Another View of the Anti-Christ

reply to post by WarminIndy

Isn't it amazing about the British Empire? How one little, tiny island was able to take over the world.

A thing called Royal Oak, which the British had, and no one else.
Isn't it amazing that one town called Rome could take over the world?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Let's show here how Mohammed viewed marriages as a convenience only for him...

Bukhari :: Book 6 :: Volume 60 :: Hadith 10 Narrated Anas: Umar said, "I agreed with Allah in three things," or said, "My Lord agreed with me in three things. I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Would that you took the station of Abraham as a place of prayer.' I also said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Good and bad persons visit you! Would that you ordered the Mothers of the believers to cover themselves with veils.' So the Divine Verses of Al-Hijab (i.e. veiling of the women) were revealed. I came to know that the Prophet had blamed some of his wives so I entered upon them and said, 'You should either stop (troubling the Prophet ) or else Allah will give His Apostle better wives than you.' When I came to one of his wives, she said to me, 'O 'Umar! Does Allah's Apostle haven't what he could advise his wives with, that you try to advise them?' " Thereupon Allah revealed:-- "It may be, if he divorced you (all) his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you Muslims (who submit to Allah).." (66.5)

Was Mohammed legally married to all these women, or did he simply move them into his house, saying he was now married to them? I believe the latter, Mohammed had a bunch of women that when he was displeased with one of them, he could just divorce them and say it was allah's will and then allah would give him a better wife.

So the question is this, why did allah not just give Mohammed the best wife to start out with? Isn't allah wise enough to do that?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Isn't it amazing about the British Empire? How one little, tiny island was able to take over the world.

A thing called Royal Oak, which the British had, and no one else.
Isn't it amazing that one town called Rome could take over the world?

Rome did take quite a lot, but you have to admit, it was impressive, but not nearly as far-reaching as the British Empire.

The British Empire was not better than Rome, merely bigger. It is more wealthy than Rome. And it rules from London.

reply to post by WarminIndy


And in the Sura, here is what Mohammed said about the truth of allah, that it was not God...

Bukhari :: Book 6 :: Volume 60 :: Hadith 12 Narrated Abu Huraira: The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that Allah's Apostle said, "Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say:-- "We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us." (2.136)

What is revealed TO US

Mohammed himself says here that it is not the same.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Rome did take quite a lot, but you have to admit, it was impressive, but not nearly as far-reaching as the British Empire.

The British Empire was not better than Rome, merely bigger. It is more wealthy than Rome. And it rules from London.

The British Empire was just a monopolization of world's trade routes and did not have the same sort of far-reaching influence over the world as the Roman Empire and it does not figure into Biblical prophecy and like I said, you are buying into late nineteenth century end of the world theories.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Rome did take quite a lot, but you have to admit, it was impressive, but not nearly as far-reaching as the British Empire.

The British Empire was not better than Rome, merely bigger. It is more wealthy than Rome. And it rules from London.

The British Empire was just a monopolization of world's trade routes and did not have the same sort of far-reaching influence over the world as the Roman Empire and it does not figure into Biblical prophecy and like I said, you are buying into late nineteenth century end of the world theories.

Say what you will. I never once said in my post that the prophecy was regarding the British Empire, I merely used it as an example. Please go back to my post and read it.

How is it that John wrote this after Nero, and yet many people like you will say it referred to Nero? John said it was a kingdom that has not come yet. I will bet you will say "The Holy Roman Empire" and then go on to say it was Catholics that he was talking about.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

And in the Sura, here is what Mohammed said about the truth of allah, that it was not God...

Bukhari :: Book 6 :: Volume 60 :: Hadith 12 Narrated Abu Huraira:

What Sura?

You DO REALIZE that what you are quoting is not the Qur'an, right?

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

And in the Sura, here is what Mohammed said about the truth of allah, that it was not God...

Bukhari :: Book 6 :: Volume 60 :: Hadith 12 Narrated Abu Huraira:

What Sura?

You DO REALIZE that what you are quoting is not the Qur'an, right?

edit on 10/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)

AWWW you can't take your own sources, by your own people, can you. Why is that?
Do you need me to post the Arabic for it? See, you are following the pattern because it is impossible for you to accept that Mohammed was a liar.

When you are shown what your verses say, you deny it was said. That is deception, isn't it?





I am giving you the Hadith...of which you accept as the words of Mohammed, is that not correct? So if Mohammed said something, it was reported and believed because you understand the Quran by the Hadiths, is that not correct?

So in the Hadiths, you find the character of Mohammed that shows who he really was, a liar, and adulterer, a murder and a thief. Are you saying the Hadiths are inaccurate? Are you saying all those men who said these things about the prophet are not right? They must then be enemies of Mohammed, therefore enemies of allah, including Aisha. Is that what you are saying?

The overwhelming majority of Muslims consider hadith to be essential supplements to and clarifications of the Quran, Islam's holy book, as well as in clarifying issues pertaining to Islamic jurisprudence. Ibn al-Salah, a hadith specialist, described the relationship between hadith and other aspect of the religion by saying: "It is the science most pervasive in respect to the other sciences in their various branches, in particular to jurisprudence being the most important of them."[

The Hadiths are considered clarifications of the Quran. The hadiths expose Mohammed, therefore the Quran's own clarification shows the Quran as false. Abrogation is an excuse and even Uthman knew this, and even Uthman questioned why abrogations occurred when those abrogations exposed Mohammed, and another abrogation was inserted to continually justify Mohammed over and over, because Mohammed needed abrogation from the original. That was not for the benefit of Islam, but solely for Mohammed to continue in his deception.

reply to post by WarminIndy

How is it that John wrote this after Nero, and yet many people like you will say it referred to Nero?

How is it you somehow know exactly when Revelation was written?
I think it was written after the death of the Two Witnesses, Peter and Paul, by the Romans while Nero was Emperor, after the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem, but before the death of Nero, and before the final destruction of the temple at Jerusalem.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I think it was written .

edit on 10-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

In your opinion? You do not say it was, merely that you think it was. What other things do you just merely "think was written"?

reply to post by WarminIndy


You are doing something a little funny with your quoting my post that makes it seem like I am saying something other than what I was.

You said that you think that Revelation was written after the death of Nero.
I'm saying that I think Revelation was written when Nero was alive.
How is it that, from this; I am doing something evil while you are being good?

Originally posted by WarminIndy


AWWW you can't take your own sources, by your own people, can you. Why is that?
Do you need me to post the Arabic for it? See, you are following the pattern because it is impossible for you to accept that Mohammed was a liar.

When you are shown what your verses say, you deny it was said. That is deception, isn't it?

What VERSES?!

You are not quoting verses from the Qur'an.

I am giving you the Hadith...of which you accept as the words of Mohammed, is that not correct?

No. It's not correct. Hadith are collected and written by people after Muhammad. They could be his words, but they could also not be his words.

So if Mohammed said something, it was reported and believed because you understand the Quran by the Hadiths, is that not correct?

No. I understand the Qur'an by the Qur'an. You can use hadith to expound on a matter, like the Qur'an saying "that which harms you is forbidden" then have hadith classify what exactly is forbidden - because the Qur'an does not single out every possible thing that can harm you by name.

So in the Hadiths, you find the character of Mohammed that shows who he really was, a liar, and adulterer, a murder and a thief. Are you saying the Hadiths are inaccurate? Are you saying all those men who said these things about the prophet are not right? They must then be enemies of Mohammed, therefore enemies of allah, including Aisha. Is that what you are saying?

How do you know Aisha said what some hadith says that she said?

You can only accept hadith if it does not contradict the Qur'an. I will give you an example. If the Qur'an does not say that an adulterer should be stoned to death, but a hadith does say that - then it is clear which one should you believe! The Qur'an of course! If you believe the hadith in this case, you are believing something which contradicts the Qur'an (and is rather tradition found in the Bible).


Thus, if God in the Qur'an calls Muhammad as a "mercy to all the worlds" - it is clear that any hadith which would describe him contrary to this statement is to be DISCARDED.

It's a simple matter of logic.

You know what the Hadith is? The equivalent of your NT books. Those are books written by MEN about Jesus and his sayings.
Similarly, the hadith are books written by MEN about Muhammad and his sayings.

The Qur'an on the other hand, is the Direct Word of God - the equivalent of which would be the original Gospel - the Direct Word of God as it was revealed to Jesus.
You do not have that anymore.
We still have the Qur'an.

Originally posted by WarminIndy


So the question is this, why did allah not just give Mohammed the best wife to start out with? Isn't allah wise enough to do that?

Why did God give Solomon 700 (SEVEN HUNDRED) wives and 300 (THREE HUNDRED) concubines?

What is your point here?

Polygamy was a common practice throughout the ages. Sometimes it was done as means of creating relations with other kingdoms, thus preventing wars, sometimes was done with widows who were left with children without any means of surviving, etc.

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by WarminIndy


So the question is this, why did allah not just give Mohammed the best wife to start out with? Isn't allah wise enough to do that?

Why did God give Solomon 700 (SEVEN HUNDRED) wives and 300 (THREE HUNDRED) concubines?

What is your point here?

Polygamy was a common practice throughout the ages. Sometimes it was done as means of creating relations with other kingdoms, thus preventing wars, sometimes was done with widows who were left with children without any means of surviving, etc.

Most of those wives of Solomon were not God ordained or God permitted. God just does not give you any wife because you lust after her. There were consequences for that in the Bible, even David was punished by God for doing what he did. He had to repent. But no where do we Mohammed repenting for his lust, neither in the Quran or the Hadiths. We see Mohammed abrogating verses to justify his own lust.

Let me ask this, why are the same Hadiths offered on every single website created by Muslims? The same verse I quoted to you was found on three different Islamic websites created by Muslims, not anti-Muslims. I will now herefore, post the verse from the Hadiths that I have on my database and present you the links from Islamic websites, will that work for you? Surely your brother Muslims must be in agreement if they do this.

So you followed the typical pattern with nothing original in the pattern merely suggests you have a conditioned response in your debate training.

So now you tell me, after the conditioned response, is that you only trust the Quran, next it can only be understood in Arabic and so on.......

Let me ask this, if Mohammed or his followers had the authority to abrogate a verse, how do you know the abrogation is correct? The abrogated verses merely are set by Mohammed alone to justify Mohammed alone. That is why the Quran is too suspect to be used as a reliable source anyway.

But the Hadiths have not been abrogated, they were collected to show us what manner of person Mohammed was. Your imams and teachers tell you they are important to know and read, but apparently you are compelled to lie as you have been permitted to do within Islam. You do not like to be presented with the Hadiths, and the Hadith I quoted from was Bukhari, but I have Muslim, Malik and Dawud.

I can show you from Bukhari alone that clearly demonstrates that Mohammed was an adulterer, a liar, a murderer and a thief. And I can present to you from Buhkari that even Mohammed himself calls his lord Satan. Now if you have a problem with Bukhari, take it up with your own Islamic brothers who are translating this.They are the ones who translated it, and you are told to accept it to clearly understand Quran exegesis.

So this will be fun, because I am using your sources from your Islamic brothers, and it very clearly shows exactly what Mohammed was.

reply to post by WarminIndy


You may be onto something. It's a known fact that Turkey is seeking power again, they've been trying to get recognized by Europe for 80 years and have been doggedly denied. When the E.U. rose up, they tried to get into that and the E.U. was still reluctant to allow them in. After whats been going on since august with Turkey, it certainly looks like theyre trying to attain their former glory. Constantinople the capital city of the Byzantine Empire is modern day Istanbul in Turkey. When the Holy Roman Empire split in half, one Caesar ruled Rome, the other ruled from Constantinople named after Caesar Constantine who legalized christianity.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
We see Mohammed abrogating verses to justify his own lust.

And I told you countless times, why do you speak of things you have no knowledge of?

You have read on some website their "quoting" of a verse in Qur'an where God says he can "abrogate" a verse and replace it with a better one and now you jump here and write walls of text.

You should read the book yourself.

First: The Word "Aya'" which is translated as "verse" does not mean verse - it means "sign" or sometimes "revelation". When God speaks about signs or miracles of Him he uses exactly the word "Aya". When he speaks about revelation, also.

So, when he says he replaces a revelation with a better one - that is exactly what happened. The earlier revelations were replaced with those from the Qur'an and/or with the Qur'an as a whole - since the Qur'an itself is called a "sign" and a "revelation".

And the "hadiths" - even as Bukhari himself says, writing some 200 years after Muhammad, he had collected several HUNDRED THOUSAND of hadiths - of which he only retained a few thousand - which shows that they could not have been all from Muhammad, because to have had to narrate those several hundred thousand hadith, the man would have had to have lived a thousand years or so.

Further more, from the remaining hadith, the classification into "strong" and "weak" ones is made, depending on their chain of transmission (how reliable are the people transmitting them).
And even after this, you cannot be sure a hadith is indeed reliable, because how can one know someone in the whole chain did not simply INVENT that particular hadith?

This is why I told you about hadith having to be in accordance with the Qur'an.

And, it is a known FACT that THOUSANDS of hadith were invented by the enemies of Islam indeed - jews and christians, kharijites, etc. whose sole mission was to mix falsehood with truth and thus attempt to destroy the religion.

But their attempts are still futile, because at the end, the Qur'an remains intact as it is the promise from God himself, that HE HIMSELF WILL BE HIS GUARDIAN and no one will ever be able to change it.

The history proves this to be the case.


And finally: Your authoritative book is the Bible (your holy book). My authoritative book is the Qur'an.
We shall discuss the Bible and the Qur'an.

Or should I now start discussing the writings of St. Jerome, Irinaeus, etc.? Are those your authoritative books? Are they a revelation from God?
No.
Well, neither are the hadith books.
The Qur'an is.

So, stick to Qur'an and Bible.

Yes, you are correct about what qualifies an Hadith. But the difference in the writings of St. Jerome or Iraneus or St. Augustine for that matter is that we are not ever told that we understand the Bible more clearly by them, as you have been told the Hadiths must be read to understand the Quran. Is that not correct?

The writings of those Christian authors do not in any way give biographical information about the authors themselves, they are the thoughts of those men regarding their spirituality and beliefs. Let me reiterate, you have been taught to regard the Hadiths as miracles, have you not? Because you are being deceptive for your cause and the cause of Islam, I will show you how you are taught to regard the Hadiths, from your own Muslim brothers, ok.

A hadith is a saying or narration of the Prophet's speech, deed, or approval or disapproval - whether spoken or tacit - about something. The hadiths have been learned by heart by the Muslims, later recorded, authenticated and handed down to us through the centuries. Next to the revelation of the Quran is this the greatest 'miracle' of Islam, for which there is no equivalent anywhere: Authentic traditions with chains of transmissions, critically and thoroughly examined by Muslim scholars and experts of hadith science, preserved and taught to the present day.

Living Islam

The Sunna ( def: Sunna ) therefore is the standard practice, primarily of the Prophet , including his sayings, deeds, tacit approvals or disapprovals. "The Sunna points to Allah's judgment, either as definitive knowledge (`ilm) or as assumed knowledge (zann), bringing it out and disclosing it for us. We understand Allah's rulings by means of the Sunna and it becomes binding upon us to put its content into practice."

The reason you tell us you do not read the Hadith is because it exposes Mohammed for what he was. He was an adulter, a liar, a murderer and a thief. His original followers wrote what he said and did on any piece of paper, bone, carcass and tree.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

because the Qur'an does not single out every possible thing that can harm you by name.

And this doesn't bother you in the least tiny bit? Even the bible's old testament and jewish texts name every single thing that could damn you. There are 630 laws of Moses altogether. I'd be questioning a book that didn't name everything that could damn you if it was my book. So some random guys could just get together and make up random crap and say "abra-kadabra, the laws shall be...eating peanut butter is a sin".

Thats kinda funny, this is exactly what you accuse the bible of...

"But the Quran is a holy book it couldn't possibly have been corrupted...or plagiarized while a certain someone inserted his own opinions in and made them laws!"

Do you see the irony?

I do.