Liberate wrote:See the bit I highlighted in bold with large font, would you like to tell us what the phrase "this number EXCLUDES" means
"This number (104) EXCLUDES "whether named or unnamed -- whose status of memorizers did not reach us through isnad, as well as the women of both the Muhajirin and the Ansar. All of this memorizing was mass-transmitted."
Sources say 70 were killed in the Battle of Yamama not 450.
Wait a minute didn't you try and make an argument for the last umpteen posts that 104 were killed instead of 450 now you give a number that 70 were killed (didn't you try and make an argument that 104 were killed at the battle of yamama!!! it seems getting you to make up your mind is like getting blood from a stone), pls tell us H2O what is the topic of the source url you gave us what does it mean when it says companions of the prophet as it's title H2O?,
what relevance does this have to do with the initial thread of how many memorisers existed pre and post the battle of Yamama, pls tell us H2O what the terms ansar, hafiz/ahafeez and quraa mean?
What is the difference between an ansar and a hafiz H2O?
From the dicitonary of islam:
Ansar - means 'Helpers'. Muslims of Madinah who helped the Prophet (saw) and the Makkan Muslims when they immigrated to Madinah...
Hafiz - A person who has memorised and can recite the whole Qur'an by heart. Means 'Protector' or 'Preserver'...
Qari - once who recited the Qur'an constantly and correctly.
http://www.irca.org.au/dictionary/
So when your source says 70 ansar were killed what do you think it is restricted to especially with it's title being companions of the prophet.?
Liberate wrote:What tablets?
according to you glorious tablets = pages? glorious pages that some ended up in the belly of a goat?
Tablets are made of stones Pages are made of parchments. To different materials as we stated before. I did not say that the Tablets are pages.
You didn't? This is what you said in response to my post:
Liberate wrote:
Completely irrelevant have you forgotten this ayat:
Nay! This is a Glorious Qurโan, (Inscribed) in the Al-Luah Al-Mahfuz (The Preserved Tablet)! (Qurโan 85:21-22)
It says there is a copy of the koran in heaven, is allah keeping up with the 1,000+ characters added by the dajjal and his scribes or maybe the above is a terrible translation and your translation somehow omits the obvious as you have done all along.
And there are different views on the interpretation of that verse. Some believe The tablets mentioned are refering the actual tablets the Quran was written on, and others believe it is that tablets which are in heaven.
I agree with the earlier cause Allah menitons the Quran was also written on pages.
Help us out here, what do you mean when you say you agree with the earlier interpretation that the tablets mentioned are referring to the actual tablets the koran was written upon, and you agree with it because allah mentions the quran was also written on pages?
Tell us what you mean by the above H2O in reference to tablets??
It loooks like you are either seriously confused or just an out and out liar.
Liberate wrote:which is precisely what you do being deceitful with the ambiguity of an english thesaurus, yet claim you are without error.
Nope.
when H2O have you admitted that you might even REMOTELY be in error in any of your translations?
Most of my hadiths are obtained from muslims sources, I go straight to the the usc website, if you have anything we have not covered relating to the hadiths care to show them to us.
Already posted the translated ahadeeth from their origin.
You should have realised by now I don't take any of your translated ayats seriously there are merely your opinion backed up with the theatre of your mind, no relevance whatsoever to do with islam, your line of thought is backed up by nobody in the islamic world except you and you alone, merely your opinion not incumbent on anybody, you are not a scholar of arabic you are a sorry excuse for a muslim apologetic. Unable to express yourself (or even lie properly) in english yet claim your english translations are superior and eithout error.
Liberate wrote:The following clearly shows Uthman was placing suras where he thought they ought to be, not Mohammed, when did Uthman seek his 'prophetic' advise when he did these things? Or are they above fabricated hadiths?
Where are other ahadeeth to confirm this of different reports ?
Oh I see it's rejected because you can't find any other hadiths to back them? (Have you looked for it (I seriously doubt it)? or the hadith rejecter part of you wants to surface)
This is absolutely ridiculous, is it rejected because there are hadiths that contradict them? If so where are they?
Are you rejecting it because it contradicts the koran? If so where does it contradict the koran?
Or are you rejecting it (without evidence) because you want to reject it or else your religion and standpoint come crashing like a dominoes deck...
โููุงูู ููุงูู ุฑูุณูููู ุงูููููู โ โุตููููู ุงูููููู ุนููููููู ููุณููููู
ู โ โุจููููู ุงููุฅูุณูููุงู
ู ุนูููู ุฎูู
ูุณู ุดูููุงุฏูุฉู ุฃููู ููุง ุฅููููู ุฅููููุง ุงูููููู ููุฃูููู โ โู
ูุญูู
ููุฏูุง โ โุฑูุณูููู ุงูููููู ููุฅูููุงู
ู ุงูุตููููุงุฉู ููุฅููุชูุงุกู ุงูุฒููููุงุฉู ููุงููุญูุฌูู ููุตูููู
ู ุฑูู
ูุถูุงูู
Neutral literal translation: โhe said a prophet said for โ โhe prayed to on him and he granted salvation โ โcoffees the Islam on five testimony that there is not god except to that โ โMohammad โ โprophet for ููุฅูููุงู
ู prayer and the giving of charity and pilgrimage and fasting ramadan โ
We can extract the five times a day prayer from the translation, it is still stating that allah prays for Mohammed and grants him peace/and or salvation!!! again you are dismissing the main point of my question who gave Uthmann permission to burn the other 7 dialects the prophet said the koran was revealed in?
Here is the catch 22 to that. We wrote the first one with no tashkeel and then added tashkeel to the other as we re-typed it of how it is pronounced.
Then you you went to
http://www.cimos.com/index.asp?src=try to see what the difference was. Your bot translation didnt render "Allah" ~ GOD also the term
"Sallallahu alaihi wassalaam" does not mean โ"he prayed to on him and he granted salvation ". It mean" may Allah's benediction be upon him".
The debate has already been discussed and brought to surface by many a natural arabic speaker, a neutral translator shows it for what it is, why does "peace be upon him" have different arabic characters yet somehow mean the same for Mohammed and all other koranic prophets?? It is balatantly obvious your translation and many translations have tampered with the fact in order to hide that allah is praying for his prophet!! Yet you are brainwashed from youth that your "pure" arabic "understood by a child" doesn't really mean what it means.
And where did it come up with "Coffee" from ?
The translation is a literal translation of the word regardless of wether it is a name or not.
The usc website of Dr Mushin Khan's translation clearly has no parenthesis around fragmentary scripts for Bukhari vol 9 book 89 number 301, you pasted an english translation for Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509 and refused to paste a similar english translation for Bukhari vol 9 book 89 number 309 from any site, let us see who is being devious here unless ofcourse you are attacking Mushin Khan for not understanding arabic? which would not be surprise seeing it is what you have been doing from day one.
Its just plain and simple adn confirmed by another Arabic Speaking Christian. It does not exist in the Rabic text. In the Original sources for Muhsin Khan's translation there are in parenthesis denoting the translators interpolation.
what do you mean here? Do you mean Mushin Khan's original translation has no parentheses?
In that case would you care to show us what it says for Dr Mushin Khan's translation of Bukhari vol 9 Book 89 number 309 from any website,
not Volume 6 Book 51 number 509
Who are you trying to fool H2O?
The first quote as to the reason you became a haneef muslim was posted Jul 08 : ..........................
You then try an amalgamate a post you later made on a completely separate topic, separate subject and totally different forum for that matter made over two months later:
This is what I said before you made your fancy editing
What editing did I make H2O? you are trying to join two threads from different forums with a gap of over 2 months to make it look like there were continuous, anybody who sees the date the subject the topic and the forum will realise what you said as to why you became a muslim in the frist place (saudi oil prophecy) has no relevance to the other post two months later which you try as make as one regardless of wether you put "later" they will simply see you for someone who is dishonest and trying to wriggle out of his embarassing posts.
H2O" wrote:Since you[Liberate] like to edit with your wishful thinking let our audience decide:
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.
H2O later 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 ุงูููููู G-D that satisfies me ?
1) The logical consistancy of the Quran.
2) The rational and challenge it gives
3) The wisdom and reasoning it applies ...
In other words you became a haneef muslim and then 2 months later you found out reasons for you becoming a haneef muslim!!! that involved re-interpreting what a divine book was and how to define what a prophet meant so you can move the goal posts for Mohammed to qualify, at least the audience knows the mind set of the individual they are dealing with, ready to lie and deviate attention from the irrationality of his stance.
H2O why did you conveniently delete the thread I asked you as to who gave Uthman the authority to burn the 7 readings the 'prophet' of allah stated the koran was revealed in?
Why have you side stepped discussing the delights of paradise H2O?
What are you afraid of?