It hilarious when someone presents themselves as an expert, then thoroughly demonstrates why they are not.

vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:


Totally incorrect. All the core beliefs of Islam are found in the Quran and hadeeth.

From a historiographical point of view, every hadeeth in Saheeh al-Bukhari and Saheeh al-Muslim have totally far more credibility in terms of the reliability of their source than any verse in the Bible. The Quran is considered totally incorruptible until this very day due to the way it was quickly memorised by so many people and spread throughout the world - the only way the Quran can be corrupted in the future is if the millions of people who memorised it are killed and the printed copies are destroyed.



vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

It is known that what was mentioned in Hadeeth graded as saheeh happened due to the variety of sources for the hadeeth and the care used in evaluating the sources.



vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:


Totally incorrect. Such a comment displays total ignorance of Bukhari's aims in compiling his book of 'saheeh' - which was to compile a book of hadeeth that had impeccable sources. The main reasons that a hadeeth was not included in his book of saheeh is because either he was unable to verify the source of that hadeeth to his high standards, or he simply had not heard of the hadeeth.


vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:


That is untrue. Out of the millions of hadeeth only a few have been found to be fabricated. Scholars developed methods to distinguish fabricated hadeeth from reliable. For example, Bukhari would not accept a any hadeeth which had a person it is chain of narrators who had ever told a lie.




vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

Please provide the verse in the Quran or the hadeeth which says that dolls are haraam (forbidden). The only Islamic texts that I have ever seen regarding dolls indicate that they are permissible. But go ahead, prove me wrong if you can.


vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

You have any evidence of this?


vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

Most of the historical sources (including non-Muslim sources) indicates that there was little religious freedom in the world.


vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:


Incorrect. Mecca was hostile to missionary activity. Even the Christian-convert uncle of Prophet Muhammed wife warned the Prophet that the Meccans would drive him out when he made his mission public - which they did indeed do in due course after persecution and economic boycott.

The Meccans at the time would not even let their fellow Arabs worship at the temple of Abraham until they had paid exorbitant fees - a person unable to pay the fees would be stripped of all their clothing and forced to worship naked. A person publicly worshipping in a different manor to the pagans could expect insults, violence and public humiliation such as having the intestines if slaughtered animals thrown on them.



vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

Garbage. Mecca was almost entirely populated by pagans. The nearest Jews and Sabians lived hundreds of miles away. Out of the thousands of people living in Mecca only about 4 were brave enough to to hold to the pre-pagan monotheistic Abrahamic Hanifi religion

vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

What Prophet Muhammed received from the pagans for preaching monotheism was mockery, slander, violent assaults, economic boycott and exile. Many of his earliest followers in Mecca were tortured, sexually assaulted and/or murdered. Even when Prophet Muhammed and his followers escaped from Mecca, pagan threats to kill all Muslims followed them there

Economic boycott? Is that what Muhammed used to justify his years as a highway robber? For someone who defined his career by rape and pillage to complain about boycott is a bit rich.

vanatos wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 3:23pm:


No it displays remarkable common sense. There is no chain of transmission with the Bible - anybody could have made up any part of it prior to canonisation. Christians cannot agree to this day what should actually constitute a Bible. Whereas the Quran was immediately completely memorised by numerous people at its time of revelation and spread around the world so that if there were corrupted parts it that would become clear because the Qurans from different parts of the world would be different. Yet today the Quran remains unchanged no matter where yo go in the world.



vanatos wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 3:23pm:


You have misunderstood the hadeeth. The hadeeth does not mention the Quran but rather the 'book of God' - which may refer to the books already revealed prior to the Quran such as the Torah. There are many hadeeth which explain how Prophet Muhammed asked the Jews what the Torah said about adultery such as this:

'The Holy Prophet (peace & blessings of God be upon him) said to them: 'Who is the most learned of the Law (of Moses) among you?'. They replied, 'so and so Al-A'war (Abdullah bin Souriya)'. He was called upon and he came. So the Prophet said: 'Are you the most learned of the Law among them?' He said, 'Jews think so.' So the Prophet said to him; 'By God, and by the Law that He gave Moses on the day at Sinai, what do you find in the Law regarding adulterers?' He said: 'O Abul-Qasim (the Prophet's patronymic nickname was 'Abul-Qasim'), they stone the despicable (adulterer), and make the rich (if he does it) sit on the camel, blacken his face and make him face camel's back and stone the despicable if he commits adultery with a rich woman and they do the same to her.' So (again) the Prophet said to him: 'By God and by the Law that He gave Moses on the day at Sinai, (tell me) what you find in the Law?' He started to beat around the bush and the Prophet urged him by God and by the Law that He gave Moses on the day at Sinai till he said: 'O Abul Qasim, 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them.' So the Prophet said: 'It is like that, take them (the Jews who committed adultery) and stone them.'
- Tafsir Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari 10/328 Narration 11976


Now it's clear this verse as Abdullah bin Souriya spoke is similar to a verse in the Law (Torah). Even today we can find similar injunctions in the Bible - Deuteronomy 22.

There was never any explicit mention of stoning in the Quran, which is why Umar was worried that later generations of Muslims would abandon the punishment of stoning because it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the Quran.


This is made more apparent in the following recording of Umar's speech:

Umar said: I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find rajam (stoning) mentioned in the book of God," and consequently they may go astray by neglecting an obligation that God has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of rajam is applicable to him who commits adultery and he is already married and the crime is established by witnesses, pregnancy or confession"
- Bukhari



vanatos wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 3:23pm:

Poor? On what basis do you make such a claim?

vanatos wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 3:23pm:


Diacritic points are for writing not speaking. Seeing as the Quran was being mass memorised verbally by rote, the existence of diacritic points in Arabic script make no difference to the Quran being memorised and preserve by mass memorisation by the Muslim community.

There was therefore no need for diacritic points which were only introduced to the Arabic script as an aid for non-Arab speakers. Try reading an Arabic newspaper today, there are no diacritic points.

It was not "war compensation" because it happened before the war. The war was a response by the Meccans to Muhammed robbing their caravans. Muhammed had a long career as a highway robber before he moved up to rape and pillage.

Muhammed stoned rapists, but was himself a rapist. He executed thieves, but was himself a thief. The difference being of course, that Muhammed permitted himself to rape and pillage.

On diacritics, i am not sure why you talk about modern arabic newsletter.

Are you perhaps unaware that modern arabic, is not the same as classical or ancient arabic? which quran is written in?

Perhaps you can at least google some of this info of arabic language.

The main source of direct evidence for the structure of nonlinearity arabic in early centuries of islam
...
The drawbacks are the extreme difficulties posed by deciphering sometimes abominable scrawl, and in the orthography, at that time lack diacritical points

-Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties

Here is a good guide to arabic language history, complete with pictures of ancient texts and stone artifacts to illustrate its statements.

1.The first characteristic of using 22 symbols to depict 28 sounds caused a problem in identifying the correct letters. The examples below illustrates the problem. Without diacritical points to identify which of the phonemes (sounds) is being referred to, only reference to context or external guidance can help shed some light on the correct word which is implied by the author of the text.
-historyview.blogspot.in/2013/01/brief-guide-to-development-of-arabic.html

If you look at the illustrative guide, you can see how a 'word' without diacritics can have vastly different meaning, one 'word' can mean mountain, or dementia or rope, it requires diacritics to clarify which one.

It even has pictures of quranic text without diacritics, and the newer modern quran with diacritics.

And you state diacritics is not important? it was a revolution and important turning point in classical arabic written language to make it understandable.

Any historian of Arabic language understands the importance of diacritics.

freediver wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 5:14pm:


Before the incident you speak of, the pagans of Mecca killed, tortured, raped, stole property and promised to kill every Muslim in Medina. Perhaps you think that was some kind of state of peace, most people would not.

freediver wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 5:14pm:

Big claims -  for which you have no evidence.

As another note, i am amused you even begin to state that the hadith isnad is in any form a rigorously done exercise on par with modern history, lets take a look at scholars in the Islamic field.

"a substantial bulk of the Hadith should be regarded as spurious"
- Geschichte der chaliphen, Gustav Weil

his views are identical to all the famous islamic oriental scholars (and if you pursue islamic scholarly analysis you should know these people), theodore noldeke, Alfred Guillaume, Arthur Jeffrey and Ignaz Goldhizer, who was probably the famous one on hadith textual analysis,considered the father of hadith scholarly analysis, in his book Muslim Studies he basically rejects all hadith as unreliable.

I won't go too much detail on the non-muslim scholars, because they are fairly unanimous in how terrible it is to rely on the Isnad as any form of authenticity or credibility.

I find it more interesting to go to the Muslim scholars

Mahmoud Abu Rayyah

In his book,Adwa ala as-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah, he basically considers all hadith unreliable, and comes to the conclusion (and curiously the same as Ignaz Goldhizer), that the early Muslims paid their attention solely on the isnad, and not even on the content of the hadith, to the point that a nonsensical and impossible hadith, is considered authentic (remind you of the moon splitting hadith?)

Isma`il Ahmad Adham

He repeats the points from the above scholars, and also calls out that the analysis of hadith by muslim traditional scholars, is not even scientific, in his book.
Min Masadir at-Tarikh al-Islami

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 16^th, 2014 at 7:52am:


So are you saying that Bukhari was bearing false witness, when he painted Muhammad and his fellow cutthroats as mass murdering, female prisoner abusing, terrorist thieves, or not?

(1) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.  (Book #34, Hadith #432)

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence."  (Book #46, Hadith #718)

(3) Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."  (Book #59, Hadith #459)

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."  (Book #62, Hadith #137)

(7) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get slave girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?" Allah's Apostle said, "Do you do that? It is better for you not to do it, for there is no soul which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created."  (Book #77, Hadith #600)

(8) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."  (Book #93, Hadith #506)

As confirmed by the Quran;
Qur'an 33:26 "Allah took down the People of the Scripture Book. He cast terror into their hearts. Some you slew, and some you made prisoners. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, giving you a land which you had not traversed before. And Allah has power over all things."
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm#allah_terror

Abu Dawud 38:4390 Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Tabari VIII:35/Ishaq:464 "The Jews were made to come down, and Allah's Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina (it is still its marketplace today), and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men."

The mass murdering, prisoner abusing, terrorist, thief - or the sinless Messiah. God gave us all the free  will to choose.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm