; yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.
[Song of Songs ; 5:16]

Apparently the English translation above is flawed, see these words: altogether lovely, which represented in the Hebrew Torah as one word: מַחֲמַדִּ , as seen below:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3005.htm


טז חִכּוֹ, מַמְתַקִּים, וְכֻלּוֹ, מַחֲמַדִּים; זֶה דוֹדִי וְזֶה רֵעִי, בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם.
[Song of Songs (Hebrew) ; 5:16]

The word: מַחֲמַדִּ consists of four Hebrew letters as follow (read from right to left):

- מַ , Mem, which is equivalent to the Arabic letter: م , Meem

- חֲ , Chet, which is equivalent to the Arabic letter: ح , Ha

- מַ , Mem, which is equivalent to the Arabic letter: م , Meem

- דִּ , Dalet, which is equivalent to the Arabic letter: د , Dal

Now, let?????????????????????¢??s compose the four Arabic letters together, i.e. م + ح + م + د

We get:

محمد , Muhammed

Hahahahaha, what a slam boys and girls; but hold on, I have to make it a mother of all slams, so no FFI goon from among you comes and waste my time with your typical rubbish and crap.

Let me translate the Hebrew word: מַחֲמַדִּ by using 2 online translations:

1- http://www.freetranslation.com/
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


2- http://www.worldlingo.com/en/products_services/worldlingo_translator.html
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


Worldlingo offers Hebrew to Arabic, so let?????????????????????¢??s try it as well:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


What we get above is the Arabic word: موهمد , which does not exist in Arabic, however it is a name that should not be translated and if we pronounce the above Arabic word, it should sound like this exactly: Muhammed

Finally, to rap up this mother of all slams, let's give passage 5:16 from Song of Songs to some Rabi to read it for us in Hebrew, this is what we should hear:

http://free-islam.com/extraimages/songofsongs516/SongOfSolaiman5_16.mp3

I am sure you deaf FFI goons did not hear it due to the veil, you know, or possibly you did, but you are still in denial, so let me repeat it for your deaf ears, perhaps:

http://free-islam.com/extraimages/songofsongs516/Muhammed.mp3

You cannot deny hearing it this time FFI goons. And that should rap up another mother of all slams, enjoy:



Salam
- Fri 07 May, 2010 8:52 pm
Post subject:
Read above ^^^^^ first

- Fri 07 May, 2010 9:42 pm
Post subject: Re: Banning by FFI's Idiotic and Paranoid Moderators
Hello, Ahmed

I read that thread and was amzed at the stupidity of teh FFI moderators.

The FFI administrator should get some professional help and should try to get moderators, who are sensible and neutral, instead of getting four in-house clowns and goons.

Actually by banning you and then unbanning you quickly, shows that the current moderators do not even know how to moderate.

On a lighter note, it is FFI, which needs you. Roflmao

It is good to see you continuing with Slam Dunks.

Salaams
BMZ
- Sat 08 May, 2010 7:05 am
Post subject:
Indeed mate, the FFI moderators need moderators to moderate them

Cheers
- Sat 08 May, 2010 7:16 am
Post subject:
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]

- Wed 19 May, 2010 3:53 pm
Post subject:
That was a good Slam Dunk, Ahmed.

These FFI clowns and goons are really clueless and hilarious. I read the thread at the FFI Cesspool.

Only one poster, The Cat gave a sensible reply and wrote:

"I think that 'sister of' should be understood as: from the clan, ancestry, tribe, descendance, which is common in Semitic languages."

And came in another clueless idiot Nosubmission and wrote this nonsense in response to The Cat:

"NO. This kind of a usage does not exist in Semitic languages. "

Hysterical

Yahya Snow and you have done a good job and the rest are clueless idiots, who are intellectually dishonest.

I really don't know how these FFI goons can even read and understand literature.

Salaams
BMZ

PS: Would like to keep the links here, which I copied from FFI:


Link




Link


The links did not turn up. Can you please fix those?
- Wed 19 May, 2010 4:27 pm
Post subject:
Fixed

Cheers
- Wed 19 May, 2010 5:24 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Fixed

Cheers


Thanks, mate.
- Thu 20 May, 2010 5:26 am
Post subject:
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.


No wonder you are as confused as most goons in here, let's start from verse 155:

وَاخْتَارَ مُوسَى قَوْمَهُ سَبْعِينَ رَجُلاً لِّمِيقَاتِنَا فَلَمَّا أَخَذَتْهُمُ الرَّجْفَةُ قَالَ رَبِّ لَوْ شِئْتَ أَهْلَكْتَهُم مِّن قَبْلُ وَإِيَّايَ أَتُهْلِكُنَا بِمَا فَعَلَ السُّفَهَاء مِنَّا إِنْ هِيَ إِلاَّ فِتْنَتُكَ تُضِلُّ بِهَا مَن تَشَاء وَتَهْدِي مَن تَشَاء أَنتَ وَلِيُّنَا فَاغْفِرْ لَنَا وَارْحَمْنَا وَأَنتَ خَيْرُ الْغَافِرِينَ (155)
And Musa chose from his people seventy men for Our appointment. And when the earthquake seized them, he said: My Lord! If You had willed, You could have destroyed them before and myself (too). Would You destroy us for what the foolish among us have done? This is not except Your trial by which You misguide whom You will and guide whom You will. You are our Guardian, so forgive us and grant us mercy; and You are the best of the forgivers.
[Al Quran ; 7:155]

-> Obviously the verse above started talking about Musa: And Musa chose from his people seventy men for Our appointment. And when the earthquake seized them, then Musa said: he (Musa) said: My Lord! If You had willed, You could have destroyed them before and myself (too). Would You destroy us for what the foolish among us have done? This is not except Your trial by which You misguide whom You will and guide whom You will. You are our Guardian, so forgive us and grant us mercy; and You are the best of the forgivers.

وَاكْتُبْ لَنَا فِي هَذِهِ الدُّنْيَا حَسَنَةً وَفِي الآخِرَةِ إِنَّا هُدْنَا إِلَيْكَ قَالَ عَذَابِي أُصِيبُ بِهِ مَنْ أَشَاء وَرَحْمَتِي وَسِعَتْ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ فَسَأَكْتُبُهَا لِلَّذِينَ يَتَّقُونَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَالَّذِينَ هُم بِآيَاتِنَا يُؤْمِنُونَ (156)
And decree for us in this world good and in the hereafter; indeed, we have turned back to You. He (Allah) said: (As for) My torture, I will strike with it whom I will, and My mercy encompasses everything; so I will decree it for those who fear (Me) and pay Zakat (alms), and those who believe in Our sings.
[Al Quran ; 7:156]

-> In here, Musa continues and says: And decree for us in this world good and in the hereafter; indeed, we have turned back to You. And that was the end of what Musa said.

-> Then Allah said: He (Allah) said: (As for) My torture, I will strike with it whom I will, and My mercy encompasses everything; so I will decree it for those who fear (Me) and pay Zakat (alms), and those who believe in Our sings.

Then Allah continues and say?????????????????????¢??????????????????????

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]

-> See, that is the rest of what Allah said in the previous verse: Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Taurat and the Injeel,


However you and the confused goons like you say:
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.


So Ahmed says again:

See you confused goons, it is not a speech by Musa, you blind. IT IS A SPEECH BY ALLAH.

And that should be our 88# Slam Dunk:

# 88
- Thu 20 May, 2010 12:32 pm
Post subject:
Hysterical

The FFI goons do not understand even simple English translations, Ahmed.

Here is something about FFI goons. Post and see if they can understand this! Hysterical


Quote:
كَمَثَلِ الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًا FFI مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ


Salaams, mate
BMZ
- Fri 21 May, 2010 11:22 am
Post subject:
- Fri 21 May, 2010 5:46 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:


Hysterical

It is a good idea and a good way to keep the FFI goons busy. lol!
- Mon 14 Jun, 2010 7:02 pm
Post subject:
Good thrashing, Ahmed

I will write on this later, which will have these FFI goons baffled and confounded further. Hysterical

Salaams, mate
BMZ
- Thu 17 Jun, 2010 3:27 pm
Post subject: Mary, the sister of Haroon, according to Qur'aan
Hello, Ahmed

As most of the FFI's ex-Muslims, goons, Jesus Freaks and others recite your Slam Dunk Section bukrataun-wa-atheela, Hysterical I thought it proper to post a copy here for the Ignorant Fools, here. Hope that is okay with you.

Here it is:

I have discovered a new style to refute and irritate goons and polemicists on other sites, when they fail to understand and continue to come up with idiotic questions.

Here is a new way to answer the goons and let us take the topic from the Slam Dunks here:

"Mary the sister of Harun, a Quran Alleged Contradiction"

The accusation: "In many places, the Qur'an mentions Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran. The Qur'an has confused Jesus' mother with Aaron's sister because both of them carry the same name, though there are several centuries between them. The Qur'an indicates that Mary (Christ's mother) had a brother whose name was Aaron ( chapter 19:28 ) and a father whose name is Imran (chapter 66:12). Their mother was called "the wife of Imran" (chapter 3:35) which eliminates any doubt that it confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary, sister of Aaron."

New answer to shut up all freaks and goons:

19:28 يَا أُخْتَ هَارُونَ مَا كَانَ أَبُوكِ امْرَأَ سَوْءٍ وَمَا كَانَتْ أُمُّكِ بَغِيًّا

"O sister of Aaron! Neither was your father a wicked man nor was your mother an unchaste woman."

66:12 وَمَرْيَمَ ابْنَتَ عِمْرَانَ الَّتِي أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهِ مِنْ رُوحِنَا وَصَدَّقَتْ بِكَلِمَاتِ رَبِّهَا وَكُتُبِهِ وَكَانَتْ مِنَ الْقَانِتِينَ

"And Mary the daughter of Imran, was extremely chaste, so We breathed life into it and she was true to the words of her LORD and was among the most devout."

Now, instead of wasting time with the freaks and goons, we can tell them the following:

Look, goons! The Bible does not tell us the name of Mary's mother, father and brother. The Bible does not even know that Mary had a brother. Roll Therefore:

Her father's name was Imran.

Her mother was called the wife of Imran, as Qur'aan does not name any other woman. Qur'aan only mentions one woman's name and that is Maryam aka Mary.

Her brother's name was Haroon.

End of the story and case closed.

I am now doing this with goons and freaks on other sites and it works.

Roll

Salaams
BMZ
- Sat 31 Jul, 2010 5:47 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

One of the new ignorant on FFI spewed the following crap:

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


So I replied to him:

Another ignorant in the block

Please mister, dont inject your crap that was stolen from the corrupted tales of the Jews and Christians into the religion of Islam (the Quran), the verses above never said beat HER, the word HER does not exist in the Arabic text. I have slam dunked such ignorance before. The verse only said Beat with it (the sticks). the verse never said beat what with it. therefore it can be anything, for example:

1- Beating the self
2- Beating the mother in law
3- Beating the ground
4- Beating the wife
5- Beating the children
etc
etc

In effect , it is not important for the believers to know what was beaten by prophet Job
------------------------

So he replied back:

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


I replied back to him by saying:

Salam

Again and again, the verse never said the word HER, it is the result of wishful thinking Jews and Christians and their fellow confused Muslims

Hadith evidence (hearsay) cannot be admissible against me as evidences, please dismiss it in the nearest rubbish bin
-----------------------------------

So Manfred (a confused Christian in denial on FFI joined and said:

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?


I replied to him:

The story is from the tales by the Jews and Christians, likewise all crap hadith, all from the tales of the Jews and Christians, the non sensible man is the one who manipulates or injects words into the Quran words to suit the low desires
-----------------------

So Manfred came back and said while calling me confused:

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.

--------------------

So I replied to him:

Shove your tafsir in the nearest confused Mushrik Muslim arse.
-------------------------

So Manfred came back with:

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?


So I said to him:

Bring your evidence from the Arabic Quran, if you should be truthful.

In the mean time I will be getting the slam dunk ready.
------------------

And here is the slam dunk

Mister confused Christian Manfred accused me of being confused because I denied that Job?????????????????????¢??s wife was mentioned in Quran

I accused the confused Muslims of stealing such crap of a story from the corrupted tales of the Bible, as indeed, the wife of prophet Job was mentioned in the Book of Job in the Bible, in fact we can even see a good reason from their story in their book which might been the motive for them to allege such allegation about prophet Job and his wife

According to the Bible followers, when prophet Job got very sick and continued to be sick for long, it is alleged that his wife have said to him the following:

[9] Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.
[Job ; 2:9]

-> See, his wife told him: Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die , which can be a very good reason for Job to take a promise that when his Lord heals him, he will strike her as alleged by the Bible followers, then stolen from them by their confused Muslim pals.

On the other hand, the Quran never mentioned the wife of prophet Job. Here is all the verses which mentioned prophet Job:

وَاذْكُرْ عَبْدَنَا أَيُّوبَ إِذْ نَادَىٰ رَبَّهُ أَنِّي مَسَّنِيَ الشَّيْطَانُ بِنُصْبٍ وَعَذَابٍ (41)
And remember Our servant Ayoub, when he called to his Lord, (saying): Indeed, the devil has touched me with hardship and torture.
[Al Quran ; 38:41]
-> Allah is telling us that prophet Job was suffering from some sort of bad disease

ارْكُضْ بِرِجْلِكَ ۖ هَٰذَا مُغْتَسَلٌ بَارِدٌ وَشَرَابٌ (42)
(So Ayoub was told), push with your leg; this is a cool bath and a drink.
[Al Quran ; 38:42]
-> Allah heals prophet Job

وَوَهَبْنَا لَهُ أَهْلَهُ وَمِثْلَهُمْ مَعَهُمْ رَحْمَةً مِنَّا وَذِكْرَىٰ لِأُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ (43)
And We gave him his family and the like of them with them as a mercy from Us and as a reminder for those who possess minds.
[Al Quran ; 38:43]
-> Allah tells us that He rewarded prophet Job for his patience by giving him his family and the like of them with them as a mercy from Him, obviously if his wife was bad as implied by the corrupt Bible (Job 2:9) in which we read in it that she told Job to: Curse God, and die. She should have been excluded from his family, as we have seen with the bad wife of prophet Lut who was destroyed among the unbelievers as we were told 7 times in the Quran (7:83, 15:60, 26:171, 27:57, 29:32, 29:33 and 37:135)

وَخُذْ بِيَدِكَ ضِغْثًا فَاضْرِبْ بِهِ وَلَا تَحْنَثْ ۗ إِنَّا وَجَدْنَاهُ صَابِرًا ۚ نِعْمَ الْعَبْدُ ۖ إِنَّهُ أَوَّابٌ (44)
And take in your hand a bunch (of sticks) and beat with it and do not break your oath. Indeed, We found him patient; excellent was the servant. Indeed, he was (always) returning (to Allah).
[Al Quran ; 38:44]
-> And here is the verse in question in which the wife of prophet Job was never mentioned, rather it was said to him: وَخُذْ بِيَدِكَ ضِغْثًا فَاضْرِبْ بِهِ وَلَا تَحْنَثْ , i.e. take in your hand a bunch (of sticks) and beat with it and do not break your oath. Which never said to beat what with it. Therefor, it can be beating anything with it:

-> Beating the self
-> Beating the ground
-> Beating a person
-> Beating a wife
-> Beating a child
-> Beating anything

-> The exact words used are as follow: فَاضْرِبْ بِهِ , Fadrab Bihi, i.e. And beat with it.

-> For the words to mean Beat her with it, it must be like this: فَاضْرِبْها بِهِ , Fadrabha Bihi, i.e. And beat her with it.

This means that Manfred the Christian is the confused soul in denial to the crap and allegations found in his own corrupted Bible

Welcome to my slam dunk show:

# 91
- Fri 20 Aug, 2010 7:37 pm
Post subject:
Ahmed chose to slam dunk hardcore enemy of Islam pisscohot:

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... Confused


Nothing strange that you keep on watching the Quran, me and you know well how the Quran is making you itchy for the last 7 years or so. That is why I call you hardcore, you must be if you have such Quran itch for so many years and yet you still have your arse intact but abused.

Now, read the translation for 36:6 you brought in, it does not mention FOREFATHERS, you blind, rather FATHERS, and that is the one nation, you confused,

Or do you want the prophet to exist first then the nation exists afterwards?

How dumb you are, let me elaborate further considering your severe dumbness:

1- We have an empty piece of land
2- A man and a woman went and lived there and started to build a nation in that land
3- 100 years later or so, the nation has a lot of people
4- Allah chose one of them to be the messenger

Therefore verse 36:6 is 100% accurate and does not contradict the other verses, because indeed the fathers of this nation in their first 100 years had no prophet, then 100 years later they had a prophet, consequently their nation had a prophet, how about I draw it to you in timeline, mister dumb hardcore bum:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


See, how easy I can expose your hatred to Islam which is making you look like a pinhead dumb confused bum, here is slam dunk # 92 and welcome to my slam dunk show, but you know after the show finishes, you are back to where you belong, my cyber jail (the life dismissal wing):

# 92
- Tue 24 Aug, 2010 12:05 am
Post subject:
Salam all

Today?????????????????????¢??s slam dunk is going to be a long one but worthy of slamming. In today?????????????????????¢??s show I will slam dunk both the Kafirs and their fellow confused Muslims, so we should have a good show in hand. The subject is about ?????????????????????¢??if the Quran allows fuking the captives of wars, or the prisoners of wars?????????????????????¢??; for simplicity, I will refer to them as POWs.

It seems to me that most Muslims are confused about what ما ملكت ايمان , Ma Malakat Ayman means. They interpret it literally as: What the right hands possess, which I don?????????????????????¢??t oppose at all, however I see another literal meaning for it, which is: What the oath possess, this should not cause any conflict between my literal understanding and theirs concerning the aspect of ?????????????????????¢??Possessing/Owning?????????????????????¢?? for the following logical reason:

Their understanding implies (metaphorically) owning someone by the right hand.

And:

My understanding implies (metaphorically) owning someone by taking an oath.

On the other hand my understanding and theirs conflict in one major issue:

Their understating can easily be manipulated to imply owning a person and do whatever they want with such person, for example, enslaving such person, or fuking that person anytime they wish. A weird consequence which certainly contradicts the teaching of the Quran.

My understanding however makes great sense and certainly complies with the teaching of the Quran. Simply, my understating implies taking an oath in front of Allah to care for a weak person who is deprived from all means of living needs.

In fact if possessing is meant to be only by hands and not by an oath, then I say, possessing by an oath still lead to possessing by hands but under the restriction of the oath taken before Allah. The restriction is simply to care for that person.

Their hand possessing of humans has no rules or restrictions or moralities or principals, knowing that we humans are all equal in the sight of Allah when it comes to judgement. On the other hand, my oath possessing will be restricted under the common laws of moralities and while Allah being sought to be Witnessing such possession of a poor and needy human who will be taken care of and will be provided with all means of living.

Also their understanding of possessing humans by hands renders the context of the words ما ملكت ايمان to explicitly mean Prisoners of wars, i.e. after a war, you end up owning a few prisoners of war. On the other hand, the Quran explicitly referred to the prisoners of war using the common and explicit Arabic word for it, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look shall we:

مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى حَتَّى يُثْخِنَ فِي الأَرْضِ تُرِيدُونَ عَرَضَ الدُّنْيَا وَاللّهُ يُرِيدُ الآخِرَةَ وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (67)
It is not for a prophet to have prisoners of war unless he has triumphed in the land; you want the commodity of this world, while Allah wants the hereafter. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 8:67]

-> See the explicit word for ?????????????????????¢??Prisoners of war?????????????????????¢??: مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى حَتَّى يُثْخِنَ فِي الأَرْضِ , i.e. It is not for a prophet to have prisoners of war unless he has triumphed in the land. I.e. Prisoners of war mean أَسْرَى , Asraa in Arabic.

The Prisoners of war are mentioned again in the same sura:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّمَن فِي أَيْدِيكُم مِّنَ الأَسْرَى إِن يَعْلَمِ اللّهُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ خَيْرًا يُؤْتِكُمْ خَيْرًا مِّمَّا أُخِذَ مِنكُمْ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (70)
O Prophet! Say to whoever is in your hands from among the prisoners of war: If Allah knows good in your hearts, He will give you better than that which has been taken from you and He will forgive you. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 8:70]

-> See: قُل لِّمَن فِي أَيْدِيكُم مِّنَ الأَسْرَى , i.e. Say to whoever is in your hands from among the prisoners of war, this is very important verse, because the hands are mentioned metaphorically to refer to the prisoners of war as being controlled by hands, not POSSESSED/OWNED by hands, see فِي أَيْدِيكُم مِّنَ الأَسْرَى , in your hands from among the prisoners of war , not ما ملكت ايديكم من الاسرى , i.e. not what your hands possessed from among the prisoners of war. This verse clearly proves that the prisoners of wars may only be a sub category from ما ملكت ايمان , i.e. the POWS may be a sub category from What the oath possess, or as the confused Muslims like to call it:What your right hands possess. Consequently it is a sub category that must adhere to the general rule of what your oath possess, which is to take care of such weak person, who is in our case happenes to be a prisoner of war. This fact is confirmed in the following verse in which Allah generally talked about an anonymous prisoner of war, in the following verses Allah is talking about the good believers, describing them and what they should be doing, so I am going to walk you through a few verses before and after the verse where the anonymous prisoner of war is mentioned:

5: Indeed, the righteous will drink of a cup whose taste is Kafur (something that is delicious).
6: A spring of which the servants of Allah will drink; they make it to gush forth with gushing.
7: They fulfil the vows, and they fear a day whose evil will be spread.
8: And they give food out of love for Him, to the poor and the orphan and the prisoner of war.
9: (Saying:) We only feed you for the face of Allah; we do not want from you reward or thanks.

إِنَّ الْأَبْرَارَ يَشْرَبُونَ مِنْ كَأْسٍ كَانَ مِزَاجُهَا كَافُورًا (5)
عَيْنًا يَشْرَبُ بِهَا عِبَادُ اللَّهِ يُفَجِّرُونَهَا تَفْجِيرًا (6)
يُوفُونَ بِالنَّذْرِ وَيَخَافُونَ يَوْمًا كَانَ شَرُّهُ مُسْتَطِيرًا (7)
وَيُطْعِمُونَ الطَّعَامَ عَلَىٰ حُبِّهِ مِسْكِينًا وَيَتِيمًا وَأَسِيرًا (8)
إِنَّمَا نُطْعِمُكُمْ لِوَجْهِ اللَّهِ لَا نُرِيدُ مِنْكُمْ جَزَاءً وَلَا شُكُورًا (9)

[Al Quran ; 76:5-9]

-> These verses are compelling in proving that the good treatment of the poor and needy and POWs who all are sub categories falling under those who are possessed by an oath or by hands in order to care for them, has to be dedicated to Allah under the oath taken, See:

Indeed, the righteous will drink of a cup whose taste is Kafur
A spring of which the servants of Allah will drink; they make it to gush forth with gushing.
They fulfil the vows, and they fear a day whose evil will be spread.
And they give food out of love for Him, to the poor and the orphan and the prisoner of war.


-> See how they ended saying that they only take care of them just to please Allah while at the same time they are not waiting from those poor or needy or POWs to pay the favours back: (Saying:) We only feed you for the face of Allah; we do not want from you reward or thanks. Certainly having sex with them should be considered paying the favour back, which should never happen with any pious Muslim, because a pious Muslim take care of the needy, poor and POWs without waiting for the favour to be paid back to them in whatever way.

-> And certainly the POW is referred to explicitly using the clear Arabic word meaning so: أَسِيرًا , Asira, i.e. Prisoner of war.

The above should be the first part of the slam, in which I proved the following:

>> ?????????????????????¢??Prisoners of war?????????????????????¢?? (plural) means in Arabic أَسْرَى , Asraa
>> ?????????????????????¢??Prisoner of war?????????????????????¢?? (singular) means in Arabic أَسِير , Asir

But before I move on to the second part of the slam which tackles the issue of the meaning of Ma Malakat Ayman as explained in Quran, let me check the above two Arabic words under Google online translator:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


How compelling, therefore Ma Malakat Ayman can never mean Prisoners or Captives, at least from the Quran context point of view because the Quran used the explicit word for Prisoners or captives three times in the Quran and in both plural and singular forms. Now, let?????????????????????¢??s move on to the second part of the slam:

The problem here for many confused Muslims is this: They consider the words Ma Malakat Ayman to explicitly mean prisoners of wars, they also wrongly defend a clear cut lie that Quran allows having sex (without marriage) with the prisoners of wars, see what this confused Muslim said on www.faithfreedom.org:

The supposedly Muslim iffo alleged on FFI:

Sex with the captive girl is permissive in Quran, so we don't call it adultery.
------------------------

Now, these are the sort of crap by the confused Muslims that really pisses me off, to come on anti Islam web sites and promote their crap then illogically defend it with nothing but rubbish and non sense. See his crap apology above: we don't call it adultery.

So what do you call it, you stupid confused horny Muslim punk?

Foreplay?

Orgy?

So I had to intervene and ask that confused Muslim:

Ahmed said to iffo:
Where is that in the Quran? Do you mind showing me?

And who is 'we'?
------------------------

And this is what he replied with:

iffo said to Ahmed:
@AB

You know which verse I am talking about.
-------------------------

Which is nothing but a poor and stupid reply by one who talks as if he knows what he is talking about concerning Quran, so I had to change the attitude a bit to make him walk his crap:

Ahmed said to iffo:
Oh please, stop mocking around, I dont mock around

You said the Quran allows fuking the CAPTIVE OF WARS,

Now I am telling you that I never read a verse in Quran allowing fuking CAPTIVES OF WARS, so the onus on you mister Muslim to bloody show me where I read in Quran the permission to fuk the CAPTIVES OF WARS

Put up, or shut the fuk up
-------------------------

See, this stupid confused Muslim like so many confused Muslims are missing a vital part concerning Ma Malakat Ayman, such vital part is simply this:

The Quran never ever allowed fuking Ma Malakat Ayman without marriage; however the marriage is a non written marriage but still consensual, like the de facto relationships in the west. However the Quran also encourages making such marriage written for which the wife from Ma Malakat Ayman will be entitled to all the rights of a wife that is not from Ma Malakat Ayman. Yet such wife from Ma Malakat Ayman must keep her previous status of being from Ma Malakat Ayman. This is very important because if such wife from Ma Malakat Ayman commits adultery after being married, then she should be punished with half the punishment of a wife who is not from Ma Malakat Ayman according to the following verse:

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَن تَصْبِرُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (25)
And whoever among you cannot afford to marry the protected and believing women, then (marry) of those whom your oaths possess from among your believing young women. And Allah is most Knowing of your oaths between yourselves; so marry them with the permission of their families, and give them their rewards lawfully if they seek protection (for themselves) not fornicating or receiving paramours. And if they protect themselves (through marriage) then commit an indecency, then upon them is half the torture which should be upon the protected women. That is for one who fears affliction from among you. And if you are patient, it is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 4:25]

-> See above how the Quran encourages Muslim men who cannot afford marrying from the wealthy and free women to marry from among Ma Malakat Ayman (which covers the poor, needy weak and POWs):

وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ

i.e.

And whoever among you cannot afford to marry the protected and believing women, then (marry) of those whom your oaths possess from among your believing young women.

Therefore the relationship between Muslim men and Ma Malakat Aymanihum as encouraged by the Quran is to legally marry them. This should put those confused and horny Muslims like iffo to shame, because if Muslim men are allowed to freely fuk Ma Malakat Ayman, why the hell we are commanded to marry from among them?

On the same verse, we also read how Allah is commanding us to make sure that those weak women from Ma Malakat Ayman are sincerely desiring marriage, as well men should take the permission of their families before marriage, as well, paying to them all their rights , see:

فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ

I.e.

so marry them with the permission of their families, and give them their rewards lawfully if they seek protection (for themselves) not fornicating or receiving paramours.

We are certainly talking in here legal marriage with all its legal requirements:

1- The permission of their families
2- The desire and sincerity for marriage by both the man and the woman from Ma Malakat Ayman
3- Paying the dowries to the woman from Ma Malakat Ayman

What is also important is the fact that their status of being from Ma Malakat Ayman has to be well known to all especially after marriage, the reason for that is clearly explained in the same verse, see:

فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ

I.e.

And if they protect themselves (through marriage) then commit an indecency, then upon them is half the torture which should be upon the protected women.

That is why stoning to death can never be a punishment in Islam to any crime of indecency, because any wife from Ma Malakat Ayman who commits indecency after marriage should be punished with half the punishment of a wife from among the well supported women (free women) who commits an act of indecency.

This is the fact that most Muslims ignorantly misunderstand, that sex with Ma Malakat Ayman is only after marrying them as explained in 4:25

4:25 is not the only verse that encourages men to marry from among Ma Malakat Ayman (the weak, needy, desperate, poor and captive women), so let?????????????????????¢??s look at another verse in the same sura:

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تُقْسِطُواْ فِي الْيَتَامَى فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء مَثْنَى وَثُلاَثَ وَرُبَاعَ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَلاَّ تَعُولُواْ (3)
And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry those who please you from the women, two and three and four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then (marry) one or what your oaths possess; that is better than having dependants.
[Al Quran ; 4:3]

-> Marrying one woman should be the common law in Islam, however for those who strive to adhere to the words of Allah, then marrying one woman should be the only option available, this is because marrying 4 women is conditioned by being fair between all of them as stated above, however, because men will never be fair between women as stated in another verse in the same sura (4:129), then they should marry only one woman, such woman can only be either one from the free and well supported women OR from Ma Malakat Ayman, see:

فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ

I.e.

But if you fear that you will not be just, then (marry) one or what your oaths possess;

And again, this verse should put those confused horny Muslims like iffo who desire to freely fuk women from among Ma Malakat Ayman to shame, as the verse above is talking about a legal marriage relation between men and Ma Malakat Ayman, if fuking Ma Malakat Ayman was ordained freely in the Quran as those perverts of Muslims like iffo allege, then the part of 4:3 above should be like this:

فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً و مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ

I.e.

But if you fear that you will not be just, then (marry) one AND what your oaths possess;

I.e. Marry the free woman and freely fuk one from Ma Malakat Ayman (the poor woman), which makes absolutely no sense, and certainly a man who does that must be committing adultery contrary to what the horny and freak pervert of a Muslim iffo alleged, see again what he spewed:

The supposedly Muslim iffo alleged on FFI:

Sex with the captive girl is permissive in Quran, so we don't call it adultery.
--------------------

Can you see that this stupid confused punk of a horny Muslim is talking on behalf of all Muslims, see: we don't call it adultery.

I tell him again, no, you horny pervert of a Muslim, this is a clear cut case of adultery. So if you want to fuk a poor woman from Ma Malakat Ayman, you must marry her first as you have been commanded by God twice in 4:3 & 4:25

And again, another verse in Quran encouraging marrying from Ma Malakat Ayman:

وَلْيَسْتَعْفِفِ الَّذِينَ لَا يَجِدُونَ نِكَاحًا حَتَّىٰ يُغْنِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا ۖ وَآتُوهُمْ مِنْ مَالِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي آتَاكُمْ ۚ وَلَا تُكْرِهُوا فَتَيَاتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَاءِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّنًا لِتَبْتَغُوا عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۚ وَمَنْ يُكْرِهْهُنَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (33)
And let those, who do not find (means of) marriage, be chaste until Allah enrich them out of His grace. And those who ask for the book (of marriage) from among those whom your oaths possess, make a (marriage) contract with them if you know in them goodness, and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your young women to prostitution, if they desire protection (though marriage), to seek thereby the span of the life of this world; and whoever compels them, then indeed, Allah is, after their compulsion, Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 24:33]

See: وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا ۖ وَآتُوهُمْ مِنْ مَالِ اللَّهِ

I.e.

And those who ask for the book (of marriage) from among those whom your oaths possess, make a (marriage) contract with them if you know in them goodness, and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you.

Another verse that should keep those horny and confused Muslim in shame; see, if we are allowed to fuk Ma Malakat Ayamn freely, why Allah commands us to marry them, three times so far?

Well, the Quran is full of verses confirming that Ma Malakat Ayman are not the captives of wars. But even if they are (wrongly assuming to satisfy iffo flawed argument), fuking them freely is not allowed, rather we have to marry them first before we touch them. Therefore iffo the confused Muslim and his fellow kafirs have absolutely no argument.

If you remember that I asked iffo to support his lies from the Quran, however when I did so, one of the FFI kafirs quickly posted the following as if it supports fuking the POWs:

Kafir pr126 of FFI said to Ahmed:
Quran 4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
---------------------

See what I am talking about, they spewed crap and lies about the Quran and POWs, then I ask them to show me such Quran verse about POWs, they bring to me a Quran verse talking about Ma Malakat Ayman, funny indeed, so I replied to such jerk of an FFI kafir:

Ahmed said to kafir pr126:
Well, I did not ask you, however I will allow your answer as a matter of courtesy. But the verse above never mentioned CAPTIVES OF WARS?

Are you drunk or something? Can't you concentrate while reading the words written by others?

iffo alleged that the Quran allows fuking the CAPTIVES OF WARS, so I asked him to show me the verse in Quran allowing fuking the CAPTIVES OF WARS

But what you brought in does not mention any CAPTIVE OF WARS, rather it says "according to the flawed translation you brought in "whom your right hands possess". Therefore, is your stupid argument that whom your right hands possess are CAPTIVES OF WARS? Well, then you need to elaborate and tell me what is the Arabic word for CAPTIVES OF WARS, and what exactly whom your right hands possess mean? And why not whom your left hands possess, and where exactly the verse said FUKING IS ALLOWED?
Back to you mister
------------------------

So he came back with more crap, see:

Kafir pr126 of FFI said to Ahmed:
?????????????????????¢??Sirat e Rasulullah?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? by Ibn Ishaq, p. 464:

After 800-900 male adults of Bani Quraiza were beheaded in batches, and thrown in trenches dug in Madina, the apostle divided their property, wives and children as booty?????????????????????¢??????????????????????¦ He took Rayhana d. Amr b. Khunafa for himself.
-----------------------

Funny indeed, I am asking them to show me where the QURAN allows fuking the POWs, they bring to me hearsay crap from what they call sirat Abn Ishaq, or Ibn Hisham or Ibn Wiskhah, which makes no difference, all are not Quran, and I am asking about Quran verse, how stupid these kafirs are. So I replied:

Ahmed said to kafir pr126:
You must be certainly drunk and possibly on strong medication as well

Again mister drunk:

1- iffo alleged QURAN ALLOWS FUKING THE POWs
2- I asked him to show the QURAN VERSE STATING SO
3- You bloody volunteered on his stupid arse behalf and showed me 4:24 which:

a- Never mentioned the POWs
b- Never mentioned fuking

Then I bloody asked you to elaborate by answering the following questions:

i- Are whom your right hands possess ?????????????????????¢??CAPTIVES OF WARS?????????????????????¢???
ii- What is the Arabic word for CAPTIVES OF WARS?
iii- What exactly whom your right hands possess mean? And why not whom your left hands possess?
iv- Where exactly the verse said FUKING IS ALLOWED?

Then you bloody come and quote some hearsay from man made books called sirat Jerry Springer?

Look pal, I have no time to waste, you should consider yourself lucky that I am currently dialoguing with you at 4:15 AM instead of dismissing you, however I will give one more chance to continue the dialogue that you initiated voluntarily and answer the damn questions above; but as for the crap inadmissible hearsay evidence you provided, you may shove it in iffo?????????????????????¢??s arse
-------------------------------

As you can see that I am very hard on the suppose to be my Muslim brother iffo, but again, this freak came on anti Islam web site designed to only attack Islam then spew his ignorance that Quran allows fuking the POWs. Certainly I must be very hard on him, I am not going to be the babysitter of all those confused Muslims who should have learnt their religion from the Quran as I did instead of parroting the same satanic crap established by most of Al-Mushrikoon over the years that fuking the POWs is allowed in Quran. So iffo fell in my trap and replied to me, I was really hoping that he shows me that verse in Quran where it allows fuking the POWs:, let?????????????????????¢??s see what he had to say:

iffo said to Ahmed:
@AB

I don't like to use foul language in Ramadan like you doing unless someone really force me to, and you will regret then, because I have the potential to be very nasty. Take manners 101 and then come and talk to me.
-----------------------

So I replied to iffo.

Ahmed said to iffo:
Good, you sound like me, I don't like to use foul language in Ramadan unless someone really forces me to. And guess fukin what? You forced me with your crap and confusion to come here spewing the lie that Quran allows fuking the captives of wars

Where the fuk FUKING is mentioned? So for you when the Quran says: 'Allowed to you that woman or this woman or whatever woman', it means for a confused freak like you, that: ?????????????????????¢??Allowed to you fuking this woman or that woman or whatever woman?????????????????????¢?? ?

Why not: 'Allowed to you marrying this woman or that woman or whatever woman?????????????????????¢?? ?

And btw, I never regret anything; in fact those who fall in my net always end up the regretful

Tell me again you confused liar, WHERE EXACTLY THE QURAN ALLOWED FUKING THE CAPTIVES OF WARS? PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUK UP
--------------------

One of the confused and ignorant kafirs of FFI volunteered to elaborate on the other kafir behalf, let?????????????????????¢??s see what he had to say:

Yohan of FFI alleged:
?????????????????????¢??Right hand possess?????????????????????¢?? meant ?????????????????????¢??captured in war?????????????????????¢??. This narration also shows the origin of many of the Koranic verses.[/quote]

So I said to him:
Obviously you are a clear cut ignorant and do not know what you are talking about, however I am going to bed now, but tomorrow inshallah will slam dunk you with slam dunk # 93, I always wanted a clown like you in my show. Good night, clown
-----------------

As you can see that his ignorance was refuted before, but I am going to refute it further, I should have said, I will let the Quran to refute it further with so many verses about what the right hands possess (as they like to translate it), and we should see that they cannot be captives of war, rather, almost members of the same family:

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 to lower their visions and guard their private parts and not show their adornment except what appears thereof. And let them draw their veils over their bosoms and not show their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers or the fathers of 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 to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And repent to Allah, all of you , O believers, that perhaps you will succeed.
[Al Quran ; 24:31]

-> The above verse is compelling because it is talking about Muslim women who have Ma Malakat Ayman, see:

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

I.e.

And let them draw their veils over their bosoms and not show their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers or the fathers of 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

Obviously Ma Malakat Ayman above cannot be captives of war because the verse is allowing the Muslim women to expose their adornment to Ma Malakat Aymanihunna. Also according to the stupid and confused understanding of most horny Muslims, then Muslim women are allowed to fuk males from Ma Malakat Ayman.

The above verse proves that an oath was taken by those Muslim women to care for some weak, needy and poor people and they have become so close in the family that Muslim women are even allowed to show their adornment to them.

A very important point is this, if any POW is poor and needy, then he or she may be Ma Malakat Ayman if a Muslim man or woman took an oath before Allah to care for that person, however in that case the POW status has changed from POW to Ma Malakat Ayman, consequently all the rules of Allah concerning Ma Malakat Ayman should apply to him or her.

Here is another verse talking about the wives of the prophet, the mothers of the believers, the verse is telling us the same as was said about the believing women in 24:31,

لَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِنَّ فِي آبَائِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَائِهِنَّ وَلَا إِخْوَانِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَاءِ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَاءِ أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ وَلَا نِسَائِهِنَّ وَلَا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ ۗ وَاتَّقِينَ اللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدًا (55)
There is no blame upon them concerning their fathers or their brothers or the sons of their brothers or the sons of their sisters or their women or those possessed by their oaths. And fear Allah; indeed, ever is Allah, over everything, Witness.
[Al Quran ; 33:55]

See:

لَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِنَّ فِي آبَائِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَائِهِنَّ وَلَا إِخْوَانِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَاءِ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ وَلَا أَبْنَاءِ أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ وَلَا نِسَائِهِنَّ وَلَا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ

I.e.

There is no blame upon them concerning their fathers or their brothers or the sons of their brothers or the sons of their sisters or their women or those possessed by their oaths.

Continue below .....
- Tue 24 Aug, 2010 12:10 am
Post subject:
Read above first ^^^^^

Let me show you another compelling verse that proves two points at once:

1- That Ma Malakat Ayman cannot be captives of war
2- Sex with Ma Malakat Ayman cannot be allowed unless men marry them first

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 (58)
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; (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 how compelling this verse is concerning Ma Malkat Ayman:

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

I.e.

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.

See, Ma Malakat Ayman have to take permission before they enter upon their masters in three different times a day:

1- before the dawn prayer (Fajr),
2- at noon
3- after the night prayer (Isha)

In fact the verse even told us why? See: when you put aside your clothing.

Firstly, those Ma Malakat Ayman cannot be captives of war, because they are living in the same house as their masters. In addition to that, if sex is allowed freely with them, then why the hell they need to take permission to enter upon their masters just in case their masters removed their cloths for resting? I guess their masters fuk them naked, right you confused and pervert of horny Muslims?

There is no doubt that fuking Ma Malakat Ayman IS NEVER ALLOWED in Quran unless men or women marry them first. It is only the satanic perversity in the minds of most Muslims that entice them to believe such clear cut non sensible sexually motivated act of freely fuking Ma Malakat Aymanihum

An example of Ma malakat Ayman may be a house maid, in fact you find most Saudis bring house maids from Philippine and similar countries, very poor women who cannot support themselves so they work as maids serving other capable humans to make a living. A psychologically very tough job considering that all humans should be equal. Those Saudi men end up fukin those maids freely while thinking that they are not committing any sin, they think that the following verses allow them doing so:

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ (5)
إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ (6)

5: And those who are concerning their private parts guarding.
6: Except for their spouses or those whom their oaths possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed.
[Al Quran ; 23:5-6]

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ (29)
إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ (30)

29: And those who are, concerning their private parts, guarding.
30: Except upon their spouses or what their oaths possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed.
[Al Quran ; 70:29-30]

The perverts cannot understand that the verses above ARE TALKING ABOUT LEGAL MARRIAGE BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND MA MALAKAT AYMANIHUM. I.e.:

Those pious Muslims are those who guard their private parts except upon their spouses from the FREE MEN AND WOMEN and their spouses from MA MALAKAT AYMANUHUM

The verses above in no way implies not protecting the private parts from Ma Malakat Ayman to whom we are not married, otherwise 24:58 will be non sensible because it states that Ma Malakat Ayman should take permission before they enter upon their masters just in case they removed their cloths so their private parts became visible. The important point is this, both spouses from the free women and from Ma Malakat Ayman must always be differentiated from each other by mentioning them separately as seen in the above verses, because according to 4:25 both of them have different punishment if they commit fahisha after marriage.

Here you have it all, you confused kafirs enemy of Islam and you confused and horny Muslims whom I also consider an enemy of Islam; in fact, a far worse enemy than the kafirs, because the confused kafirs base their stupid arguments upon flawed understanding and practices by the confused and horny Muslims. See what do you expect when a confused Muslim goes on a kafir web site that is only designed to attack Islam and Muslim, and say:

The supposedly Muslim iffo alleged on FFI:

Sex with the captive girl is permissive in Quran, so we don't call it adultery
-------------------------

Shame on you, you confused and horny Muslim, but I really hope that this slam wake you up and reconsider that what you spewed was nothing but crap and ignorance. Here is the slam, and it has to be another mother of all slams because I left nothing for the kafirs and their fellow confused Muslims to refute:

- Thu 26 Aug, 2010 12:22 am
Post subject:
Well done, Ahmed

Salaams & Ramadan Mubarak,

The insanity of the FFI goons' mind knows no bounds.

The FFI goons have zero knowledge in Qur'aan and these freaks talk through translations.

Give them the 'biblical English' word Household to the Clowns. Roll

Salaams, mate
BMZ
- Fri 27 Aug, 2010 5:53 pm
Post subject:
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:
Laughing 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!


You are nothing but a confused wishful thinking lying ignorant

The hadith books were written 200 years after Muhammed died, on the other hand, let me use your own fuked up hadith against a hadith worshiper like you to slam dunk you with slam dunk # 94:

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=6&Rec=10713
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Ismael TOLD us that Hammam ibn Yahya TRANSFERRED from Zaid ibn Aslam who TRANSFERRED from Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran, it should be deleted

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=6&Rec=10715
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Shoaib TOLD us that Hammam SAID that Zaid ibn Aslam TRANSFERRED from Ibn Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything, it should be deleted

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=6&Rec=10781
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Yazeed TOLD us that Hammam ibn Yahya TRANSFERRED from Zaid ibn Aslam who TRANSFERRED from Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran, it should be deleted

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=6&Rec=10966
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Abu Ubaidah TOLD us that Hammam ibn Yahya TRANSFERRED from Zaid ibn Aslam who TRANSFERRED from Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything, it should be deleted

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=6&Rec=11160
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Affan TOLD us that Hammam TOLD us that Zaid ibn Aslam TRANSFERRED from Ibn Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran, it should be deleted

Here you have it, kafir, your own man made hadith slam dunked you:

# 94
- Fri 27 Aug, 2010 7:32 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

In regards to Slam Dunks 93&94, one of the confused itchy kafirs of FFI continued to rob me of my valued time, therefore I had to life dismiss his arse, this is how it happened:

pr126 wrote:
Why have Muslims been fooled by the hadiths for 14 centuries?


Like the Christians been fooled with their man made gospels for 20 centuries, like the Jews were fooled by their man made Talmud for even more centuries. History is indeed repeating itself over the generations; it is the human nature of submitting to Satan

pr126 wrote:
How could the ulema permit such blasphemy for so long?


Fuk the Ulama, they made themselves Ulama, not that they bloody earned it

And similar to your stupid question, how the priests and rabbis allowed such blasphemy in their own religion?

pr126 wrote:
What is the Al Ahzar University saying on this matter? Do they reject the hadiths too?


Al-Azhar is a university of Shirk, i.e. for people who want to shirk, they should learn from Al-Azhar (ISI), International Shirk Institution

pr126 wrote:
Or are you a minority of "Quran only Muslims"


No you ignorant, I am from the minority called (Muslims), true Muslims that is

pr126 wrote:
(those living in western countries)


Who live on the earth of Allah, however it does not matter where we live. We will destroy their shirk wherever we are, even if we are on Mars

pr126 wrote:
who are ashamed of the history of Muhammad and Islam in front of the kuffar?


The true Muslims like us are only ashamed of one thing, that most Muslims are Mushrikoon like the Jews and the Christians.

pr126 wrote:
What about the Sira, the life and times of Muhammad? Are they lies too?


Yes and you may shove it into iffo's arse, I mean debuker's arse

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.


Ignorant, Muslims are required by Allah to believe in Allah, the Quran, the angels, the messnegers and the last day

Your man made crap hadith is not in the list, you confused kafir. Dismiss yourself

pr126 wrote:
Wow. 1.2 Billion who are calling themselves Muslims are not Muslims at all. Well, not True Muslims, that is.


Indeed, you Quran ignorant, read this and educate your pinhead:

وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا وَهُمْ مُشْرِكُونَ (106)
And most of them do not believe in Allah except while they are polytheists.
[Al Quran ; 12:106]

pr126 wrote:
But, if you are a minority, you have no power, no saying how Islam should be practised.


Ignorant, we have the ultimate power, we have Allah with us, read this you fool:

فَلَمَّا فَصَلَ طَالُوتُ بِالْجُنُودِ قَالَ إِنَّ اللّهَ مُبْتَلِيكُم بِنَهَرٍ فَمَن شَرِبَ مِنْهُ فَلَيْسَ مِنِّي وَمَن لَّمْ يَطْعَمْهُ فَإِنَّهُ مِنِّي إِلاَّ مَنِ اغْتَرَفَ غُرْفَةً بِيَدِهِ فَشَرِبُواْ مِنْهُ إِلاَّ قَلِيلاً مِّنْهُمْ فَلَمَّا جَاوَزَهُ هُوَ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَعَهُ قَالُواْ لاَ طَاقَةَ لَنَا الْيَوْمَ بِجَالُوتَ وَجُنودِهِ قَالَ الَّذِينَ يَظُنُّونَ أَنَّهُم مُّلاَقُو اللّهِ كَم مِّن فِئَةٍ قَلِيلَةٍ غَلَبَتْ فِئَةً كَثِيرَةً بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ وَاللّهُ مَعَ الصَّابِرِينَ (249)
And when Talut set forth with the soldiers, he said: Allah will be testing you with a river, so whoever drinks from it is not of me, and whoever does not taste it is of me, except one who takes a little with his hand; and they drank from it except a few; and when he had crossed it along with those who have believed with him, they said: We have no power today against Jalut and his soldiers. Those who think that they will be meeting Allah said: Indeed, how many a small party has defeated a large party with the permission of Allah. And Allah is with the patient.
[Al Quran ; 2:249]

See: كَم مِّن فِئَةٍ قَلِيلَةٍ غَلَبَتْ فِئَةً كَثِيرَةً بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ وَاللّهُ مَعَ الصَّابِرِينَ

i.e.

Indeed, how many a small party has defeated a large party with the permission of Allah. And Allah is with the patient.

pr126 wrote:
Majority rules.


Your filthy arse and most of the confused Muslims?????????????????????¢?? arse, majority will never rule my arse, punk

pr126 wrote:
Get back in your box.


You have been life dismissed, you filthy time robber

http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=3646#3646

Welcome to my Cyber Jail, inmate
- Mon 30 Aug, 2010 10:22 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

Time for slam dunk #95, which is support to what my brother Eagle said, that the 5 times of salat are mentioned in Quran, let?????????????????????¢??s have a look shall we:

We have 5 salat/day:

1- Fajr (Dawn)
2- Zuhr (Noon)
3- Asr (Afternoon)
4- Maghrib (Sunset)
5- Isha (Night)

>> The first, fourth and fifth salat (Dawn, Sunset and Night) are mentioned indirectly in the following verse:

وَأَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ طَرَفَيِ النَّهَارِ وَزُلَفًا مِنَ اللَّيْلِ ۚ إِنَّ الْحَسَنَاتِ يُذْهِبْنَ السَّيِّئَاتِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ ذِكْرَىٰ لِلذَّاكِرِينَ (114)
And establish prayer at the two ends of the day and a portion of the night. Indeed, good deeds remove evil deeds; that is a reminder for those who remember.
[Al Quran ; 11:114]

-> See: وَأَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ طَرَفَيِ النَّهَارِ وَزُلَفًا مِنَ اللَّيْلِ , i.e. And establish prayer at the two ends of the day and a portion of the night.

As you have seen, the Quran refers to the first and fourth salat times (Dawn and Sunset) metaphorically by using the words: طَرَفَيِ النَّهَارِ , i.e. the two ends of the day. For Isha (Night) prayer, the Quran used the words: زُلَفًا مِنَ اللَّيْلِ , i.e. a portion of the night to refer to it.

>> The Dawn and Night prayer are also mentioned directly in the following verse:

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 (58)
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: صَلَاةِ الْفَجْرِ , i.e. the dawn prayer (Fajr) , & صَلَاةِ الْعِشَاءِ , i.e. the night prayer (Isha)

>> The third salat (Afternoon) is logically mentioned in the following verse:

حَافِظُواْ عَلَى الصَّلَوَاتِ والصَّلاَةِ الْوُسْطَى وَقُومُواْ لِلّهِ قَانِتِينَ (238)
Maintain the prayers and the middle prayer, and stand up before Allah in obedience.
[Al Quran ; 2:238]

-> See: الصَّلاَةِ الْوُسْطَى , i.e. the middle prayer, which should be logically the third in five prayers/day, i.e. Al-Asr (Afternoon) prayer.

There is also a whole sura named Al-Asr in which we read how such time is very important in the sight of Allah:

وَالْعَصْرِ (1)
(I swear) by the afternoon.
[Al Quran ; 103:1]

>> The first, second, third, fourth and fifth salats are mentioned (metaphorically) in the following verse:

أَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ لِدُلُوكِ الشَّمْسِ إِلَىٰ غَسَقِ اللَّيْلِ وَقُرْآنَ الْفَجْرِ ۖ إِنَّ قُرْآنَ الْفَجْرِ كَانَ مَشْهُودًا (78)
Establish prayer from the decline of the sun until the darkness of the night and (recite) the Quran of dawn, indeed, the Quran of dawn is witnessed.
[Al Quran ; 17:78]

- The second, third, fourth and fifth (Noon, Afternoon, Sunset and Night) prayers are mentioned in one expression implying continues action of prayer: أَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ لِدُلُوكِ الشَّمْسِ إِلَىٰ غَسَقِ اللَّيْلِ , i.e. Establish prayer from the decline of the sun until the darkness of the night. From the decline of the sun means from the point where it is at the top of you, i.e. noon prayer until it disappears, i.e. going through the afternoon prayer and ending with sunset prayer. Then the prayer should continue until the night prayer is performed.

-> The first prayer (Dawn) was referred to as an action of reciting the Quran OF dawn: وَقُرْآنَ الْفَجْرِ ۖ إِنَّ قُرْآنَ الْفَجْرِ كَانَ مَشْهُودًا , i.e. and (recite) the Quran of dawn, indeed, the Quran of dawn is witnessed. See how it is refereed to as the Quran OF dawn, not the Quran AT dawn, i.e. the recited Quran during Dawn prayer.

Here you have it kafirs, you have been slammed again. But hey, if you wont get sick of being slammed, I won?????????????????????¢??t get sick of slamming you:

# 95
- Thu 02 Sep, 2010 6:50 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

I found it not really amazing how the kafirs of www.faithfreedomorg are damn confused, see this example:

planck wrote:
However, Judaism is not a universal religion. It is not intended to be observed by everyone--just Jews.


Now let's let Jesus slam dunk such confused kafir:

Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
<Matthew 5:17-18>

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
<Matthew 23:1-3>

Here you have it confused kafirs, the confused christians must FOLLOW and OBEY the law of Moses

How ignorant all those dumb kafirs are
- Sun 05 Sep, 2010 11:53 pm
Post subject:
Ahmed chose to reply to filthy enemy of Islam Bin Fagin:

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.


Here are the times of Salat Zuhr (second salat) and Salat Isha (fifth salat) mentioned again in the Quran, you ignorant dumb filthy bum of a hadith worshipping kafir bound to hell:

وَلَهُ الْحَمْدُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَعَشِيًّا وَحِينَ تُظْهِرُونَ (18)
And to Him belongs all praise in the heavens and the earth. And at night and when you are at noon.
[Al Quran ; 30:18]

-> See, you ignorant: وَلَهُ الْحَمْدُ ......عَشِيًّا وَحِينَ تُظْهِرُونَ , i.e. to Him belongs all praise ..........???¦ at night and when you are at noon

Here you have, inmate:

# 96
- Mon 06 Sep, 2010 10:15 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

Brother Eagle from FFI is a very knowledgeable Muslim who quietly slam dunks those confused and ignorant kafirs of FFI; in his last comment he slam dunked a filthy retarded kafir who calls himself Muhammad bin Lyin but I call him Bin Fagin, Eagle?????????????????????¢??s slam deserves to be added to my slam dunk show and even take the number #97, enjoy the dialogue between Eagle and Bin Fagin:

Bin Fagin wrote:
What, exactly, do you mean by the earliest days of Islam?


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
The days when the prophecies were made against all possible odds. What exactly wasnt clear in that, that you didnt understand.

Bin Fagin wrote:
And you and I both know that the Quran references mean very little without the additional, detailed info.


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Which "additional, detailed info". Things such as the flying donkey and the half ice, half fire creature?
Again:

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.


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Point which lie you're speaking of, because your paranoia is starting to edge on insanity.

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??


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
The point is the Muslims faced Jerusalem from the beginning in their prayers, meaning they always knew the location of masjid al aqsa, not suddenly after the prophet Muhammad's miraculous journey.

Bin Fagin wrote:
Since when did it go from "Quran only" to now including modern authors?


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Who said anything about "Quran only". Once again, history, tradition, common knowledge of pre islamic times and of early islam, is not limited to hadith and precedes the writing of those hadith.

Bin Fagin wrote:
Citation please?


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Citation of who? That knowledge goes back to immemorial times, to the extent that the pagans of pre islamic times never disputed such facts. Not all culture documment their history, their traditions and knowledge and the Arabs are the prime example of that.

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.


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Read again what you quoted, and what you were told earlier:

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


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Its not about conveniency, its about reviewing his work and pointing his errors and those of other scholars of the past, as well as confirming his true statements. Its quite idiotic from you to consider critical analysis a conveniency when it comes to religion while it is the essence of religion as dictated by the Quran itself, let alone many other fields such as science and physics for example. As regards to hadiths, some compilers may have considered the report of a person trustworthy while modern research can prove the narrator to be entirely unreliable.

Bin Fagin wrote:
Who wrote that??? Why didn't you quote it???


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Temper your paranoia and complex. Read the names and the one who reported those narrations.

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.


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Not when it meets my needs, when it is in accordance with the Quran and common traditional knowledge to the Arabs.

Bin Fagin wrote:
And why was that?


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
A test to the Muslims, as well as explaining the fact that no direction, whther the Kaaba or Jerusalem, has any sanctity except if selected by Allah. The Quran is quite clear on that throughout sura Baqara.

Bin Fagin wrote:
what was Allah finding out from this test?


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Allah does not find out anything from a test. He teaches, seperates, and makes known through tests.

Bin Fagin wrote:
Well, i suppose


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
No, you truly are a prophet for having the holy spirit in you. You can prophesy. Your knowledge of your bible seems shallow just like your reasoning skills and general knowledge appear to be approximative.

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


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Your question is not only badly worded, but it was already answered when you were explained that the prophet being shown "from our signs" can mean he was shown one sign from among many signs or several signs from among many signs.

Bin Fagin wrote:
You said the journey was "A" sign, as in singular. Now the liar adjusts his story. Now it IS INDEED "signs".


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Little paranoid. You were told the verse is perfectly accurate with both ionterpretations, i took your spin to show you how it is still correct.

Bin Fagin wrote:
You said "sign", you liar.


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
And im using your interpretation to show how both understanding are correct, little paranoid.

Bin Fagin wrote:
One car means one sign or "sign", and "signs" means multiple cars or signs.


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
You're sinking in your paranoia again. If i say i will show you "from" my cars it either means i will show you 1 or several cars from all the cars i have. The simple example should have helped you understand.

Bin Fagin wrote:
Then why did you use the word "sign" in singular fashion?


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
The journey itself is a sign, among many signs from God. Do you understand now.

Bin Fagin wrote:
Believe me, these games will not work.


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Which games, little paranoid.

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?


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Maybe you should point such instance for once

Bin Fagin wrote:
Send a message back to the cockroach farm that it doesn't work in this kitchen.


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
lol

Bin Fagin wrote:
By introducing a term that has no specific bearing as to get the conversation to go somewhere else.


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
The term was actually quite appropriate since it defines my purpose by telling you how to ask a question relevant to the discussion (the meaning of masjid) in a way that abases you.

Bin Fagin wrote:
Quote how you specifically spelled it out.


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Go there where you and your people were explained that no additional scripture is needed to know the location of the sacred mosque, and the farthest mosque http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7592&start=180#p122353

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


Another idiotic comment. You mean the Muslims did not know where the sacred mosque was until the hadith books were compiled 200 years after the prophet's death.

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.


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
And you were "clearly and very plainly" explained that the prophet was in charge of explaining the commands given in the Quran, before the writing of any hadith. This means when the Muslims were ordered to pray in the early days, they were told by the prophet to face a certain direction, and that direction was Jerusalem as you and your people were educated a few posts back. This means they always knew where masjid al aqsa was located because it was the furthest in relation to the Kaaba, and did not just face an unknown direction before the prophet's miraculous journey.

Bin Fagin wrote:
and give us a straight yes or no answer:?"??


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
You're typing nervously on your keyboard. Temper your paranoia.

Bin Fagin wrote:
What did they know about the journey


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
That the prophet was miraculously transported from point A (Kaaba) to point B (Jerusalem), and this in itself is a sign from the signs of Allah.

Bin Fagin wrote:
When was the first time that the Kaaba was referred to as the sacred mosque?


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Before Mecca was conquered (which cancels another idiotic comment from you), as seen in the Quran, before the prophet Muhammad was even born the Arabs bowed to it and called it the sacred mosque because, obviously it was sacred and it was a masjid.

Bin Fagin wrote:
you are an absolute disgrace.


Brother Eagle of FFI said:
Your paranoia is entertaining

# 97
- Thu 16 Sep, 2010 6:16 am
Post subject:
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.


Well, it seems you are confused because we (the believers) are certainly allowed to ask any questions, let me bring Free Islam translation to clear your ignorance:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَسْأَلُواْ عَنْ أَشْيَاء إِن تُبْدَ لَكُمْ تَسُؤْكُمْ وَإِن تَسْأَلُواْ عَنْهَا حِينَ يُنَزَّلُ الْقُرْآنُ تُبْدَ لَكُمْ عَفَا اللّهُ عَنْهَا وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ حَلِيمٌ (101)
O you who have believed! Do not ask about things which, if revealed to you, may trouble you. But if you ask about them when the Quran is sent down, it may be revealed to you. Allah has pardoned it, and Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing.
[Al Quran ; 5:101]

-> Firstly, the verse is not directed at kafirs like you, so you need to butt out of it, the verse is directed at the BELIEVERS: O you who have believed! , therefore a kafir like you is excluded from the above verse, i.e. a kafir like you may ask any question without observing the revelation of the Quran, another point also that you missed is simply this, such prohibition to ask questions was only enforced for a time limit, such time limit is clearly stated in the verse, i.e. ONLY during the Quran revelation, after that, all believers can ask any question they wish: Do not ask about things which, if revealed to you, may trouble you. But if you ask about them when the Quran is sent down, it may be revealed to you. , the Quran revelation took 23 years, therefore after those 23 years believers are allowed to ask any question they wish. The most important point that you could not see due to your blindness is simply this: such time limited prohibition was enforced to help the believers not to get into things that may TROUBLE THEM: if revealed to you, may trouble you., i.e. such prohibition is for the benefit of the believers. The next verse even gave us an example of some people who did so and they ended up kafirs like you bound to hell:

قَدْ سَأَلَهَا قَوْمٌ مِّن قَبْلِكُمْ ثُمَّ أَصْبَحُواْ بِهَا كَافِرِينَ (102)
A people before you have already asked about it, then they became in it unbelievers.
[Al Quran ; 5:102]

-> See: A people before you have already asked about it, then they became in it unbelievers. i.e. the whole objective is to protect them against becoming UNBELIVERS, makes great sense if the verse is only directed at the believers: O you who have believed! , and because one like you is already kafir bound to hell, then you may ask any question you have, but don?????????????????????¢??t forget that after the completion of the Quran revelation, all believers are also allowed to ask any question they have.

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,


Who is ?????????????????????¢??US?????????????????????¢?? exactly?

Well, again mister kafir, butt your arse out of it, the verse was only directed at the believers, i.e. a kafir like you was not included, but yet, all believers are now allowed to ask any question they have as I explained to you while clearing your ignorance above

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.


Makes great sense because the verse is only directed at the believers, you however need to butt out of it.

Slingshot wrote:
Still if it is as simple as having YOUR bit of software then its ok


What my software has to do with your crap concerning verse 5:101-102?

Look pal, I cannot deal with such incoherence by the dumb kafirs, it is not my problem that they have the veil over their eyes, ears and hearts, so you need to present to me strong arguments or I will dismiss ya.

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.


The above crap is dismissed, however I hope that you realize that you have been slam dunked; welcome to my slam dunk show:

# 98
- Thu 16 Sep, 2010 6:33 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

A kafir on FFI posted the following:

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?


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
- Thu 16 Sep, 2010 6:43 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Salam all

A kafir on FFI posted the following:

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?


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


Yes, I read that. Your post was timely, mate.

And look at the ignorant fools who are writing about Islam and Qur'aan at FFI.

These FFI goons and clowns would be demolished on any international forum, if they came out of their FFI Cesspool.

Salaams
BMZ
- Wed 27 Oct, 2010 4:56 pm
Post subject:
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.


Dumb kafir, did you learn the above stupid argument yourself or did you learn it from filthy Mushrik WittyBoy?

Well, if you learnt it from al-Mushrikoon, then I advice you that now you don?????????????????????¢??t only look dumb, rather, dumbest, exactly like them.

So you reckon Allah told us to emulate Muhammed (only) as an excellent example, or did He tell us that there are more who are excellent examples to us?

Well, let me show you, dumbest:

قَدْ كَانَتْ لَكُمْ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ فِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ إِذْ قَالُوا لِقَوْمِهِمْ إِنَّا بُرَآءُ مِنْكُمْ وَمِمَّا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ كَفَرْنَا بِكُمْ وَبَدَا بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمُ الْعَدَاوَةُ وَالْبَغْضَاءُ أَبَدًا حَتَّىٰ تُؤْمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَحْدَهُ إِلَّا قَوْلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ لِأَبِيهِ لَأَسْتَغْفِرَنَّ لَكَ وَمَا أَمْلِكُ لَكَ مِنَ اللَّهِ مِنْ شَيْءٍ ۖ رَبَّنَا عَلَيْكَ تَوَكَّلْنَا وَإِلَيْكَ أَنَبْنَا وَإِلَيْكَ الْمَصِيرُ (4)
There has certainly been for you a good example in Ibrahim and those with him, when they said to their people: Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from what you worship other than Allah. We have denied you, and there have appeared between us and you enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone, except for the saying of Ibrahim to his father: I will surely seek forgiveness for you, but I do not possess for you against Allah anything. Our Lord! Upon You we have relied, and to You we have turned, and to You is the destination.
[Al Quran ; 60:4]

-> What went wrong in here with your stupid reasoning, dumbest kafir? See: There has certainly been for you a good example in Ibrahim and those with him, not only Ibrahim, but those with him. Not only Muhammed is a good example to us. The above about Ibrahim and those with him was even repeated in the same sura, see:

لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِيهِمْ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِمَنْ كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ ۚ وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ (6)
There has certainly been for you in them a good example, for one who desires Allah and the last day; and whoever turns away, then indeed, Allah is the Rich, the Praised.
[Al Quran ; 60:6]

-> There has certainly been for you in them a good example, now the same verse even told us what is the good example, see: for one who desires Allah and the last day;

Here is the full sentence: There has certainly been for you in them a good example, for one who desires Allah and the last day;

And that is the good example, kafir, not what the filthy Mushrikoon tell you, nor that with which you delude yourself.

Now what was that, that was special about Ibrahim? Well, read these verses and educate yourself, dumbest kafir:

وَقَالُواْ كُونُواْ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَارَى تَهْتَدُواْ قُلْ بَلْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ (135)
And they said: Be a Jew or a Christian, you will be guided. Say: Rather, the religion of Ibrahim, the upright , and he was not among the polytheists.
[Al Quran ; 2:135]

-> See: the religion of Ibrahim, the upright , and he was not among the polytheists. Unlike the filthy hadith worshipping Muslims who are clear cut Mushrikoon.

إِنَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ كَانَ أُمَّةً قَانِتًا لِلَّهِ حَنِيفًا وَلَمْ يَكُ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ (120)
Indeed, Ibrahim was a leader, devoted to Allah, upright; and he was not of the polytheists.
[Al Quran ; 16:120]

-> See: Ibrahim was a leader, devoted to Allah, upright; and he was not of the polytheists. Unlike the filthy hadith worshipping Muslims who are clear cut Mushrikoon.

مَا كَانَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ يَهُودِيًّا وَلاَ نَصْرَانِيًّا وَلَكِن كَانَ حَنِيفًا مُّسْلِمًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ (67)
Ibrahim was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was upright, a submitter and he was not of the polytheists.
[Al Quran ; 3:67]

-> See: Ibrahim was neither Jewish nor Christian but he was upright, a submitter and he was not of the polytheists. Unlike the filthy hadith worshipping Muslims who are clear cut Mushrikoon.

It was even a direct command from Allah to Muhammed to command the believes to take Ibrahim as an example and follow his religion which never had shirk in it:

قُلْ صَدَقَ اللّهُ فَاتَّبِعُواْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ (95)
Say: Allah has spoken the truth, so follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright; and he was not among the polytheists.
[Al Quran ; 3:95]

-> See: Say: Allah has spoken the truth, so follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright; and he was not among the polytheists.

And even Muhammed was commanded to take Ibrahim as good example by following his religion and be not of the polytheists:

ثُمَّ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ أَنِ اتَّبِعْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا ۖ وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ (123)
Then We revealed to you to follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright one; and he was not among the polytheists.
[Al Quran ; 16:123]

-> See: We revealed to you to follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright one; and he was not among the polytheists. Unlike the filthy hadith worshipping Muslims who are clear cut Mushrikoon.

The warning against following anyone but Ibrahim is clear, see:

وَمَن يَرْغَبُ عَن مِّلَّةِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ إِلاَّ مَن سَفِهَ نَفْسَهُ وَلَقَدِ اصْطَفَيْنَاهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَإِنَّهُ فِي الآخِرَةِ لَمِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ (130)
And none would be averse to the religion of Ibrahim except one who makes a fool of himself. And We chose him in this world, and in the hereafter he will be from among the righteous.
[Al Quran ; 2:130]

-> See: And none would be averse to the religion of Ibrahim except one who makes a fool of himself.

وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ دِينًا مِّمَّنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لله وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ واتَّبَعَ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا وَاتَّخَذَ اللّهُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ خَلِيلاً (125)
And who has a better religion than one who submits his face to Allah while being a doer of good and follows the religion of Ibrahim, the upright? And Allah took Ibrahim as a friend.
[Al Quran ; 4:125]

-> See this one: And who has a better religion than one who submits his face to Allah while being a doer of good and follows the religion of Ibrahim, the upright? And Allah took Ibrahim as a friend. Allah did not even say that He took Muhammed as a friend as He did with Ibrahim.

Even Muhammed was commanded by Allah to tell the people that he was taking Ibrahim as an example and following his religion which had no shirk:

قُلْ إِنَّنِي هَدَانِي رَبِّي إِلَى صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ دِينًا قِيَمًا مِّلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ (161)
Say: Indeed, my Lord has guided me to a straight path, the correct religion; the faith of Ibrahim the upright and he was not of the polytheists.
[Al Quran ; 6:161]

-> See: Say: Indeed, my Lord has guided me to a straight path, the correct religion; the faith of Ibrahim the upright and he was not of the polytheists.

Even prophet Yusuf was talking Ibrahim as an excellent example by following his religion which should have no shirk therein:

وَاتَّبَعْتُ مِلَّةَ آبَائِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ ۚ مَا كَانَ لَنَا أَنْ نُشْرِكَ بِاللَّهِ مِنْ شَيْءٍ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ مِنْ فَضْلِ اللَّهِ عَلَيْنَا وَعَلَى النَّاسِ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَشْكُرُونَ (38)
And I have followed the religion of my fathers, Ibrahim and Ishaq and Yaqoub; it never was for us to associate with Allah a thing. That is from the grace of Allah upon us and upon the people, but most people do not give thanks.
[Al Quran ; 12:38]

-> See: And I (prophet Yusuf) have followed the religion of my fathers, Ibrahim and Ishaq and Yaqoub; it never was for us to associate with Allah a thing. And that is the religion of Ibrahim that Muhammed and all believers after him followed while taking Ibrahim as an example in not shirking with Allah anything.

So what I am doing with those filthy Mushrikoon is simply this, I took Ibrahim as an excellent example (as commanded by Allah) and disassociated myself from the shirk of my fathers and grandfathers, see:

وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ لِأَبِيهِ وَقَوْمِهِ إِنَّنِي بَرَاءٌ مِمَّا تَعْبُدُونَ (26)
And when Ibrahim said to his father and his people: Indeed, I am disassociated from what you worship.
[Al Quran ; 43:26]

-< See what Ibrahim said to his Mushrik father and his Mushrik people: Indeed, I am disassociated from what you worship.

It is clear, kafir, that you have no point; while as I told ya earlier, I have all the points. So here is another point for you:

Keep listening to the confused and filthy Mushriks from among the Muslims and you will become like them, the dumbest

You have been slammed again, kafir boy:

# 99
- Thu 28 Oct, 2010 2:41 am
Post subject:
Thanks for the slam dunk, Ahmed

I was reading all the rotten stuff from those FFI goons.

Here is something extremely stupid from the kid,
Skynightblaze :

"One more point is that since quran links us to hadiths so following hadiths would also mean following Allah because Allah wants muslims to follow hadiths too so CAts argument that hadiths dont have a stamp of jibril is again simply crap! Hadiths do have a seal because Allah wants them to be followed.

I hope that clarifies confusion otherwise put me in your list of confused people along with you 2"

And this ignorant fool thinks he has clarified. Rofl

"Allah wants Muslims to follow Hadith too", says Skynightblaze Bin Shiva Lingam. Rofl

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
- Thu 28 Oct, 2010 2:55 am
Post subject:
Hello, Ahmed

Who is this Pisscohot at the FFI cesspool?

The FFI goon wrote:

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?


And look at the foolish question, when the ignorant fool does not even know that who were the enemies of Gabriel!

They were those who believed that Gabriel had only delivered messages to the biblical prophets and characters and showed displeasure upon knowing that Gabriel was delivering scripture to an Arab.

Pisscohot wrote:

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.


He is not a simpleton. He seems to be an idiot and an ignorant fool.

How do you tolerate these clowns?
- Thu 28 Oct, 2010 3:34 pm
Post subject:
BMZ wrote:
"Allah wants Muslims to follow Hadith too", says Skynightblaze Bin Shiva Lingam. Rofl
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


Laughing Laughing

After this valuable information about the man made god of skyarseblaze Shiva, I am thinking to make a funny movie starring him and his god Shiva using this music (Visions of Shiva):



What do you think?
- Fri 29 Oct, 2010 11:17 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
BMZ wrote:
"Allah wants Muslims to follow Hadith too", says Skynightblaze Bin Shiva Lingam. Rofl
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


Laughing Laughing

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?


That is a great idea, Ahmed. Most of the goons at FFI are Hindus.

It would be good if you post your artistic video on FFI also. The Hindu FFI members will love it.

And if you wish to add Lord Brahma, you can add that as a bonus item.

Lord Brahma used to sit down and masturbate but he was not like Onan of Genesis 30, he did not spill his semen on the floor. Instead, he filled up a bucket with his own semen and he created his own daughter. I can't remember her name. It was Parvati, I think. Anyway, he was full of lust and raped her and they lived as a couple for a hundred years.

That is how the Hindus became in-bred. And that is the reason that Skynightnoblaze bin Dickless Shiva is unable to comprehend.

What really happened was this:

According to the Puranas, Lord Shiva went crazy when he saw the wives of the sages in the forest and raped them all.

When the sages came back and the women told them about the rapes carried out by Lord Shiva, the sages went mad and confronted Lord Shiva and tore his Lingha (Penis or Dick or Cock) and threw it on the ground.

Lord Shiva became dick-less but his furious dick went rummaging mother Earth like a tunnel boring machine and disintegrated.

Lord Shiva's cavity became like a Yoni (Cunt).

Salaams, mate
BMZ
- Sat 30 Oct, 2010 7:28 pm
Post subject:

Kafir pisscohot of FFI said to Ahmed (quoting Ahmed): In the midst of his long rambling, confusing post, this gem stood out:

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].


Laughing

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
- Sun 31 Oct, 2010 3:55 am
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:

Kafir pisscohot of FFI said to Ahmed (quoting Ahmed): In the midst of his long rambling, confusing post, this gem stood out:

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].


Laughing

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


That was brilliant, mate.

And even after knowing that, the men, who penned the New Testament, wrote merrily using the hearsay and filled the NT up.

Under the Deuteronomy Clause 18:18-22, even the New Testament, a book load of Christian Ahaadith, is not valid and has no leg to stand upon.

Salaams
BMZ
- Wed 03 Nov, 2010 9:04 pm
Post subject:
Salam all

One of the new bums in the FFI block who is named zamie but I call him zanie, said the following crap


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?


So, I firstly replied to him as follow:

zanie

Are you dumb like all kafirs on FFI, or what?

The verse does not say all people drink it

It says THOSE who drink it, i.e. those who are happy to drink it

Now, get this, I have a problem with lactose, but I still love the cow milk and happy to drink it

Dismiss yourself
-----------

Yet, the dumb bums comes back with more crap, so the zanie has to be slam dunked:

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. .)


Ahmed says:

You dishonest conman, the verse never mentioned that it is easily digest, the verse only said that it will taste good for those who drink it, i.e. those who love to drink it will enjoy its taste, see zanie, this is Free Islam translation to verse 16:66 as of 11th of April 2010:

وَإِنَّ لَكُمْ فِي الْأَنْعَامِ لَعِبْرَةً ۖ نُسْقِيكُمْ مِمَّا فِي بُطُونِهِ مِنْ بَيْنِ فَرْثٍ وَدَمٍ لَبَنًا خَالِصًا سَائِغًا لِلشَّارِبِينَ (66)
And indeed, for you in the cattle is a lesson; We give you, drink from what is in their bellies of excretions and blood, pure milk, palatable to the drinkers.
[Al Quran ; 16:66]

-> Here it is again, zanie: لَبَنًا خَالِصًا سَائِغًا لِلشَّارِبِينَ , i.e. pure milk, palatable to the drinkers.

So where is that 'easily digested' part, conman?

Got you red handed, manipulating, manipulator

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..


And why mention them, you manipulator?

So you want the verse to say, We gave you milk from the bellies of the cows, and it is pleasent to drink by its drinkers, but some will have a lactose problem.

Hahah, funny indeed, dismiss yourself, manipulator

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.


And that is your problem, manipulator, THE VERSE NEVER MENTIONED THAT 'EASILY DIGESTED' PART, this is what a conman like you say, in fact if I extract the exact Arabic words and paste it into Google translate, this is what you get:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


EXACTLY AS I TRANSLATED IT 6 MONTHS AGO

The rest of your crap will be dismissed, but for now, you have been slam dunked, zanie, welcome to my slam dunk show:

# 101

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?


- Fri 05 Nov, 2010 2:56 pm
Post subject:
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

enceladus wrote:
From this site -
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/quranic.contradictions/index.html


Yes we know, all kafirs on FFI are ignorant dumb bums who only copy crap by other which they do not even understand.

enceladus wrote:
2:131 - Allah asked, and Abraham cheerfully submitted himself to Allah (Abraham was the first Muslim?????????????????????¢??ibn Kathir.)


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

enceladus wrote:
Contradiction: 2:37 says Adam was the first Muslim.


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

enceladus wrote:
Contradiction: 6:14 says Muhammad was the first Muslim.


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

enceladus wrote:
Contradiction: 7:143 says Moses was the first Muslim.


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

enceladus wrote:
Contradiction: 26:51 says some Egyptians were the first Muslims.


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

enceladus wrote:
Quite a choice here as to who was the "first Muslim". Who was it?


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)

enceladus wrote:
Why can the alleged-to-exist Allah not make up his mind who it was? Did he forget?
- enceladus


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


Thanks for this Slam Dunk, mate. The Clown is even unable to read and understand simple translations in English.

First, this FFI goon enceladus makes a mistake by quoting 2:37, which has nothing to do with his own idiotic points. It does not say anything at all about Adam being the first Muslim.

6:14 only tells Muhammad to say that he has been commanded to be among the first or foremost of those who surrender or submit to God.

26:51 does not say that some Egyptians were the first Muslims.

The verse is talking about Pahroah's magicians, who believed Moses and said that they believed in the LORD of Moses.

The clueless FFI Ignorant Fools cherry-pick a verse not knowing what topic was being discussed in a section.

The insanity of FFI Goons amazes me.
- Fri 05 Nov, 2010 4:14 pm
Post subject:
Kafir zanie of FFI continued to cry to Ahmed and said:
I have provided ample evidence from the koran itself, and i could even use jewish sources if i so pleased, but you would just say it's corrupt, wouldn't you..hypocrite.

As i said in my previous paragraph, moses was not the first muslim of his tribe,


Ahmed says:
Again you stupid punk of a zanie, the verse never said that Musa was the first Muslim

if you continue your stupidity, you will be life dismissed


Kafir zanie of FFI replied to Ahmed and said:
My friend, perhpas you should re-read the quote. According to your interpretation, he was the first beleiver of his tribe.

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.


Your explenation proves my point.

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)


As i showed in my previous post, musa was not the first of believers in his tribe.(EMPHASIS ON BELIEF, not submitter, which you so articulately defined.


Ahmed says:
zanie, looks like you want to be slammed again, why not, it is my slam dunk show:

All the Quran evidences prove that the message was sent first to Musa, then he believed and asked Allah to make his brother part of the whole affair, see these verses zanie:

Let?????????????????????¢??s catch the story in the valley of Tuwa just after Allah told Musa that he was chosen to be a messenger of God, Who at this time no one in the vicinity knew of Him:

Musa is asking Allah to Support him with his brother:

وَاجْعَلْ لِي وَزِيرًا مِنْ أَهْلِي (29)
And make for me a minister from my family.
[Al Quran ; 20:29]

هَارُونَ أَخِي (30)
Harun, my brother.
[Al Quran ; 20:30]

اشْدُدْ بِهِ أَزْرِي (31)
Strengthen through him my strength.
[Al Quran ; 20:31]

Musa is asking Allah to make his brother part of the whole affair so both can glorify Him together and remember, this can only happen after Musa spoke to Allah and believed:

وَأَشْرِكْهُ فِي أَمْرِي (32)
And make him share my affair.
[Al Quran ; 20:32]

كَيْ نُسَبِّحَكَ كَثِيرًا (33)
That we should glorify You a lot.
[Al Quran ; 20:33]

وَنَذْكُرَكَ كَثِيرًا (34)
And remember You a lot.
[Al Quran ; 20:34]

إِنَّكَ كُنْتَ بِنَا بَصِيرًا (35)
Indeed, You are of us ever Seeing.
[Al Quran ; 20:35]

Allah accepted Musa?????????????????????¢??s request concerning his brother:

قَالَ قَدْ أُوتِيتَ سُؤْلَكَ يَا مُوسَىٰ (36)
He (Allah) said: You have been granted your request, O Musa.
[Al Quran ; 20:36]

In another verse, Allah makes mention of Musa and how He made Harun for him a minister, i.e. a less degree than Musa:

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَابَ وَجَعَلْنَا مَعَهُ أَخَاهُ هَارُونَ وَزِيرًا (35)
And We have certainly given Musa the book and made with him his brother Harun a minister.
[Al Quran ; 25:35]

-> See, Musa was given the book, i.e. Musa believed, then Harun was made a minister to him, this cannot happen if Harun was spoken to by Allah before Musa, which was not the case,

In fact the command in the first conversation was an order of a singular verb, commanding Musa only to go to Firon with the message, this was before the above verses, see:

اذْهَبْ إِلَىٰ فِرْعَوْنَ إِنَّهُ طَغَىٰ (24)
Go to Firon, indeed, he has transgressed.
[Al Quran ; 20:24]

-> See, zanie, اذهب , Izhab, i.e. singular go

Now, after Musa asked Allah to guide Harun with him and make him part of the whole affair, the command became dual ?????????????????????¢??go?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? later in the same sura, see:

اذْهَبَا إِلَىٰ فِرْعَوْنَ إِنَّهُ طَغَىٰ (43)
Go to Firon; indeed, he has transgressed.
[Al Quran ; 20:43]

-> See, zanie, اذهبا , Izhaba, i.e. dual go


I.e. all the Quran evidences prove that Musa believed before his brother Harun,

You have been slammed again, zanie:

# 103
- Fri 05 Nov, 2010 4:35 pm
Post subject:
I was almost going to ask you to do another Slam Dunk and you did it. Very Happy

I was going to refer to the verses that you brought up for the ignorant fool Zani.

Did you notice that the FFI Goons even do not know how to cherry-pick a verse?

Rofl
- Sun 07 Nov, 2010 8:23 am
Post subject:
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?


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 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 towards 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 confirms 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 irrefutably conclude the following:

A- The fight was because of the House of Allah and its ownership and how the rituals of worshiping 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 worshipers 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 (38)
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 worshiping 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 should fight them until the religion of Allah (the house 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 be because Allah is our Guardian, and He will help His worshipers 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:

- Sun 07 Nov, 2010 4:22 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat begin_of_the_skype_highlighting???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? end_of_the_skype_highlighting wrote:
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?


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 (3Cool
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:



Clap

Enjoyed reading the Gun Bandana Grand Slam Dunk, mate.

I am glad that you wrote: "For 2:193, I will walk you through from verse 2:190 to verse 2:194".

That is the section, which contains those verses and the miserable bastard goons of FFI like M Bin Lying, skynightblaze ibne Dickless Shiva and others always do not mention 2:190 and proceed to the next part of the verse.

What is happening at FFI Cesspool is this:

The Cat, after years of reading the exchanges between the clueless FFI goons and Muslims like you, has come to understand that Hadith is not the Scripture of Islam at all.

The Cat has realized that Qur'aan is the Scripture of Islam.

And he has rightly pointed out to the FFI goons and the freaks that if they keep on presenting ridiculous ahaadith to Muslims in order to make a stupid point, the Muslims will reject the Hadith, because Hadith is no scripture of Islam at all.

But no Muslim will reject any verse of Qur'aan at all.

The Cat has already acknowledged your contributions in demolishing the Hadith and your defence of Qur'aan.

That is already a plus point and a great victory for you and the Muslims, who supported you.

So, what exactly is happening?

Now that The Cat has already demolished skynightblaze Bin Abu Hurairah, has blown the assholes and pieces of shit like M bin Lying, Pisscohot and others , all the clueless FFI goons have panicked.

You can see the bigot and the weasel Yeezevee trying to lick everybody's arse.

Alarm bells are ringing at the FFI Cesspool. It is a panic. Rofl

So what do they do now and how can they divert the topic?

The bloody fools are now back to attacking Qur'aan.

I am so glad that a "Qur'aan Only Non-Muslim" has blown away all the pieces of shit known as "Hadith Only Non-Muslims!"

Rofl

Please convey my best regards to The Cat for his observation and his stand.

Salaams, mate
BMZ
- Wed 10 Nov, 2010 12:23 am
Post subject: RIM JOB ON YEEZEVEE
Hello, Ahmed

I saw you did a nice and a great rim job on FFI's in-house Clown-in-Chief Yeezevee.

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8293#p130951

Looks like your post went way above the goon's head and the clown was left speechless. I noticed that he could not even respond to you sensibly.

That was more than a Slam Dunk. You sodomized the ignorant fool brutally. Rofl
- Thu 11 Nov, 2010 4:28 am
Post subject:
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.


Here is the skyarseblaze Ibn Abu Hurairah defending al-Mushrikoon again

If you read again my definition of men of authority, you should notice the 'ETC' I added, look above in youe quote, blind

Now, I also said anyone with VALID authority, not con-people making their own authority.

Now ETC should cover men of authority in religion, i.e. men of authority in religion who have a VALID authority, which should take us to how we know a valid authority in religion?

The answer should be simple, you filthy hadith worshippers, in fact it is in the verse before the verse you brought in, let's have a look, shall we:

أَفَلاَ يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللّهِ لَوَجَدُواْ فِيهِ اخْتِلاَفًا كَثِيرًا (82)
Do they not ponder upon the Quran? And if it had been from anyone other than Allah, they would have found in it much discrepancy.
[Al Quran ; 4:82]

وَإِذَا جَاءهُمْ أَمْرٌ مِّنَ الأَمْنِ أَوِ الْخَوْفِ أَذَاعُواْ بِهِ وَلَوْ رَدُّوهُ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَإِلَى أُوْلِي الأَمْرِ مِنْهُمْ لَعَلِمَهُ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَنبِطُونَهُ مِنْهُمْ وَلَوْلاَ فَضْلُ اللّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ لاَتَّبَعْتُمُ الشَّيْطَانَ إِلاَّ قَلِيلاً (83)
And when there comes to them an announcement of security or fear, they announced it. And if they had referred it to the messenger and to those who possess authority from among them, those who are able to comprehend it from among them would have known it. And if it was not for the grace of Allah and His mercy upon you, you would have followed the devil except a few.
[Al Quran ; 4:83]

I.e. men of authority in religion should be men who talk on behalf of God, i.e. messengers delivering His messages, or others who use His message to answer any question (pondering upon His Quran), see again how it was said in the verse before it: Do they not ponder upon the Quran? Now those who ponder upon the Quran should be the ones mentioned in the next verse: and to those who possess authority from among them, those who are able to comprehend it from among them would have known it.

Like me for example, when anyone asks me a religious question, I GET THE ANSWER FROM THE WORDS OF ALLAH, i.e. I am a man of religious authority because I dont get anything from my own, rather from what Allah said.

On the other hand, the like of you kafirs, and mushriks like Nijis WittyBoy cannot be men of authority in religion, this is because you dont talk with what Allah sent down, rather you talk with some other crap from some fukin people that non of you never met.

Let me show you such authority in action, and then you will be slammed:

وَيَسْتَفْتُونَكَ فِي النِّسَاء قُلِ اللّهُ يُفْتِيكُمْ فِيهِنَّ وَمَا يُتْلَى عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ فِي يَتَامَى النِّسَاء الَّلاتِي لاَ تُؤْتُونَهُنَّ مَا كُتِبَ لَهُنَّ وَتَرْغَبُونَ أَن تَنكِحُوهُنَّ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الْوِلْدَانِ وَأَن تَقُومُواْ لِلْيَتَامَى بِالْقِسْطِ وَمَا تَفْعَلُواْ مِنْ خَيْرٍ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِهِ عَلِيمًا (127)
And they ask you for a ruling concerning women. Say: Allah gives you a ruling concerning them and what is recited to you in the book concerning the female orphans to whom you do not give what is decreed for them while you desire to marry them; and (concerning) the weak from among the children that you should deal with the orphans in justice. And whatever you do of good, then indeed, Allah is ever of it Knowing.
[Al Quran ; 4:127]

-> See when the people asked Muhammed a question, Allah did not tell Muhammed to answer them as he desire, rather Allah told Muhammed to tell the people, Allah responds to you: And they ask you for a ruling concerning women. Say: Allah gives you a ruling concerning them and what is recited to you in the book How compelling, Nijis hadith worshiper? Can you see that all verses I am bringing in are from the same sura you brought 4:83 from. Very impressing, hey, how about another one from the same sura:

يَسْتَفْتُونَكَ قُلِ اللّهُ يُفْتِيكُمْ فِي الْكَلاَلَةِ إِنِ امْرُؤٌ هَلَكَ لَيْسَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَهُ أُخْتٌ فَلَهَا نِصْفُ مَا تَرَكَ وَهُوَ يَرِثُهَآ إِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهَا وَلَدٌ فَإِن كَانَتَا اثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُمَا الثُّلُثَانِ مِمَّا تَرَكَ وَإِن كَانُواْ إِخْوَةً رِّجَالاً وَنِسَاء فَلِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الأُنثَيَيْنِ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمْ أَن تَضِلُّواْ وَاللّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ (176)
They ask you for a ruling. Say: Allah gives you a ruling concerning those who die while leaving behind no parents or descendant, if someone dies who has no child but has a sister, then for her is half of what he leaves, and he should inherit her if she has no child; but if they are two, then for them is two-thirds of what he leaves. And if they are siblings of men and women, then for the male is the portion of two females. Allah explains to you lest you go astray; and Allah is of everything Knowing.
[Al Quran ; 4:176]

-> See again from the same surah how the only religious authority (the authority of Allah) is working: They ask you for a ruling. Say: Allah gives you a ruling


Here you have it, punk of a hadith worshiper bound to hell. The religious authority is only one authority, the authority of Allah, messengers delivers this authority then explain it further to those who followed them, as for those who rejected the authority of Allah, messengers for them were only warners warning them to be aware of the authority of Allah and what will be the consequence if they reject His authority.

Men like me who only talk Quran, and only take religious authority from it and not from man made rubbish books. Are men of authority because when people ask me for a religious ruling, I tell them: Allah gives you a ruling. Then I present to them with what Allah said.

You have been slammed again, you filthy hadith worshiper, now you should do yourself and your lover Mushrik Muslim WittyBoy some justice by giving your arses a bit of workout, and what better workout for your arses than shoving the 9 man made books of hadith up them.

# 105
- Thu 11 Nov, 2010 5:24 am
Post subject:
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 .


See, you stubborn filthy hadith worshiping kafr, I must mother slam you to shut your filthy herpes infected mouth for good:

Let?????????????????????¢??s see what the first man of authority Abu Bakr did after Muhammed died:

The following hadith by Abu Bakr is from a man made sunni book called:

Book name: كنز العمال, i.e. The treasure of workers or The treasure of deeds

By: الذهبي , Al-Zahabi

لم يكن الخليفة عمر اول من عمد الى احراق الاحاديث ومنع الناس من نقل حديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله. فقد سبقه الى ذلك الخليفة الاول ابو بكر فقد جمع الناس في بداية خلافته وقال " إنكم تحدثون عن رسول الله أحاديث تختلفون فيها ، والناس بعدكم أشد اختلافا ، فلا تحدثوا عن رسول الله شيئا ، فمن سألكم فقولوا بيننا وبينكم كتاب الله ، فاستحلوا حلاله ، وحرموا حرامه" ثم عمد الى احاديث عن النبي كان قد جمعها بنفسه فاحرقها كلها وكان عددها 500 حديث

I.e.

And of course Khalifah Omar was not the first who deliberately burnt the hadith and prohibited the people from transmitting hadith about the messenger of Allah, as preceded him the first Khalifah Abu Bakr who gathered the people in the first days of his ruling and said:

Indeed, you are talking hadith about the messenger of Allah while you disagree on them, and the people after you will surely disagree more than you, therefore if anyone asks you, then say: Between you and us is the Book of Allah, so make lawfully anything it (the Quran) makes lawful, and prohibit anything it (the Quran) prohibits.

Then he went and brought about 500 hadith about the prophet which he collected himself and burnt all of it.

See you filthy hadith worshiping kafir what the first man of authority did, he burnt all 500 hadith belonging to him. This explains why we have very little hadith by Abu Bakr in the man made crap book of Bukhari, certainly after Abu Bakr died, the wannabe Mushrik Muslims kept transmitting some of his hadith and disobeyed the men of authority.

I also showed your pinky arse what the second Khalifah Omar did, for which you were stunned and consequently you provided no answer, so let me give you another chance to answer it (which is going to be impossible because this is a mother of all slams, you know):

عن عروة بن الزبير عن أبيه عروة قال: أراد عمر بن الخطاب أن يكتب السنن، فاستشار فيها أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه، فأشار عامتهم بذلك عليه؛ فمكث عمر شهراً يستخير الله في ذلك شاكاً فيه؛ ثم أصبح يوماً قد عزم الله له، فقال: إني كنت ذكرت لكم من كتاب السنن ما قد علمتم؛ ثم تذكرت، فإذا ناس من أهل الكتاب قد كتبوا مع كتاب الله كتاباً ألبسوا عليه، وتركوا كتاب الله، وإني والله لا ألبس كتاب الله بشيء أبداً ؛ فترك عمر كتاب السنة.
Arwah Ibn Al-Zobair said that his father Arwah said: Omar Ibn Al-Khattab once wanted to write the sunnah, so he took the advice of most of the companions of the messenger of Allah. They advised him that he should do it.

So Omar stayed for a month seeking the guidance of Allah to do it or not as he was doubting it. One day he waked up and it seems that Allah guided him to what to do, so Omar Ibn Al-Khattab said:

Indeed, I mentioned to you that I desired to write the sunnah of what you have already known, then I remembered the people of the book before you who wrote a book next to the book of Allah and got confused therein and left the book of Allah. And indeed, by Allah, I will not confuse the book of Allah with anything, ever.

So Omar rejected writing the sunnah in books.

Now, what Omar said means FOREVER not during his time only, see how he said it: وإني والله لا ألبس كتاب الله بشيء أبداً , i.e. And indeed, by Allah, I will not confuse the book of Allah with anything, ever.

So tell me mister Mushrik WB, how come Khalifah Omar Ibn Al-Khattab refused to write the Sunnah (he even referred to it with this name instead of hadith) while you along with your associates lied to us and told us that the prophet allowed writing Sunnah/Hadith later on in his life and before his death?

Well, the answer is simple, the prophet never allowed his people to write anything he said but Quran, he even deleted what they wrote and told them he is only a human, remember this from your Man Made book that we discussed earlier:

عن أبي هريرة قال: بلغ رسول الله أن ناساً قد كتبوا حديثه، فصعد المنبر، فحمد الله وأثنى عليه ثم قال ما هذه الكتب التي بلغني أنكم قد كتبتم، إِنما أنا بشر. من كان عنده منها شيء فليأت به ؛ فجمعناها فأخرجت
Abi Hurairah said: The messenger of Allah was informed that some people wrote his hadith, so he climbed into the stand then praised and thanked Allah and said:

What are these books that you have written? Indeed, I am only a human, whoever has of these books should bring it in.

So we collected it and destroyed it.

Let?????????????????????¢??s move on and see what else Omar did:

عن خالد بن عرفطة قال كنت جالساً عند عمر، إذ أتي برجل من عبد القيس، مسكنه بالسوس؛ فقال له عمر أنت فلان بن فلان العبدي? قال نعم قال وأنت النازل بالسوس? قال نعم فضربه بقناة معه؛ فقال الرجل ما لي يا أمير المؤمنين? فقال له عمر: اجلس فجلس فقرأ عليه بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم، الر، تلك آيات الكتاب المبين، إنا أنزلناه قرآناً عربياً لعلكم تعقلون، نحن نقص عليك أحسن القصص إلى لمن الغافلين فقرأها عليه ثلاثاً، وضربه ثلاثاً، فقال له الرجل ما لي يا أمير المؤمنين? فقال أنت الذي نسخت كتاب دانيال? قال مرني بأمرك أتبعه قال انطلق فامحه بالحميم والصوف الأبيض؛ ثم لا تقرأه ولا تقريه أحداً من الناس؛ فلئن بلغني عنك إنك قرأته أو أقرأته أحداً من الناس، لأنهنك عقوبة ثم قال له أجلس فجلس بين يديه فقال: انطلقت أنا، فانتسخت كتاباً من أهل الكتاب، ثم جئت به في أديم، فقال لي رسول الله صلى الله عليه ما هذا في يدك يا عمر قال قلت يا رسول الله كتاب انتسخته، لنزداد به علماً إلى علمنا فغضب رسول الله صلى الله عليه، حتى احمرت وجنتاه، ثم نودي بالصلاة جامعة؛ فقالت الأنصار: أغضب نبيكم صلى الله عليه: السلاح، السلاح ، فجاؤا حتى أحدقوا بمنبر رسول الله صلى الله عليه، فقال: يا أيها الناس إني أوتيت جوامع الكلم وخواتيمه، واختصر لي اختصاراً، ولقد أتيتكم بها بيضاء. نقية، فلا تتهوكوا، ولا يقربكم المتهوكون .
Khalid Ibn Arfattah said: I was sitting with Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, when he brought in a guy from Abdulqais whose house was in the village of Soos, and then Omar said to him:

Are you that guy from Abdulqais? The guy said: Yes

Omar said to him: And you live in Soos? The guy said: Yes

So Omar hit him with a stick. The guy said: What I have done wrong O Amir Al-Mumineen (Khalifah)?

Omar said to him: Sit down. Then Omar read the following Quran verses three times:

الر ۚ تِلْكَ آيَاتُ الْكِتَابِ الْمُبِينِ (1)
Alif Lam Ra. These are the signs of the manifest book.
[Al Quran ; 12:1]

إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ (2)
Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran that perhaps you will understand.
[Al Quran ; 12:2]

نَحْنُ نَقُصُّ عَلَيْكَ أَحْسَنَ الْقَصَصِ بِمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ وَإِنْ كُنْتَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ لَمِنَ الْغَافِلِينَ (3)
We relate to you the best of the stories in what We have revealed to you of this Quran; and indeed, you were before it among the unaware.
[Al Quran ; 12:3]

Then Omar hit the guy three times. The guy said to Omar: What I have done wrong O Amir Al-Mumineen (Khalifah)?

Omar said to the guy: Aren?????????????????????¢??t you the one who translated the book of Daniel (to Arabic). The guy replied: Command me and I will certainly do what you want.

Omar said to the guy: Go and destroy it and never read it to the people or get it near them; and if I get informed that you read it or made anyone to read it, I will humiliate you with punishment.

Then Omar asked the guy to sit down, and told him: One day I got a book translated from the books of the people of the book, then went to the messenger of Allah, the messenger of Allah asked me about it, so I told him it is a translated book from the books of the people of the book. The prophet got very angry until his cheeks turned red.

The messenger then stood on the stand and said the following:

O people! I was given the complete collection of the words and their ending, it was been briefed to me in excellent briefing, and I came to you with it while it is white and pure. So do not be reckless and never allow reckless ones to come near you.

While the matter above was about writing/translating the books of the people of the book, we cannot overlook what the prophet said to the people about the Quran in the above allegation:

The messenger of Allah said: O people! I was given the complete collection of the words and their ending, it was been briefed to me in excellent briefing, and I came to you with it while it is white and pure. So do not be reckless and never allow reckless ones to come near you.

How beautiful these descriptions about the Quran: I was given the complete collection of the words and their endings, it was been briefed to me with excellent briefing, and I came to you with it while it is white and pure. So do not be reckless and never allow reckless ones to come near you.

In no way these Man Made evil books of crap hadith are:

1- Complete collection of the words and their endings.
2- Briefed with excellent briefing.
3- White.
4- Pure.

The Man Made rubbish books of crap hadith are not but:

1- Complete collection of confusion and non sense.
2- Unrealistically lengthy and horrible to read and understand by average people.
3- Black.
4- Impure.

See WB, it has to be as iffo told you, it is either you declare these books as false or you choose hell to be your destination.

Let?????????????????????¢??s read a great story about Omar Ibn Al-Khattab when he wanted to filter out all al Mushrikoon:

حدثنا القاسم بن محمد أن عمر بن الخطاب بلغه أنه قد ظهر في أيدي الناس كتب، فاستنكرها، وكرهها، وقال: أيها الناس، أنه قد بلغني أنه قد ظهرت في أيديكم كتب؛ فأحبها إلى الله أعدلها وأقومها، فلا يبقين أحد عنده كتاب، إلا أتاني به، فأرى فيه رأيي قال فظنوا أنه يريد أن ينظر فيها، ويقومها على أمر لا يكون فيه اختلاف؛ فأتوه بكتبهم فأحرقها بالنار ثم قال: أمنية كأمنية أهل الكتاب
Al-Qasim Ibn Muhammed said: Omar Ibn Al-Khattab was informed that some books started to surface between the people, so he denied and despised them then said:

O people! I was informed that some books appeared between your hands, and the most loved of them to Allah would be the most just and fair, so no one leaves a book with him except he should bring to me so I see what is in there and give my opinion. (Omar was only tricking them)

The people thought wrong that Omar wanted to look at the books and authenticate them in order to remove disagreement between these books. The people brought to Omar all their books and he just burnt them all, and then said:

You just had the desire (tendency) like the desire of the people of the book.

How awesome by that man, I have to admit Omar is the most one I admire from the companions of the prophet, I am sort like him slightly, I do not mock around with al mushrikoon, I confront them in an aggressive way to filter them out and destroy them in the most aggressive way possible.

What I like about the above great story is how Omar quickly planned to trick the people in thinking that their Man Made books of rubbish hadith will be considered, but only after he checks them personally and give his opinion, then announcing who had the best book; consequently the owner of the winning book will be the most loved by Allah, see how he said it to them:

، أنه قد بلغني أنه قد ظهرت في أيديكم كتب؛ فأحبها إلى الله أعدلها وأقومها، فلا يبقين أحد عنده كتاب، إلا أتاني به، فأرى فيه رأيي

i.e.

I was informed that some books appeared between your hands, and the most loved of them to Allah would be the most just and fair, so no one leaves a book with him except he should bring to me so I see what is in there and give my opinion.

The people were fooled of course, was easy upon the very smart Omar especially that most of those wannabe Mushrikoon are already proved their dumbness and stupidity with their clear tendency to shirk. This allowed Omar to make sure that every single Man Made book will be brought in (to win the huge prize of the love of Allah), which meant that Omar made sure that every single Man Made book of theirs is brought in to be destroyed REGARDLESS of any good stories therein.

عن يحيى بن جعدة أن عمر بن الخطاب أراد أن يكتب السنة، ثم بدا له أن لا يكتبها؛ ثم كتب في الأمصار من كان عنده منها شيء فليمحه.
Yahya Ibn Jaadah said: Omar Ibn Al-Khattab desired to write the sunnah, then it became apparent to him that he should not, then he wrote on public notes to inform anyone who has written sunnah that it should be deleted.

Omar even posted public notices to make sure all Man Made books of sunnah were destroyed.

All the above stories about Omar happened when Omar was Khalifah, i.e. years after the prophet?????????????????????¢??s death; a grandmother of all slams exposing the clear cut lies and confusion of al mushrikoon.
--------------

As for the third Khalifah Uthamn, we know that he did not give a damn about hadth, he only collected and unified the Quran, had the hadith had any importance, Uthamn would have collected it too.

As for the fourth Khalifah Ali, well the Muslim Ummah was well into disaster since Omar was killed, they continued to fight for power and kill each other. Therefore, there is really nothing good to learn from the fourth Khalifah period.

Here you have it punk, you have nothing to prove your lies about worshiping the man made hadith by the first men of authority, all you have is this:

1- The shirk tendency of many confused Muslims who followed their confused fathers and grandfathers like Mushrik WittyBoy who is following a man made corrupt religion that was never sent from Allah.
2- Your shirk tendency as a confused ex-Hindu follower who was badly embarrassed with the crap in your hindu corrupt religion so you turned kafir but at the same time carry a lot of envy against believers like me who only believes in the preserved Quran and will never shirk with Allah a thing

You have been mother slammed

- Thu 11 Nov, 2010 5:47 pm
Post subject: Slam Dunking FF Goons
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
- Thu 11 Nov, 2010 8:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Slam Dunking FF Goons
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


The link of who has been dismissed for life is my signature on FFI Laughing

Cheers
- Thu 11 Nov, 2010 8:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Slam Dunking FF Goons
AhmedBahgat wrote:
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


The link of who has been dismissed for life is my signature on FFI Laughing

Cheers


Oh! Okay.

Great signature. :lol"
- Mon 15 Nov, 2010 6:40 am
Post subject:
Brendalee wrote:
Ahmed, my friend, you have not slam dunked me.


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:

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.


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.

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.


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

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?


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
- Mon 15 Nov, 2010 3:43 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Brendalee wrote:
Ahmed, my friend, you have not slam dunked me.


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:

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.


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.

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.


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

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?


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


Oh, mate!

You do not even spare a woman! Rofl I can say that she asked for it.

What is wrong with these clueless FFI Goons and Hadith-Only Kafirs?

Don't they have brains to reflect?

Enjoyed the Slam Dunk.

Salaams
BMZ
- Wed 17 Nov, 2010 5:29 am
Post subject:
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.


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.

skynightblaze wrote:
Also whether you translate the arabic as he was sent to TEACH instead of INSTRUCT still doesnt solve the problem.


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.

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?


Let me now rephrase your stupid question replacing your wishful thining word ?????????????????????¢??TEACH?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? with the right word:

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?


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:

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.


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 (18)
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 (58)
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 (18)
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
- Wed 17 Nov, 2010 4:47 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
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 Rolling Eyes


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.


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.

skynightblaze wrote:
Also whether you translate the arabic as he was sent to TEACH instead of INSTRUCT still doesnt solve the problem.


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.

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?


Let me now rephrase your stupid question replacing your wishful thining word ?????????????????????¢??TEACH?????????????????????¢?????????????????????? with the right word:

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?


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:

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.


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 (1Cool
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 (5Cool
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 (1Cool
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


Looks like the gang is going after MesMorial.

First, the FFI goons come up with absurdities and write silly posts themselves and when grilled by Muslims, they panic.

And then you can see them running all over the field, carrying the goal post over their heads.

That was a good interjection.

Salaams, mate and Eid Mubarak
BMZ
- Mon 29 Nov, 2010 5:23 am
Post subject:
Ahmed chose to slam dunk ?????????????????????¢??zanie?????????????????????¢?? the inmate:

zamie wrote:
According to this koranic verse, allah is light..


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 (8)
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:

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.


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:

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.


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.

zamie wrote:
According to one of allah's 99 names, allah is light (AN-N????????R)


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.

zamie wrote:
So if allah is not comparable and not like his creation, why is he light? Did allah not create light?


Show me the verse, inmate, where Allah said that He created light?

Put up, or stfu and stay in your cell.

# 109
- Mon 29 Nov, 2010 4:44 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Ahmed chose to slam dunk ?????????????????????¢??zanie?????????????????????¢?? the inmate:

zamie wrote:
According to this koranic verse, allah is light..


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 (Cool
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:

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.


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:

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.


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.

zamie wrote:
According to one of allah's 99 names, allah is light (AN-N????????R)


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.

zamie wrote:
So if allah is not comparable and not like his creation, why is he light? Did allah not create light?


Show me the verse, inmate, where Allah said that He created light?

Put up, or stfu and stay in your cell.

# 109


Can we have a link to the thread, Ahmed? Is this zamie a
new kid on the block? Another ignorant fool, who cannot understand.

Zanie? Rofl Have you told him what Zanie means?

Thanks for the Slam Dunk. He asked for it.

Salaams, mate
BMZ
- Tue 07 Dec, 2010 8:26 pm
Post subject:
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.


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:

Jesus worshiper Nosubmission wrote:
The Qur'an verse makes it clear that Jesus' grandmother was THE WIFE of Imran,


True, see, when you talk Quran only, you talk the truth.

Jesus worshiper Nosubmission wrote:
Imran, who was the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.


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:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


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:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


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
- Tue 07 Dec, 2010 9:07 pm
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
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.


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:

Jesus worshiper Nosubmission wrote:
The Qur'an verse makes it clear that Jesus' grandmother was THE WIFE of Imran,


True, see, when you talk Quran only, you talk the truth.

Jesus worshiper Nosubmission wrote:
Imran, who was the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.


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:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


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:

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.


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


Hello, Ahmed

The FFI goons and clowns are hilarious. Please let them have this:

http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=5587#5587

"The idiots, who wrote the Bible, did not know that Mary had a brother, whose name was Haroon." Rofl

Thanks for the Slam Dunk, mate.
- Thu 16 Dec, 2010 7:29 pm
Post subject:
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.

As I said to Dr Bum earlier, the subject in hand is settled by the Quran, that Jesus never had a father; like Adam who never had a father, for both Allah said ?????????????????????¢??be?????????????????????¢?? and they were.

In the Quran, Allah always commanded us to be good and kind to both parents, as well seek forgiviness for them, see these verses:

وَقَضَىٰ رَبُّكَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا ۚ إِمَّا يَبْلُغَنَّ عِنْدَكَ الْكِبَرَ أَحَدُهُمَا أَوْ كِلَاهُمَا فَلَا تَقُلْ لَهُمَا أُفٍّ وَلَا تَنْهَرْهُمَا وَقُلْ لَهُمَا قَوْلًا كَرِيمًا (23)
And your Lord has decreed that you do not worship except Him, and (show) kindness to the parents, whether one or both of them reach old age with you, and say not to them, uff, and do not insult them, and say to them an honourable saying.
[Al Quran ; 17:23]

وَاخْفِضْ لَهُمَا جَنَاحَ الذُّلِّ مِنَ الرَّحْمَةِ وَقُلْ رَبِّ ارْحَمْهُمَا كَمَا رَبَّيَانِي صَغِيرًا (24)
And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy and say: My Lord! Have mercy upon them, as they raised me up (when I was ) young.
[Al Quran ; 17:24]

-> See And your Lord has decreed that you do not worship except Him, and (show) kindness to the parents, whether one or both of them reach old age with you, and say not to them, uff, and do not insult them, and say to them an honourable saying. And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy and say: My Lord! Have mercy upon them, as they raised me up (when I was ) young.


Now, it is logical that all the prophets abided by such command from Allah; for example here is prophet Ibrahim seeking forgiveness for both his parents:

رَبَّنَا اغْفِرْ لِي وَلِوَالِدَيَّ وَلِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَوْمَ يَقُومُ الْحِسَابُ (41)
Our Lord! Forgive me and my parents and the believers on the day when the reckoning is established.
[Al Quran ; 14:41]

-> See what Ibrahim used to say:: اغْفِرْ لِي وَلِوَالِدَيَّ , Forgive me and my parents

Here is prophet Nuh obeying the command of Allah of seeking forgiveness to both parents:

رَبِّ اغْفِرْ لِي وَلِوَالِدَيَّ وَلِمَنْ دَخَلَ بَيْتِيَ مُؤْمِنًا وَلِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَلَا تَزِدِ الظَّالِمِينَ إِلَّا تَبَارًا (28)
My Lord! Forgive me and my parents and whoever enters my house a believer and the believing men and the believing women; and do not increase the unjust except in destruction.
[Al Quran ; 71:28]

-> See what prophet Nuh used to say: اغْفِرْ لِي وَلِوَالِدَيَّ , Forgive me and my parents


Here is prophet Yahya obeying the command of Allah to be good to both parents:

وَبَرًّا بِوَالِدَيْهِ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ جَبَّارًا عَصِيًّا (14)
And dutiful to his parents, and he was not disobedient tyrant.
[Al Quran ; 19:14]

-> See how prophet Yahya used to be: وَبَرًّا بِوَالِدَيْهِ , And dutiful to his parents,

But when it comes to prophet Jesus, his father is never mentioned:

وَبَرًّا بِوَالِدَتِي وَلَمْ يَجْعَلْنِي جَبَّارًا شَقِيًّا (32)
And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a disobedient tyrant;
[Al Quran ; 19:32]

-> See how prophet Jesus was: وَبَرًّا بِوَالِدَتِي , And dutiful to my mother

The Quranic fact that Jesus never had a father is confirmed in the Quran when we look at the following verses:

Here is prophet Solaiman appreciating the favours Allah bestowed over his parents:

فَتَبَسَّمَ ضَاحِكًا مِنْ قَوْلِهَا وَقَالَ رَبِّ أَوْزِعْنِي أَنْ أَشْكُرَ نِعْمَتَكَ الَّتِي أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيَّ وَعَلَىٰ وَالِدَيَّ وَأَنْ أَعْمَلَ صَالِحًا تَرْضَاهُ وَأَدْخِلْنِي بِرَحْمَتِكَ فِي عِبَادِكَ الصَّالِحِينَ (19)
So he (Solaiman) smiled laughing of its saying and said: My Lord! Enable me to thank Your grace which You bestowed upon me and upon my parents and to do a good deed of which You will be pleased and admit me by Your mercy with Your righteous servants.
[Al Quran ; 27:19]

-> See: أَوْزِعْنِي أَنْ أَشْكُرَ نِعْمَتَكَ الَّتِي أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيَّ وَعَلَىٰ وَالِدَيَّ , Enable me to thank Your grace which You bestowed upon me and upon my parents

But when it comes to the favours of Allah upon Jesus parents, only his mother is mentioned, see:

إِذْ قَالَ اللّهُ يَا عِيسى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ اذْكُرْ نِعْمَتِي عَلَيْكَ وَعَلَى وَالِدَتِكَ إِذْ أَيَّدتُّكَ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ تُكَلِّمُ النَّاسَ فِي الْمَهْدِ وَكَهْلاً وَإِذْ عَلَّمْتُكَ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَالتَّوْرَاةَ وَالإِنجِيلَ وَإِذْ تَخْلُقُ مِنَ الطِّينِ كَهَيْئَةِ الطَّيْرِ بِإِذْنِي فَتَنفُخُ فِيهَا فَتَكُونُ طَيْرًا بِإِذْنِي وَتُبْرِىءُ الأَكْمَهَ وَالأَبْرَصَ بِإِذْنِي وَإِذْ تُخْرِجُ الْمَوتَى بِإِذْنِي وَإِذْ كَفَفْتُ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ عَنكَ إِذْ جِئْتَهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ فَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنْهُمْ إِنْ هَذَا إِلاَّ سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ (110)
When Allah will say: O Isa son of Mariam! 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 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 sons of Israel from (killing) you when you came to them with clear arguments, then those who have disbelieved among them said: Indeed, this is not but an obvious magic.
[Al Quran ; 5:110]

-> See: اذْكُرْ نِعْمَتِي عَلَيْكَ وَعَلَى وَالِدَتِكَ , Remember My favour upon you and upon your mother,

Therefore, the Quran irrefutably answered confused inmate and spin doctor pussy cat?????????????????????¢??s question: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?. Which means that the Quran slam dunked inmate pussy again:

# 111
- Thu 16 Dec, 2010 8:22 pm
Post subject:
Ahmed chose to expose the ignorance of inmate pussy again:

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!


LOL, how funny, you dumb, so Jesus was never defined by a human name in Quran? Read these verses, you dumb:

إِنَّا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ كَمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى نُوحٍ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ مِن بَعْدِهِ وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإْسْحَقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالأَسْبَاطِ وَعِيسَى وَأَيُّوبَ وَيُونُسَ وَهَارُونَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ وَآتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا (163)
Indeed, We have revealed to you as We revealed to Nuh and the prophets after him; and We revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and Isa and Ayoub and Yunus and Harun and Sulaiman and We have given Dawood the book of Pslams.
[Al Quran ; 4:163]

وَزَكَرِيَّا وَيَحْيَى وَعِيسَى وَإِلْيَاسَ كُلٌّ مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَ (85)
And Zakariyah and Yahya and Isa and Elias; all of them are among the righteous.
[Al Quran ; 6:85]

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]

وَلَمَّا جَاءَ عِيسَىٰ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالَ قَدْ جِئْتُكُمْ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَلِأُبَيِّنَ لَكُمْ بَعْضَ الَّذِي تَخْتَلِفُونَ فِيهِ ۖ فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُونِ (63)
And when Isa came with clear proofs, he said: I have certainly come to you with wisdom and to explain to you some of that about which you disagreed; so fear Allah and obey me.
[Al Quran ; 43:63]

Here you have it, pussy, the Quran slam dunked you again:

# 112
- Fri 17 Dec, 2010 1:11 am
Post subject:
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.


That site is dying off, Ahmed. FFI is almost finished. If you and a few other Muslims stop writing, it will collapse and the clowns will be quarreling with each other. Rofl

Looks like Ali Sina is dead and most of the old posters are all gone.

One can see only silly new kids, who do not even know how to write.

I thought The Cat was a good poster but it looks like he is the only silly lead writer left at FFI.

Thanks for the Slam Dunks, mate.

Salaams
BMZ
- Wed 23 Mar, 2011 2:01 pm
Post subject:
Bro this is more like a 360 between the legs dunk from the foul line on these kaffir faggots


Link
- Wed 23 Mar, 2011 6:39 pm
Post subject:
Thanks brother Abu Abbas and welcome back to Free Islam. Hope you have a good and relaxed time in here

Take care
- Fri 25 Mar, 2011 2:08 am
Post subject:
Hello, Ahmed and all

Here is something interesting:

Numbers 11:4 The rabble with them began to crave other food, and again the Israelites started wailing and said, ???????????????¢??If only we had meat to eat! 5 We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost???????????????¢??also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. 6 But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!???????????????¢????????????????

Qur'aan 2:61

وَإِذْ قُلْتُمْ يَا مُوسَى لَنْ نَصْبِرَ عَلَى طَعَامٍ وَاحِدٍ فَادْعُ لَنَا رَبَّكَ يُخْرِجْ لَنَا مِمَّا تُنْبِتُ الْأَرْضُ مِنْ بَقْلِهَا وَقِثَّائِهَا وَفُومِهَا وَعَدَسِهَا وَبَصَلِهَا قَالَ أَتَسْتَبْدِلُونَ الَّذِي هُوَ أَدْنَى بِالَّذِي هُوَ خَيْرٌ اهْبِطُوا مِصْرًا فَإِنَّ لَكُمْ مَا سَأَلْتُمْ وَضُرِبَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الذِّلَّةُ وَالْمَسْكَنَةُ وَبَاءُو بِغَضَبٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يَكْفُرُونَ بِآَيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَيَقْتُلُونَ النَّبِيِّينَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ ذَلِكَ بِمَا عَصَوْا وَكَانُوا يَعْتَدُونَ

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.


See how Qur'aan verifies the truth?


Salaams
BMZ
- Fri 07 Jul, 2017 2:14 pm
Post subject:
Bump
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
Powered by phpBB 2.0 .0.17 © 2001 phpBB Group