I have a Christian friend who has a dog in his house with pictures in the living room and kitchen. When I go to the guest room that has no images to make salah the dog does not bother me. Then one time his wife decorate the guest room with Christmas images in which I went out side to make salah. All of a sudden the dog, which could not see me, was ranting around in the house wanting get out side and was barking towards my direction. After making salah the dog stopped.
This is where a psychiatrist can help
BTW where is this doctrine in the koran?
You do know this doctrine of not keeping dogs is not supported in the koran don't you? If it is where is it? Why do you believe it? what happened to your doctrine of only believing it if it is supported in the koran? I smell a hypocrite.
Rome wrote:And why is it Bukhari is considered the second holiest book in Sunni Islam if it contains hadiths that contradict each other?
The mistake that some muslims make is they dont read what Bukhari said himself about his collection.
would this some be 90% of islam?
Let us refresh what this discussion is about:
I showed you a Bukhari hadith that states Zaid collected the koran from leaves barks, animal skin and the memory of men who knew it (qira/quraa).
Sure lets refresh, lets see how well you can refresh your delima memory.
Liberate wrote:I ask you again H2O if the qiraa were so numerous why did Zaid need to collect leaves and barks and animal skin on which the parts of the koran was written on to collate it, why didn't he just go to a few qiraa to have them recite what they knew,
Sounds like you cant make up your mind. He did collect it from memorizers. How much he collected is unknown, [If you don't know how much he collected how can you say he collected all of it from memorizers?] he himself knew a great portion of the Quran[This he never said or even implied], but yet still gathered written materials. From this it sounds like he was confirming the written and oral sources with each other. [No mention whatsoever that the written materials were being collected to backup what already was known from the qiraa, it seems only westernised muslims are willing to lie so much for their religion]
Liberate wrote:Ibn Kathir states that 450 of these memorisers died at the battle of Yamama a significant number
You have done such a great job before posting references up. Why cant you do it with Ibn Katheer on this issue and how Ibn Katheer came up with 450 when the hadeeths are saying 70. But before we ellaborate on this you said something else that we would like to hit with one stone.
Liberate wrote:You go into an irrelevant argument showing me a website url that says 70 of the ansar died at the battle of yamama it doesn't occur to you that the ansar and the memorisers at yamama were completely different people,
Absolutely not. The Qurraa who were killed in the battle of Yamama were the Ansar. There is NO hadeeth that reported 450, and we would like to see where Ibn Katheers source for 450 when the hadeeths narrate contrary.
Liberate wrote:not all ansar were qira, you even proved this with your definition of who the ansar were I was trying to show you that the companions of 70 ansar does not contradict the number of 450 MEMORISERS (not all were ansar some of those ansar accoridng to some sources were jews) according to Ibn Kathir.
And again,post for us Ibn Katheer and his reference of 450 Died. The Qurra that died were but Ansar.
“During the battle of Yamama, 450 reciters of the Quran were killed.” (The True Guidance, An Introduction To Quranic Studies, part 4 [Light of Life - P.O. BOX 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria], p. 47- citing Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidaya wa al-Nibaya, chapter on Battle of Yamama)
You can try and divert attention from the real argument by arguing with numbers or semantics, the argument stands...
Liberate wrote: the logical answer according to the sources H2O is parts were lost, parts were missing the majority of memorisers were dead it was a salvage job, you are being spoon fed lies about this superior mental ability of the arabs who transmitted perfect copies en mass from an illiterate people.
A logical answer according to your bias and prejudice wantoness. There are plenty of people today that know entire Quran by heart. My Shiekh is a Hafeezh,and I have heard him recite Quran from a to z. So expressing that such a thing is impossible to be done is just one of your disbeliefs.
Which sect in islam is your sheikh representative of?
You showed hadeeth that have no support from another much less contradicted by others that have support.
Which madzhab is this teaching from and when did it originate?
Is it only westernised muslims that represent less than 5% of islam that espouse this teaching?
Liberate wrote:You H2O state that the verse Nay! This is a Glorious Qur’an, (Inscribed) in the Al-Luah Al-Mahfuz (The Preserved Tablet)! (Qur’an 85:21-22) does not refer to a heavenly book but to pages the koran was written on
Wrong I made no mention of such a thing: Lets recap your memory:
H2O wrote:..This we disagree with being that the verse as it is in connection with the various materials the Quran was recorded on such as Tablets and Pages (Parchments etc) as mentioned in the Quran are two different materials mentioned in plurality that cannot be allocated to Ummul-Kitab which is one heavenly book.
Where did you get out of our statement that Tablet is refering to pages ?
Liberate wrote:Which brings us straight back to our dilemma where are these pages?
"Pages" can be refering to parchments the Quran was written on or any soft material for writting that was used.
"Tablet" In Arabic is "Lauh" can be either, board, plate, sheet, slab, or slate of hard materials used for writting to record ie "Mahfoozh"
What were writting pages made of back then ?
Liberate wrote:Do you see the fallacy of having said koranic ayat when the koran hasn't been compiled yet? or do you accept that when it mentions the koran it is only talking of a partial koran?
The Quran was written within 23 years. As each revelation was revealed it was order by the prophet to his scribes to write it down. Selective material were being used such as tablets and pages ie boards, stones, parchments and palmleaves in which copies were distributed out into the muslim community to be learnt, taught, and memorized before the other revelation was revealed.
What are pages ? a Page or pages do not give the notion of a book. I think you need to refresh on your English.
Tell us H2O what does this verse mean in relevance to your misdirection above:
Nay! This is a Glorious Qur’an, (Inscribed) in the Al-Luah Al-Mahfuz (The Preserved Tablet)! (Qur’an 85:21-22)
What does it mean when it says preserved tablet, preserved where? If it is not in heaven then it is on earth if it is on earth and preserved where is it? If it can't be found how can it be preserved? Is this when this is a terrible translation?
Liberate wrote:Fundamental parts like Jesus coming back you reject and reinterpret claiming Jesus suddenly died and was taken to some heavenly realm already dead (with no reason other than your own personal conjecture that no one can find the grave of Mary so Jesus must be buried somewhere near Mary) H2O your views on mainstream islam is alien to 95% of islam, and yet you act like are without error, even when your fellow muslims have confronted you over your very strange views.
Your percentage is a grave exageration. And the return of Jesus is NOT a fundamental belief in islam. Do you mind showing us where in the Quran it clearly states Jesus will return ?
And do you mind posting up teh people that you claim confronted me whom from what I remember agree that the return of Jesus is symbolical not literal. Go ahead make you move and post the muslims you claim said such a thing. Again you exagerating.
Pls read what I typed, did he not confront you over your indirect insults to scholars and imams deeming their works foolishness? Did he not ask you on what authority you had to be dismissing hadiths of bukhari and muslim? I suspect you sent him a private message that such public squibble in front of the kuffor was not good for your islamic unity because he abandoned the thread.
Show me which sect in islam that does not regard Jesus as coming back (apart from the NOI and the ahmaddiya) so we know whose beliefs you are plagiarising.
Liberate wrote:Wait a minute what exactly can you convey in arabic that you are unable to convey in english? Does allah only tolerate arabic?
You cannot translate from one language into another word for word. You loose meaning as each language has its own unique character in expressive meaning.
What can you express in arabic that you are unable to express in english? This is a very simple question.
Remember H2O this is pure arabic even a child can understand, what can you express in it that you are unable to express in english as a last revelation for all mankind, if the message can not be understood or translated then what kind of a revelation is this?
Liberate wrote:I asked you to show me where you obtained the tafsir of samiy al mujalid? to this day you never showed anyone of us where you got that tafsir from, is this the attitude of someone who believes he has the onus on truth?
And it is obviously from those long over exausted threads you did get it.
What do you mean?
You refused to show me where you got that tafsir from, I suspect you had something to hide in refusing to show me where you got that tafsir from, it looks like you interpolated your own beliefs as to what the tafsir ought to say, and refused to show it to me because you would be exposed.
I am still waiting for you to show me where you copied and pasted that tafsir of samiy mujalid abdullah from
Liberate wrote:How do you define if it has no support?
You are the critic not me. So tell us how you difine something that has not support and is contradicted by other hadeeth ?
Your religion buddy, I judge a religion based on it's religious material, your esteemed scholars and imams subscribe to the hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim and make it incumbent on all muslims (including you) on the advice of the spiritual heads of Mecca and Medina, if you are unable to follow the edicts of your religion and want to be a megalomaniac renegade that is your choice but to claim your view is the right view with no support makes you a laughing stock.
Liberate wrote:if the koran doesn't mention it it is rejected just as you reject that Mohammed had sexual intercourse with an 8 yr old girl because the koran said marry al-nissa which you automatically take to mean young women therefore Mohammed couldn't have done it with an 8 yr old girl!! (disregarding the law of abrogation which somehow doesn't apply to you because??
It was rejected because the majority of sources contradict such a hadeeth of her being that age.
Which sources?
where?
You mean the ones in your conscience?
Liberate wrote:your madhzab says so?
No, mathamtics says so In which on the other thread we had this debate on we posted the links for you but it seems that wasnt enough.
Nowhere did any of your arguments contradict the stated age of Aisha when Mohammed had sex with her, I dare you to show for your audience where your alledged mathematical theory of Aisha's age is supported or even remotely justified with what you spouted I'll reiterate what I told you:
Personally I don't think you have much ground to stand on, first you are dismissing the hadiths that say she was 9 years old, some of it narrated by Aisha herself, second if she was 14 years old at the battle of Uhud she must have been with the prophet beforehand we can speculate how far back she was with him, third wasn't Aisha suppose to have been married at a young age so she can tell us thousands of ahadith? that puts all those hadiths in jeopardy as forgeries do you want to go along that path? Fourth before you convince us convince your imams, they are the ones sanctioning marriage of preteen girls.
Tabari IX:128 When the Prophet married Aisha, she was very young and not yet ready for consummation.
Liberate wrote:which you have been unwilling to show us it's beliefs and which no one knows what it will cough up when faced with yet another immoral issue) with an attitude like that how can you possibly find fault with any immoral law or action of alledge prophet with a fill in the gaps the way you want it mentality.
It was something practice by people in general even in the USA. You are simply being cultural biased. Even if it was true I still would have no probelm with it cause it was something practice among all nations of people and religions.
You would have no problem with pedofilia?
I cannot believe you would say such filth.
Several muslims have abandoned islam based on this alone, it takes a certain mindset to sanction pedofilia, it seems your mindset is on auto defense mode of whatever the prophet does pedofilia or not.
Your prophet is supposed to be the best example for all mankind for all eternity whose actions transcends all cutural values for all time, if his best example is to rape women and kill their husbands and have sex with 8 yr old girls and call it following the same God as christianity and judaism, and you to tell me you have no problem with it, I don't know what to think of you.
Liberate wrote:This is not what you are doing you are contradicting esteemed scholars and imams, and re translating the koran according to what you want it to say contrary to what those who were closer to Mohammed believed
You make it sound like you read ALL scholars work. Most of Scholar work is in Arabic in which the minority are in englsih. So how could you make a statement when you your self are not a scholars to have read the scholars works ?
Coming from someone who has made mistakes on basic islamic beliefs you are one to be patronizing. Which scholars are you talking about?, post the relevant websites give me the arabic if there is no english translation ( I find it amusing why you would say such a thing is the religion so hidden in mystery that most of it is not translated yet? Is this religion from God for 1400 yrs the subjects have been guarding aspects of their religion? is this some kind of cult? or is the real truth modern sheikhs who claim they know it all keep espousing new doctrine all the time gaining radical converts in the west who promote their doctrine with arrogance)
We have more access to what scholars say adn you do not. You sources are limited to waht is available online ours are not.
So help us out and show us where you are getting your doctrine first and when that doctrine was initiated.
Liberate wrote:Not supported how?
Did you search for it?
Did your pre conceived notion already disregard it before comparison?
Liberate wrote:If you cannot follow the edicts of a religion other than reinterpret it to your own liking, maybe the religion is not for you.
The Edicts of our religion does not teach us to follow things blindly by accepting them without question if it is not understood
Where are the edicts of your religion H2O?
Which madzhabs are you getting your beliefs from?
For the last several months I have been trying to find out where you are getting your beliefs from they do not match up with the sunnis or the shias 95% of islam, you have so far refused to show us where you are getting your beliefs from does your sheikh have a sect within islam? would you care to tellus what it is?
. The religion is all for me, do you have another considered religion ? Please dont make me laugh, I would rather be shot than to believe in what you believe in.
I agree with you because you are making it up as you go along.
Liberate wrote:Wow is all I have to say you mean you subjected yourself to authority???anyone reading your posts would get the feeling you regard yourself as the greatest koranic translator, reinterpreter and hadith rejecter this side of the atlantic even if Mohammed himself was to come to you and say this is what said verse means you are more likely to tell him to shut up that he doesn't understand arabic.
WE have done that which other translators have not done. Put their works up for criticism and test by other scholars and to work with others rather than independantly to get back a contructive imput on the project.
It is very revealing you did say scholars had you amend your translations did you not? That is why it is taking you months to transfer one sura, what parts did the scholars not like in your translations? Do they agree on what you said about Jesus being dead and not coming back? Do they agree on what you say about saudi oil prophecy in sura 9:28?
And I am only a hadeeth rejecter when a hadeeth does not pass the Litmus Test ir confirmation from Quran and other isnad ahadeeth.
Where are your madzhabs to say this on when did this school of thought originate from? Which imam or scholar says this?
A hadeeth Rejecter such as the Rahsad Khalifah possie do not believe in Hadeeth period and all together. How does this apply to us ?
Would you care to show us where in islam the ruling to reject hadiths comes from which madzhabs say this and when was it implemented?
Did you not indicate you were a member of the Rahsad Khalifah at one time?
Liberate wrote:Since you wrote it from the top of your head (could it be possible that you made an error H2O? are you this conceited?). The neutral translator saw al qAhwatu in what you typed if you think you are not the one who might have made a mistake against a bot when you are the one who said you wrote it off the top of your head, then someone needs a lesson in humility, I find it hard to believe you will subject your koranic translations to any scholar with an attitude like this.
Do you mind telling us where you see al qAhwatu, to be mentioned. Get some help you going to need it. We did not mention al qahwat = coffee in our statement.
Again the neutral literal translator gives:
he said a prophet said for he prayed to on him and he granted salvation coffees the Islam on five testimony that there is not god except to that Mohammad prophet for وَإِقَامِ prayer and the giving of charity and pilgrimage and fasting ramadan
I make no apologies for the bot's literal translation of the arabic ofcourse this is a trivial issue but no doubt you will hold on to to divert attention to the more serious implication of allah praying for his prophet, substantiated in the hadiths:
“When my father was eighty years of age, he recited the following verse from the codex of Aisha: ‘Verily, Allah and His angels pray for the Prophet. O ye who believe, pray for him and earnestly desire peace for him and for those who pray in the front rows.’”
She adds:
“This verse had been there before the codices underwent change at the hands of Uthman.” (True Guidance, pp. 61-62- citing al-Suyut’s al-Itqan on nasikh wa mansukh [abrogating and the abrogated])
Help us out H2O why does a neutral translator using the rules of arabic translate that ayat as allah praying for his prophet and evidence shows hadiths existed that show allah praying for his prophet used to be in the koran, is this mere coincidence or another conpsiracy theory by muslims for muslims who knew 1400 yrs in the future their stories would come to haunt islam, you cannot hide a bomb like this under patronising insults.
Liberate wrote:In other words you have no proof and are unwilling to provide any proof that Mushin Khan's translation of Bukhari vol 9 book 89 number 309 included parentheses.
Already provided the proof from teh Arabic which was confirmed by a Arabic speaking Christian and confirmed by other translators.
Show us what Mushin Khan put down for Bukhari vol 9 book 89 from a website (surely this can't be hard)
H2O wrote:te]Without the clarification in bold above H2O you are trying to pass off both threads as relating to the same discussion when you told us in July you became a haneef because of the prophecy of Saudi oil in the koran, and over two months later you then decide to find circular reasons as to why Mohammed is a prophet...in other words Mohammed is a prophet because the koran which he did not write didn't see a word of and is recorded in several muslim traditions as having undergone several amendments from what Mohammed alledgedly said says he is a prophet without a prophecy of alledge prophet...
Again I said :
H2O wrote:Omega I havent forgot about this verse. As a matter of fact this was the verse I used to test the Quran with as final confirmation before becoming a Haneef. Now lets put it to the test.
[b:5h1yp6l1]H2O later[/b] wrote:So in my case, not speaking for no other muslim but my self and those whom may agree with me, how does Muhammad qualify as a Prophet of اللّــه G-D that satisfies me ?
Tell us H2O when did you write your
later post compared to the post you first sent?, in which forum did you write that
later post compared to the post you first sent, which subject did you write that
later post compared to the post you first sent?
In which post did you tell us you became a haneef muslim and what reason you gave as to you becoming a haneef muslim?
Do you know the difference between "why I am a muslim" and "what I like about the koran"? Do you know the difference between the definition of a prophet according to both judaism and christianity and believing a book said prophet never saw without a prophecy to it's name, considering the reason you gave as to why you became a muslim in the first place was because it had prophecies that were tested according to Deuteronomy 18:
You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
H2O wrote:Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 09:51 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
...When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Deuteronomy 18:20-22
Omega I havent forgot about this verse. As a matter of fact this was the verse I used to test the Quran with as final confirmation before becoming a Haneef. Now lets put it to the test.
Help us out H2O what are we suppose to make of your admissions above as of July you used the verse in Deut 18 to decide wether to become a muslim because it contained prophecies? which prophecies? saudi oil prophecy which you later deny? which other prophecy then if you are reluctant further down the line to admit you believe it contains a Saudi Oil prophecy? Then why are you a muslim? You have given us no other valid reason as to why you are a haneef if according to what you said you became a muslim using the verse from Deut 18. Are you going to admit you didn't become a muslim because of any prophecies? which puts your statement as of july as nothing but lies? Do you realise how ridiculous an argument you have made?
H2O wrote:Your right( Liberate) 9:28 doesnt mention any about oil. It mention a prophecy of the Arabs of the Region becoming rich, in which after the establishment of, they became rich, without it they would probably be just like afghanistan.
[/quote]
And again and again. You just dont have enough confidence in your self to have to keep on repeating youself, or is it you just like being a revolving door ?
Lets take this step by step:
H2O: Your right( Liberate) 9:28 doesnt mention any about oil
So far H2O is saying sura 9:28 doesn't mention anything about oil
H2O: It mention a prophecy of the Arabs of the Region becoming rich,
He then states that it is a prophecy of the arabs becoming rich
H2O: in which after the establishment of, they became rich,
He then tells us "in which after the estalishment of" ESTABLISHMENT OF WHAT H2O?
H2O:
they became rich, without it they would probably be just like afghanistan
Pls help us out H2O
they became rich
with WHAT ?
without it
WHAT?
they would proably be just like afghanistan
..then H2O have you not admitted that it is a prophecy of saudi oil. that Saudi arabia became rich from the prophecy of oil, is that not then a prophecy of Saudi Oil??
Are you trying to play semantic games with the meaning of words in english like you try to do with the arabic?
Liberate wrote:Have a look at this thread have a look at the number of times I have asked you who gave Uthman the authority to burn the 7 readings and how many times you have side stepped the issue (even in this response)
What will answering this question solve ? Who said uthman burnt the seven reading ?
Where are the seven readings now H2O?
Volumn 006, Book 061, Hadith Number 515. (Bukhari and same reported Muslim)
-----------------------------------------
Narated By Yusuf bin Mahk : While I was with 'Aisha, the mother of the Believers, a person from Iraq came and asked, "What type of shroud is the best?" 'Aisha said, "May Allah be merciful to you! What does it matter?" He said, "O mother of the Believers! Show me (the copy of) your Qur'an," She said, "Why?" He said, "In order to compile and arrange the Qur'an according to it, for people recite it with its Suras not in proper order." 'Aisha said, "What does it matter which part of it you read first? (Be informed) that the first thing that was revealed thereof was a Sura from Al-Mufassal, and in it was mentioned Paradise and the Fire. When the people embraced Islam, the Verses regarding legal and illegal things were revealed. If the first thing to be revealed was: 'Do not drink alcoholic drinks.' people would have said, 'We will never leave alcoholic drinks,' and if there had been revealed, 'Do not commit illegal sexual intercourse, 'they would have said, 'We will never give up illegal sexual intercourse.' While I was a young girl of playing age, the following Verse was revealed in Mecca to Muhammad: 'Nay! But the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense), and the Hour will be more grievous and more bitter.' (54.46) Sura Al-Baqara (The Cow) and Surat An-Nisa (The Women) were revealed while I was with him." Then 'Aisha took out the copy of the Qur'an for the man and dictated to him the Verses of the Suras (in their proper order).
What is the purpose of the hadith you have shown us? What does this have to do with the seven different readings? The thread is who gave Uthman the authority to set fire to the other 6 of the 7 readings of the koran?
The Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.510).
Ibn Abbas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Gabriel taught me to recite in one style. I replied to him and kept asking him to give more (styles), till he reached seven modes (of recitation). Ibn Shihab said: It has reached me that these seven styles are essentially one, not differing about what is permitted and what is forbidden. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.390).
The hadith you showed to indicate that the quran was revealed in it's proper order during the time of Mohammed, the hadith doesn't explicitly say so...
Narrated Uthman ibn Affan:
Yazid al-Farisi said: I heard Ibn Abbas say: I asked Uthman ibn Affan: What moved you to put the (Surah) al-Bara'ah which belongs to the mi'in (surahs) (containing one hundred verses) and the (Surah) al-Anfal which belongs to the mathani (Surahs) in the category of as-sab'u at-tiwal (the first long surah or chapters of the Qur'an), and you did not write "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" between them?
Uthman replied: When the verses of the Qur'an were revealed to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him), he called someone to write them down for him and said to him: Put this verse in the surah in which such and such has been mentioned; and when one or two verses were revealed, he used to say similarly (regarding them). (Surah) al-Anfal is the first surah that was revealed at Medina, and (Surah) al-Bara'ah was revealed last in the Qur'an, and its contents were similar to those of al-Anfal. I, therefore, thought that it was a part of al-Anfal. Hence I put them in the category of as-sab'u at-tiwal (the seven lengthy surahs), and I did not write "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" between them. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 3, Number 0785)
Notice the bit in large font? Who gave Uthman the authority to put his own notions of where a sura went if he was following the orders already decreed by Mohammed?
Ofcourse we both know your automatic response is this hadith is it is fabricated, but ask yourself this, what on earth do the people in the isnad have to gain by incriminating their own faith and lying about it?
What does Uthman ibn affan have to gain damning his own religion?
If you are telling us there were muslims out to incriminate and destroy their own religion who would be found out only in the 20th century (then these muslims are better prophets than your 'prophet') then the argument also goes that muslims also lied in compiling the koran (the positive parts H2O that you readily swallow) and got away with it, and their lies have died with them.
If you are going to tell us you reject hadiths if their matn are not supported by multiple chains (where is this doctrine in islam from H2O, when did it arise would you care to show us?), then you need to throw your koran in the trash because several isnads disagree with the orders of suras and how it was compiled and who by...uthman..abu bakr...and of course your shia brothers in the faith who think Ali did it.
This is what your religion says Uthman did without prophetic advice:
He transcribed the texts (suhuf) into a single codex (mushaf waahid), he arranged the suras, and he restricted the dialect to the vernacular (lugaat) of the Quraysh on the plea that it (the Qur'an) had been sent down in their tongue. (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.140).
Pls tell us H2O where are the seven readings of the preserved and unaltered quran in existence today allah allegedly sent to Mohammed?
What was burnt were the copies of the Quran that were not in their proper order. As khaleefah he had the authority to establish a copy in its correct order according to what they learnt from the Prophet.
Says who?... would you care to show us the hadiths that support your above proposition?
Liberate wrote:All I want you to do is apply rationality to your scriptures it does not stand up to the cold light of reason given the evidence in the koran and the context of those ayats in the ahadith.
Already done. G-D is one G-D not three that are one or one that is three. Nor did he get beat up by his creatures, died, neither tempted by the Devil and had him take him fro a joy ride or went to the bathroom, ate food.
This is not your fundamental problem even your koran says
the jews wanted to kill Jesus, tell us H2O what exactly did He do that the jews wanted to kill Him? He must have done or said something surely? Nobody wants to kill another individual for no apparent reason? Is it because He did miracles? He healed the sick? raised the dead? They would like to kill Him for that? Did He bring them back to the worship of one God? They would like to kill Him for that? were they worshipping baal during His time? Think H2O, what on earth would the jews want to kill Jesus for?
If you call that worshipong such a man to be G-D to be rational then thats why your a Christian and I am a muslim
Since you believe God can be anywhere and see everything, tell us H2O in your pure rational mind that requires God to have a wife to have a Son, how can God be one if He can see everything and hear everything and be everywhere at the same time?
Liberate wrote:if you want to defend your faith and at the same time criticize us for not seeing the koran through your very tinted glasses you are not doing yourself any favors but making yourself look very dishonest indeed.
And I will die defending what we believe in.
From the mannner in which you applauded the murder of Theo van Gogh I have no doubt if you had the opportunity you would place a suicide belt and blow yourself up if your imams whispered it in your ear you seem a prime candidate to be initiated into a radical sect of islam from christianity to judaism to islam...
The only reason they left cause its not worth it, and they do have lives to attend to. Why dont you try going to an Islamic forum and see how long you last there ?
Believe me I have visited islamic forums and to tell you the truth most of their responses have to do with foul mouthed insults nothing to do with the subject at hand.
How many times have you visited islamic forums and told them that Jesus is dead and not coming back?, and there is no anti-christ and it is all figurative, Jesus walking behind your imam and breaking the cross, having a wife and living on earth for 40 extra years getting buried next to Mohammed is also figurative, and your prophecy of saudi oil? Lets see how long you last as they laugh at you, maybe thats why you would rather show your theories to christians at least that way if they laugh at you they are kuffor anyway it doesn't hurt as bad right?
I think I have went over board in waisting our my time with you. You want me to apply rational to my beliefs? Already done that to know Islam teaches Jesus is not G-D, and that G-D is not a man or anthing that is created and their will be no return of a Messiah.
Help us out here, 90% of islam is sunni what do the sunnis believe as to Jesus coming back? 5% of islam is shia what do the shias believe as to Jesus coming back? The remaining 5% are made up of the ahmaddiya, the NOI the wahabis e.t.c it seems you are sectioned along with the 5% made up of the NOI who do not believe Jesus is coming back, in fact they believe allah came in the early 20th century and there is no paradise!!!
But yet you say to apply rational but then try to critcize us for applying the same rational against the foke lore of a man that is suppose to return that is not supported by Quran muchless the ambiguous and inconsistancies of Hadeeths ? How silly.
I believe I have already shown you what 95%+ of islam believe concerning the return of Jesus, I have asked several shias and sunnis and not one of them has told me they do not believe Jesus is coming back. Where are you getting this doctrine from H2O? do you have a set pattern of beliefs or are you unabble to detract the fact that you are picking and choosing what you want to believe from several slices of islam?
It shows that much rational was being used to weed out what was influenced into muslims tradition after our Prophet(s.a.w.) was taken.
Taken? You are trying to imply he was miraculously raptured or something similar? Sorry to disappoint you your prophet wasn't taken he was killed, thats what your religion says, he was poisoned by a jewish woman, doesn't surprise me considering the jewish women he raped, the one he had sexual intercourse with the same day after decapitating her husband's head, killing her father her husband several of her relatives, not even allowing her to mourn for the deaths which he caused, he just had to have sex with her after annhilating her entire family ignoring his own law of iddah what kind of immoral behaviour is this to be associated with the God of heaven???
Enough rational to know that G-D is not a Triune god, that he doesnt regret or becomes Jealous.
But allah abrogates or forgets or replaces it with something better or similar, sanctions incest solely for his prophet which is a sin in both previous revelations ...cannot make a prophecy to save his prophet and sends revelations by having his prodigy of a prophet froth at the mouth, complain of ringing bells, rolls on the floor complaining of heart palpitations, profuse sweating but this is suppose to be continuous with the same God of the christian and the jews???