Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
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.
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.
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
Posted:
Wed 25 Mar, 2009 4:06 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
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 What your oaths possess, 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 _________________ http://free-islam.com
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Wed 25 Mar, 2009 8:40 am; edited 2 times in total
Posted:
Wed 25 Mar, 2009 6:16 am
Rigel Pawn
Status:
Faith:
Joined: Aug 17, 2007
Posts: 110
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 ... ?
Posted:
Wed 25 Mar, 2009 8:26 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
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
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
Posted:
Wed 08 Apr, 2009 8:23 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
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:
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
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
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
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
Posted:
Thu 09 Apr, 2009 1:32 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
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
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
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
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.
Posted:
Sat 11 Apr, 2009 2:19 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
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
Status: Age: 75 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 614
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
Posted:
Sat 11 Apr, 2009 12:42 pm
shindeiru Knight
Status:
Faith:
Joined: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 41
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
Posted:
Mon 13 Apr, 2009 12:40 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
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
Status: Age: 75 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 614
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.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 10 Hours Ported for PHP-Nuke by nukemods.com
