Not true islamic scholars agree that sura 5 was the third to the last revealed, they were still 2 more chapters to reveal, how can allah have perfected the religion in sura 5 when sura 9 and 110 had not yet been revealed. You can verify for yourself on the chronology of the koran.

The last verse to be revealed after which no further verses containing new rules and regulations were revealed was,
"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islaam as your religion." [al-Maa`idah (5):4]
The last verse to be revealed was,
"And fear the Day when you shall be brought back to Allaah. Then every soul shall be paid what it earned and none shall be dealt with unjustly." [al-Baqarah (2):281]

Guess it makes perfect logical sense to reveal a sura that your religion has been perfected but then reveal another verse to attach to a completely different sura, but the religion was complete in the previous sura, are you aware sura 9 and sura 110 succeed sura 5 yes or no?

"
"God sent Muhammad, and sent down the scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning. Umar says, 'We read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle [Muhammad] stoned, and we stoned after him. I fear that in the time to come men will say that they find no mention of

stoning in God's book, and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily, stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery."

This is what Umar says with the stoning verse included in the book above:

""As for old men and women, stone them for the pleasure they have indulged in." Umar al-Khattab stated, "But for people who may say that Umar adds to the Book of Allah, I would have written the verse on stoning." (p.61)"

This is the same verse that was abrogated by a goat, would you like the sahih hadith for that too?

But that's not true, stoning IS prescribed by God, but it does not have a verse in the Qur'an, it was abrogated but the previous verse remains in the Qur'an, the ruling remains in the Prophetic tradition:

Pls listen to what you say and apply logic to it, you say it was abrogated when where which book what sura? for it to be abrogated it must have already been in the book of God right?

No but since you mention it I shall have a look, the kharijites accused Uthmann of 'innovation' and yes I would call them muslims fundamentalist muslims, if they invented hadiths or not I do not know why would they invent hadiths and have a problem with Uthmann for 'innovation', isn't "allah the best of deceivers"?

Heh, yes please read more about the Kharijites. They invented some 14,400 fabricated hadiths, the majority of which you rely on to disbelieve Islam.

Again pls read what you typed earlier, first you said the kharijites falsified thousands of hadiths, then you say they identified thousands of false hadiths, which one is it? did some of them have a guilty conscience and suddenly went back to the ummayyans and said " we falsified such and such?", far from being the lying muslims you claim (on a note aside your religion says it is ok to lie) they were the first islamic puritans violently opposing anything of 'innovation' it is very convenient you attack and disown sects of muslims that you want to use as a scape goat and attach hadiths and isnads to them especially when the hadiths put the prophet and your religion in a very suspect light

If someone gave a narration to a group of people who died a year later and I go to a scribe and tell them make a book out of what the narrator said or "much of it will be lost" does it not imply some of it has already been lost? focus on the quantifying adjective.

What are you joking or something, whether it was one verse or a whole chunk to be lost, losing ANYTHING is a big deal. Much of it will be lost AT ONE TIME is what he's saying, because it's not like every person memorized and was responsible for a verse, if the people who had memorized the entire Qur'an dwindled, it would be lost in chunks, which is worse than parts, but ANY loss would have been devastating. That's the nature of the warning.

For clarity let us read the hadith again, you need to defy logic not to see the obvious:

bukhari 6 201 (Narrated Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari: Abu Bakr sent for me after the casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra were killed). 'Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said: "Umar has come to me and said, the People have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle of) Yamama and I am afraid that there will be some casualties among the Qurra (those who know the Qur'an by heart) at other places, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost, unless you collect it.

Look at the future tense, the quantifying adjective, if I were to tell you "we have suffered some casualties today and there will be some casualties at other places whereby a large part of our memoirs will be lost, surely any rational individual can see we have already lost a part of our memoirs, and I am telling the indivdual to collect the information or a large part will be lost since it is expected we will lose some more people at other battle grounds, THE POINT we have already lost information.

Surely you can see this?

Go ahead it is a much more cordial form of debate than pasting a tafsir and saying "go read", but don't forget relevance, in order to show relevance you would have to read what you paste, no point copying and pasting a 20 page tafsir when I ask you a simple question about a sura verse.

Listen man, that whole page was a tafsir on that one verse and incident. You get mad because you don't even read what I post because you automatically assume it has nothing to do with anything.

I have told you several times I will no longer read your links, I dare you to paste the relevant articles from your links instead if you can, they do not confront a great deal of what I mention, it is obvious you are unable to defend your religion without referring to a tafsir or someone else's url, you are also unable to extract the information because it is not your point of view and you cannot defend it when holes are found and pointed out, that is why you would rather refer to a tafsir when someone askes you a simple question about a hadith or sura and askes you to apply logic to it, you know if you were to apply it logically you will be unable to defend your religion, so you tell them to go read a tafsir or an apologetic wesite in the excuse that it has been covered lots of times before and you don't want to flood. If you were to read them for yourself instead of doing a search in an islamic apologist home page and pasting the links you and everybody reading your arguments would see this, but ofcourse you better not let anybody know this so you will continue pasting links and assume you agree, and comprehend that the links are valid to the argument

Well the christian and jews see God as doing things that are logical to His creation, not eating pigs 5,000 years ago makes logical sense considering the bacteria they carry no pressure cookers or fridges to store cooked meats 5,000 yrs ago so simply do not eat it makes logical sense, what is the logical sense of bowing down to a black stone? and circumnavigating it?

Good question. One thing you have to understand is that when you believe in God, truly, you submit to His Will. If God was to materialize in front of you and command you to do something, anything, would you first do it then ask "why?" or would you refuse to do it until God Almighty gave YOU a "logical reason". Circumnavigating the Kaaba is an act of pure obedience, it was a command of God. After all, man's only purpose is to worship God.

Are you sure you are not submitting to the will of Mohammed?, suppose Mohammed asked for your 6 yr old daughter as his wife would you submit to it because it was the will of allah, suppose Mohammed decided to take your wife would you submit and be cheerful about it because it was the will of allah, or would you resist until he became "divinely inspired" and revealed that it was allah's will for you to give him your wife, do you not see there is a fine line between allah's will and what Mohammed wants?

I find it unelievable you would chose to believe the prophet had read the copy of the koran uthmann made, when your INTERNAL evidence contradicts this and all logic.

Look bro, I would MUCH rather you reject the message of the Qur'an because you disbelieve in its divinity than to reject it because you feel it wasn't pristinely transmitted. No academic on earth disagrees that the Qur'an of today is the same as Uthman's which was the same at the end of the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It's what distinguishes Islam from any other faith.

I believe we have stressed this to you several times it doesn't really matter if it is memorised and pristinely transmitted, your koran never was, your hadiths state it never was, you can ofcourse chose to be blind to those hadiths and call the isnad a liar and the hadith weak, it does not really matter how pristinely transmitted it was if it is hell spurned it will still lead you to the straight and wide road that leds to hell

Apply some logic to what you say good deeds are accountable and the bad deeds are also accountable by default, then what is the point of asking for forgiveness from allah since allah will still hold your bad deeds in his scale against you when you walk across that zoroastrian bridge into eternal fornication and wine in jannah.

Bad deeds can always be forgiven by the Mercy of God. Some bad deeds like associative worship, however, are not forgiven.

Wow all christians are going to islamic hell, what an innovative idea to target the christians all bad deeds are forgiven but the christian won't be forgiven so say the shahadah it will be well with you, your realise your mentality is the reason why christians are being starved in sudan to force them to convert.

It's a basic fact in Islam that belief supercedes intentions and intentions supercede acts of worship. That's why one is rewarded for one's intentions. It's the reason why Heaven and Hell are eternal. Some disbelievers, even if you gave them an eternity, they would never move an inch towards change or finding God, they would stubbornly and arrogantly stick to their ways. Thus, for an eternity of intending to disbelief, one earns his above in the Hellfire.

You are giving more credit and religious orientation than the plagiarist deserved, Mohammed simply heard of the christian hell and assimilated it into his religion, your allah would send people for hell because it has been predestined, or maybe they were fuel for hell, this morally wicked utterings cannot possibly have come from the Almighty.

is it adorned with a decoration of any kind?, if anything it is treated more like how christians would treat a church, it is full of prayer requests in holes in the wall, compare that with the ka'ba you see infidels or people of other faiths walking around the ka'ba taking holiday photos?

The Kaaba just has a black cloth with golden writing. Also, you don't see non-believers or tourists in the entire city of Meccah, not just around the Kaabaa.

My point exactly

And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess (Q. 4:24 )

What do you think this verse means?
Are you aware of how Mohammed had sex with safiyah one of his jewish wives within hours of killing her husband her father her uncle several relatives when the muslims attacked khaiber?

That verse you quoted is accurate, yes:

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=10803

http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_safiyya.htm

Please just answer the question, even a child reading that sura knows exactly what it means, you need no tafsir or apologetic to say what that sura means, this is your classic evasive tactic, this is what I have been trying for the last 10 posts or so to get you to do:

what does it mean when it says "all married women are forbidden unto," "save those (captives) whom your right hands possess"

Just answer the question in your own words, no more than 3 lines would suffice.

The hadith that shows they were being killed in mecca pls

http://www.ymofmd.com/books/aram/ch2s2. ... rsecutions

Read under "persecution"

I reiterate my question the hadith pls?

Hadith that shows they were being killed en mass and starved pls

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=2498

Is this an answer to my question?

This is the reason why I no longer read your links here is the entire article of your link:

Title:
Boycott of Banu Hashim

Question:

One of my friend forwarded some questions to me , since i couldnt find any satisfactory answers to his questions than I decided to ask you his questions.

One of his question is as follows:

History testifies that when Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), the Quraysh subjected the Bani Hashim to a boycott. Hadhrath Abu Talib took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship.

Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Holy Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim?

I'll wait for your reply

Syed Fahad
Pakistan



Answer:

Though the basic sources of early Islamic history mention that there had been a boycott by the Quraish with the family of Banu Hashim, yet all of these reports differ in details. It is commonly stated that after the Muslims migration to Abyssinia Quraish tried to talk the Abyssinian king into handing the migrants to them who turned their request down. This infuriated the Quraish and they decided to come down on the Prophet (pbuh) with heavy hands. They demanded the leaders of the clan of Banu Hashim to hand the Prophet (pbuh) over to them. The clan did not yield to their threats and kept the Prophet (pbuh) under their protection. Now the Quraish unanimously decided to teach the clan a lesson. They forced the clan to leave their place and settle in Sha`ab Abi Talib near Mecca where they spent three years of immense hardship.

Terms of the boycott as they are reported include:

none will marry into the clan

none will enter into any kind of financial trade with them

none will keep social ties with them

A careful study of all the reports would reveal that the present version of the narrative gives rise to some questions. We cannot come to a conclusion before providing satisfactory answers to these questions.

The stated terms do not mention that the clan would be driven out of their settlements in Mecca and do not render them subject to a severe siege.

The narratives make it clear that the boycott was against the Banu Hasham and their allies Banu Muttalib. Thus there was no question of torturing and forcing members of other clans into this severe suffering as the reports also reveal that Sa`ad Bin Abi Waqas a member of Banu Zuhrah was forced to swallow a piece of skin of dead animal. Why was he huddled with the clan and why did his clan not show up to help him?

The terms state that none of the Quraish would enter into financial contact with the clan. How could other tribes be stopped from entering into trade with the clan? The terms do not hold it necessary that the clan could not enter into trade with other tribes. There remains no question of their being starved for three years.

The boycott was not agreed upon by all the Quraish. They would pass such a resolution in Dar-ul-Nadwah as they did in the case of their vow to kill the Prophet (pbuh) before his migration to Medina.

Banu Hasham was a famous tribe, which was held in high esteem among the Arabs. They did not live a life of such anonymity that the incident remained unnoticed by all other tribes. This is further corroborated by the fact that they were in charge of looking after the House of Lord and entertaining the pilgrims. We do not hear any thing about their abandoning their duty and any other taking the charge during the time they were besieged.

The above makes it clear that the report cannot be accepted as such. There, however, is a tradition recorded in the Sahih of Muslim which only mentions comprehensible portion of the incident.

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to us as we were at Mina: We would observe halt tomorrow at Khaif of Banu Kinanah, where (the polytheists) had taken an oath on unbelief, and that was that the Quraish and Banu Kinanah had, pledged against Banu Hashim and Banu Muttalib that they would neither marry nor do any transaction with them unless they deliver Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to them. And (this pledge was) taken at this (place) Muhassab. [Chapter: Excellence of Making A Halt at Al-Muhassab, on the Day of Nahr, and Observing Prayer There]

This is the most reliable report in this context which does not tell us that the Prophet (pbuh) and his clan remained subject to starvation for three years.

As regard the Sha`ab of Abi Talib, the place is not known to history. It can only be connected with the Sha`ab of Banu Hashim, a settlement belonging to the tribe that was situated in Mecca. This is supported by the fact that cries of starving children would be heard in the city. Therefore it could not be a far off place. Moreover the place where the tribe was settled did not have much green trees as to be used by the tribe to kill their hunger.

We can only rely on the agreed upon parts of the report as reported in Sahih of Muslim that some of the people of the tribe of Quraish entered into a pledge. It was not a decision backed by the whole tribe. Even the common version of the story mentions that some of the leaders of the Quraish like Mut`am Bin `Adi, Abu `ul Bakhtari Bin Hashim, Zam`ah Bin al-Aswad, `Adi bin Qais and Zuhair Bin Abi Umayyah at last came forward and said that they would no more condone this cruelty. This indicates they did not approve of it in the first place. The pledge did not require the whole of the Arabs and nor could they abandon the clan. Also the terms and conditions do not dictate besieging of the clan. Thus the clan must have faced boycott which worried the Prophet (pbuh) a lot as he remembered the incident but the nature of the worries could only be what one necessarily feels after being socially boycotted by an influential faction of the society. All the Muslims were not under compulsion and the preaching mission of the Prophet (pbuh) continued as before.

It clearly seems that the whole incident has been completely blown out of proportion. The incident which related primarily to the social boycott of a people is presented as one of persecution. Nevertheless, it is clear that if the incident were one of persecution, not only Abu Bakr and Omar, but all the Muslims would have stood by the Prophet (pbuh) and helped their brethren.
Regards,

where does it support your view that the muslims were being killed and starved en mass, Mohammed sought refuge from the Quraish ( they didn't bother to elaborate why, what do you think you think the Quraish just wanted Mohammed for no particular reason?) and laid low with another clan.

Read what I highlighted in bold in your source, and this is what you use as your advocate that the muslims were being starved and killed en mass, and the hadith??

Do you see why I think you don't even read what you paste?

Hadith 84:9/84/57 (Dealing With Apostates) "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).'
I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's apostle, 'Whoever changed his islamic religion, then kill him.'"" Notice the inability to distinguish between those of another religion and those who have none.

What was their crime?, their faith was non belief in any god, so Ali 4th caliph and Shia saint burnt them

I'm pretty sure the zanadiq were killed, but they had also organized against the Muslims as a result of their disbelief. Usually when you find historical killing, it involved political upheaval, take the Kharijites for example.

I suggest you read the hadith again, it at no time does it suggest political upheaval, they were simply brought to Ali who set them on fire, and the reason given they were atheists nothing more nothing less. Since they disbelieved the muslims they had committed a grave crime worthy of being set on fire no matter how you try and sugarcoat it with tafsirs and morally ridiculous exergesis they were set on fire because they were atheists.

peace be upon him, when in fact it means " allah prays for mohammed and greets him"

why does your answering-christianity interpret salem as 'safety'?

sala allah aleihi wa salem = God bestowed his peace and blessings upon him

alayhee salam = peace be upon him

so sala = bestowed?

wa salem = blessings/safety/peace?

why not just alayhee salam as all the other prophets since they are all equal why the extra greetings for the prophet?

That's a good question actually. The only reason for the difference is that there is a verse in the Qur'an about it:

God and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect. (Qur'an 33:56)

Does this help you in the least?, so based on this verse you send blessings and salute him with respect:

sala allah aleihi wa salem so allah is sending blessings and saluting him with respect.

No I am certainly not jealous of your prophet, he was a sick individual mentally and physically and was being spiritually deceived, topple that with obsessive compulsive disorders such as not facing the ka'a when urinating why on earth would I be jealous of someone like that?

I don't know, every time you talk about him you get really bitter and sound envious. Also, one shouldn't defecate in the direction of the Qiblah.

Do you use an odd number of toilet tissue too?

A sexually obsessed individual who has his god 'inspire' eternal and alledgedly divine orders to bless his adultery and fornication has a vetted interest in his carnal well being and so does his alledged god.

I'm surprised people still use the "carnal desire" argument. If the Prophet was as you allege, why on Earth do you think someone would invent a religion to marry more than one woman when they lived in a society where people could have intercourse with anyone and anything, whenever they wanted? Pre-Islamic Arabia didn't even have marriage, women were fornicated with and they chose their infant's father. Also, people who are following carnal desires don't marry elderly widows, nor do they wait until near their death to marry a younger woman the wisdom behind with was that this woman happens to outlive the rest and to whom many authentic narrations trace back.

Mix falsehood with a dash of truth, a mixture of goodness the recipe for all cults, it's about getting the balance right so the gullible never see what you really are about and if you do it well enough, your adherents will still stand by you even if you start killing them and sleeping with their wives they will even make up stories showing you to be whiter than white.

I suggest you go read it, I already have, it in no way addresses any of my points, honey smells bad and the prophet was going to divorce all his wives because he ate honey, give your audience some credit!

Maybe you should read it again, then. It wasn't because the honey stinks, the wives were bickering and growing jealous of each other, verging on backbiting and animosity.

For clarity here is the entire 12 verse sura pls point me out the jealousy:

[66] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[66] O you prophet, why do you prohibit what GOD has made lawful for you, just to please your wives? GOD is Forgiver, Merciful.

[66] GOD has decreed for you the laws dealing with your oaths. GOD is your Lord, and He is the Omniscient, Most Wise.

[66] The prophet had trusted some of his wives with a certain statement, then one of them spread it, and GOD let him know about it. He then informed his wife of part of the issue, and disregarded part. She asked him, "Who informed you of this?" He said, "I was informed by the Omniscient, Most Cognizant."

[66] If the two of you repent to GOD, then your hearts have listened. But if you band together against him, then GOD is his ally, and so is Gabriel and the righteous believers. Also, the angels are his helpers.

[66] If he divorces you, his Lord will substitute other wives in your place who are better than you; submitters (Muslims), believers (Mu'mins), obedient, repentant, worshipers, pious, either previously married, or virgins.

[66] O you who believe, protect yourselves and your families from the Hellfire whose fuel is people and rocks. Guarding it are stern and powerful angels who never disobey GOD; they do whatever they are commanded to do.

[66] O you who disbelieved, do not apologize today. You are being requited only for what you did.


[66] O you who believe, you shall repent to GOD a firm repentance. Your Lord will then remit your sins and admit you into gardens with flowing streams. On that day, GOD will not disappoint the prophet and those who believed with him. Their light will radiate in front of them and to their right. They will say, "Our Lord, perfect our light for us, and forgive us; You are Omnipotent."

[66] O prophet, struggle against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be stern with them. Their abode is Gehenna, and a miserable destiny.


[66] GOD cites as examples of those who disbelieved the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were married to two of our righteous servants, but they betrayed them and, consequently, they could not help them at all against GOD. The two of them were told, "Enter the Hell-fire with those who deserved it."


[66] And GOD cites as an example of those who believed the wife of Pharaoh. She said, "My Lord, build a home for me at You in Paradise, and save me from Pharaoh and his works; save me from the transgressing people."


[66] Also Mary, the Amramite. She maintained her chastity, then we blew into her from our spirit. She believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures; she was obedient.

Somehow the wives were getting jealous about each other that allah was going to give his prophet virgin wives, any logical individual can see that the subject is sex, it makes no sense that allah would give his prophet virgin wives because the wives were jealous of each other at no point does it mention the wives of the prophet were jealous of each other how can you parrot what you heard from the tafsir without even reading the quran, in the sura it specifically talks about Hafsa and Aisha backing up against the prophet and the prophet threatening them that jibreel and allah will back up for him, your reasons simply defy logic.