Shocking Koran Quotes

dead one

biko wrote: »

There is no need to keep adding "honestly" to your posts, I'm always honest.

See, there is need to adding "honestly". As honesty is best part of policy.
Best policies are created if you're honest. Right!!! Don't get me wrong, i ain't doubting your intentions. You know some people are intently corrupt. Their intentions, in all practices, is to exercise corruption . I am talking in general way.

biko wrote: »

Of course god didn't reveal hadiths as you well know. Hadiths are "true" stories of Muhammads life so guess they could be likened to the Bible.

How do you know these hadith are "true" after 1400 years. There might be some truth in these hadith. You don't believe "Quran" as true, the most authentic source of Islam. Then what makes you to put faith in these tales. You believe some of these hadiths are true because, it torches you anti islamic reason. Now you will defend hadiths, Sound very interesting :eek:

biko wrote: »

Abu Dawud isn't the 6th most important hadith in Islam, it's one of the 6 entirely authentic and accurate hadiths, along with Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan an-Nasa'ii, Sunan at-Tirmidhi, Sunan ibn Majah.

now you added "6th with "most important"... at least it isn't most important. I guess you've have got the point.

biko wrote: »

Since Shiʻism and Sunnism have different sets of hadith collections and Abu Dawud isn't part of the Shia hadiths I suppose that makes you either a Shia Muslim or an uninformed Sunni Muslim.

Good guess work but remember Guess work doesn't lead people to the truth.

biko wrote: »

I have never heard of a Muslim that doubts the hadiths of his tradition.

The reason for this is you've learned Islam internet. Tell if i am wrong.

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

How do you know these hadith are "true" after 1400 years. There might be some truth in these hadith. You don't believe "Quran" as true, the most authentic source of Islam. Then what makes you to put faith in these tales. You believe some of these hadiths are true because, it torches you anti islamic reason. Now you will defend hadiths, Sound very interesting :eek:

That argument also applies to the Quran. If the authenticity of the hadiths are in question purely based on age, then the Quran is also suspect.

dead one

koth wrote: »

That argument also applies to the Quran. If the authenticity of the hadiths are in question purely based on age, then the Quran is also suspect.

hiya koth
You didn't understand... Quran is direct source... It's has no narrators.... Case of hadith is different... Quran is in its original form.. I mean it is in its true state as it was revealed upon prophet.... The authencity of quran is universal... while hadith aren't universal as it depends upon collectors or narrators...

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

hiya koth
You didn't understand... Quran is direct source... It's has no narrators.... Case of hadith is different... Quran is in its original form.. I mean it in its true state as it was upon prophet.... The authencity of quran is universal... while hadith aren't universal as it depends upon collector or narrator...

You forgetting what forum you're in?

both texts are man made items from my perspective. You dismissing one text due to the age of the text, means that the other (and potentially all) holy text can equally be as easily dismissed.

dead one

koth wrote: »

You forgetting what forum you're in?
both texts are man made items from my perspective. You dismissing one text due to the age of the text, means that the other (and potentially all) holy text can equally be as easily dismissed.

you forgetting history in your foram. You're so proud of your foram that you forget history in its walls... If quran is unathentic or changed then bring your proofs comrades. I think you're not understanding my points.
i give you simple example to make you understand
this is your quote

koth wrote: »

both texts are man made items from my perspective. You dismissing one text due to the age of the text, means that the other (and potentially all) holy text can equally be as easily dismissed.

let us for the sake of argument, you claim this message is revealed by God to you. this is your original text as it and i explain this text to some third person.... when i try to explain it to third person i will write it in my own tongue.... The same theory applies to hadith... Hadith describes action of prophet, different people have described differently, with the passage of time they became change.... i ain't saying all hadith are wrong but some hadiths suspicious... hope you would get the point.

Delirium

So your point is if the author claims God dictated the text to him/her, then it's exempt from suspicion?

Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. And the example you gave for hadith being passed orally between people and eventually being written down? Guess what? That's pretty much what happened with the Quran

dead one

koth wrote: »

So your point is if the author claims God dictated the text to him/her, then it's exempt from suspicion?

You can disapprove the author and his claims...... It's nothing personal.. Here is challenge..

The verses of the Qur'an dealing with the challenge are given below (Hilali and Muhsin Khan's Translation):

Say: "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another." [Qur'an 17:88]

And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful. [Qur'an 2:23]

And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation) which was before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.], and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) - wherein there is no doubt from the the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns,and all that exists).

Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it?" Say: "Bring then a surah (chapter) like unto it, and call upon whomsoever you can, besides Allah, if you are truthful!" [Qur'an 10:37-38]

Or they say, "He (Prophet Muhammad(P)) forged it (the Qur'an)." Say: "Bring you then ten forged surah (chapters) like unto it, and call whomsoever you can, other than Allah (to your help), if you speak the truth!" [Qur'an 11:13]

Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it (this Qur'an)?" Nay! They believe not! Let them then produce a recital like unto it (the Qur'an) if they are truthful. [Qur'an 52:33-34]

koth wrote: »

Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. And the example you gave for hadith being passed orally between people and eventually being written down? Guess what? That's pretty much what happened with the Quran

conjecture avails nothing against Truth, comrade . Like i said, quran is direct source, first, muhammad memorized it in presence of an angel... then a community of people memorized the same quran in presence of Muhammad... It has no narrators/story teller... So there is no doubt of changing in it... If it is changed then bring your proof....

Delirium

Ok. God told me that he never spoke to Muhammed.

And that's authetic, because God spoke to me

dead one

koth wrote: »

Ok. God told me that he never spoke to Muhammed.

And that's authetic, because God spoke to me

ask to yourself, comrade, Did God really speak to you... or you are speaking as God... Comrade, here is clue
to the limit that a man tries to become free from the {creatures / created things} of existence, to that very extent his bondage goes on increasing. By way of a result, his effort becomes overpowered by the tension.
your efforts are creating tension for your ownself..

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

ask to yourself, comrade, Did God really speak to you... or you are speaking as God... Comrade, here is clue
to the limit that a man tries to become free from the {creatures / created things} of existence, to that very extent his bondage goes on increasing. By way of a result, his effort becomes overpowered by the tension.
your efforts are creating tension for your ownself..

Thank you for proving my point about the Quran being equally suspect as the hadith (by your own reasoning btw).

dead one

koth wrote: »

Thank you for proving my point about the Quran being equally suspect as the hadith (by your own reasoning btw).

no thanks, if you doubt quran then produce evidence... on the other hand, i can show you plenty of mistranslated hadiths.. Hadith with irrelevant narrtors.... etc.. forged hadiths/doubtful hadith etc... don't sent empty arrow in the sky,
my reasoning is based on logic, whereas you reasoning is based on wishful thinking... Think for a moment, comrade :eek:, what are you fighting for..

_GOD_

koth wrote: »

Ok. God told me that he never spoke to Muhammed.

And that's authetic, because God spoke to me

I also asked if it would be cool if i asked out your sister, but there you humans go selectively hearing again.

dead one

_GOD_ wrote: »

I also asked if it would be cool if i asked out your sister, but there you humans go selectively hearing again.

oh lord, what are you doing in these mortal foram with mortal ids... what makes you to comminicate with human world through local and changeable language.. Show us a miracle :rolleyes:
hiya god
do you think, by naming your ID as god, you would become god.

_GOD_

dead one wrote: »

oh lord, what are you doing in these mortal foram with mortal ids... what makes you to comminicate with human world through local and changeable language.. Show us a miracle :rolleyes:
hiya god
do you think, by naming your ID as god, you would become god.

ok, pick a card.

dont tell me.

have you picked one?

dead one

_GOD_ wrote: »

ok, pick a card.

dont tell me.

have you picked one?

hiya god, you're not absolute in your knowledge, so i doubt you're a god.. There are no card around.... is there anything else to pick...

_GOD_

dead one wrote: »

hiya god, you're not absolute in your knowledge, so i doubt you're a god.. There are no card around.... is there anything else to pick...

In your head, pick one in your head.

Newaglish

_GOD_ wrote: »

ok, pick a card.

dont tell me.

have you picked one?

Shouldn't you know that? /trollface

dead one

_GOD_ wrote: »

In your head, pick one in your head.

yes i pick, but first tell me the color which i picked...:)
btw god: what if you tell me the wrong color

_GOD_

dead one wrote: »

yes i pick, but first tell me the color which i picked...:)
btw god: what if you tell me the wrong color

Jack of Spades!

Penn

dead one wrote: »

yes i pick, but first tell me the color which i picked...:)
btw god: what if you tell me the wrong color

You have to become an atheist

dead one

_GOD_ wrote: »

Jack of Spades!

hail hail hail....
B$ god, that isn't what i picked

_ wrote:

You have to become an atheist

how?...

_GOD_

dead one wrote: »

hail hail hail....
B$ god, that isn't what i picked

Then mysterious ways. Also hell for blasphemy.

Penn

dead one wrote: »

hail hail hail....
B$ god, that isn't what i picked

how?...

God was wrong. Therefore God isn't worth worshipping. Therefore religion isn't worth following. Therefore, become an atheist.

dead one

_GOD_ wrote: »

Then mysterious ways. Also hell for blasphemy.

i would like to burn in hell then, god, prepare the torture.... You dont know the God i believe...

_GOD_ wrote: »

God was wrong. Therefore God isn't worth worshipping. Therefore religion isn't worth following. Therefore, become an atheist.

God was never wrong, it's people who were always wrong in understanding God.

Wibbs

koth wrote: »

That argument also applies to the Quran. If the authenticity of the hadiths are in question purely based on age, then the Quran is also suspect.

+1

dead one wrote: »

conjecture avails nothing against Truth, comrade . Like i said, quran is direct source, first, muhammad memorized it in presence of an angel... then a community of people memorized the same quran in presence of Muhammad... It has no narrators/story teller... So there is no doubt of changing in it... If it is changed then bring your proof....

Couple of points...

1) there were more versions of the Quran early in it's history. If there hadn't been Uthman wouldn't have had to set the official version and call for others to be burnt. Clearly those other texts differed enough to be considered "troublesome". Including Muhammad’s son in law's Quran.

2) "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another."Really? The works of Plato alone blow the doors off the Quran in philosophy. The works of Shakespeare are a magnitude better in cleverness and poetry. The Quran is incredibly repetitive, disjointed in theme, remarkably short and the strict adherence to the rhyme of it's oral tradition, shortens sentences and changes pronunciations. the lack of diacritical dots in the early texts leaves a lot of it very open to interpretation and some passages could have very different meanings. Who added the dots? Men, centuries later. It's also grammatically all over the place at times and full of contradictions. And this is the perfect book written by god?

3) The earliest Quranic texts are on coins and the dome of the rock dating to the late 7th century and they differ from later Quranic texts.

4) Historical problems in the passages about historical figures and times. The stuff about Alexander the Great is horribly inaccurate and laughably naive. It claims he was a righteous follower of Allah(I kid thee not dear reader). Alex, the drunken warlike lover of women and men, the polytheist who claimed he was a god himself(that's a stoning). Good bloke for a mad weekend he may have been, Muslim he was not.

5) Scientific mistakes. There are shed loads of these, too many to mention, all rooted in early Greek thought bought in from outside. There are even mistakes in the buying in.

6) One big proof of changes in the text. The direction of prayer. The Quran states to pray towards Mecca, specifically not Jerusalem, yet the earliest surviving mosques point towards Jerusalem. One of the earliest non Muslim sources, Jacob of Odessa notes the Arabs pray towards Jerusalem. No mention of Mecca(indeed there's no mention of Mecca at all anywhere until Islam grows). Something changed.

_GOD_

dead one wrote: »

i would like to burn in hell then, god, prepare the torture.... You dont know the God i believe....

Its not like that anymore, the place was unionised when Larkin got there for atheism and the conditions are much improved. I believe the eighth circle has an organic café

Originally Posted by _GOD_
God was wrong. Therefore God isn't worth worshipping. Therefore religion isn't worth following. Therefore, become an atheist.

God was never wrong, it's people who were always wrong in understanding God.

Dagnamit stop missatributing stuff to me! I never said that, I never told Bush to Invade Iraq, and i never said you could call me Allah, its Alan! AlanAlanAlanAlanAlanAlanAlan!

Sarky

Does it do Belgian waffles?

Dades

Worst thread ever.

robindch

^^^ I beg to disagree.

dead one

Wibbs wrote: »

+1

oh look who is here, what has happened to you wibbs, why this +1 to the argument of koth... You always give +1 to a argument which matches with your perceptions... You have been changed quite a lot...

Wibbs wrote: »

Couple of points...
1) there were more versions of the Quran early in it's history. If there hadn't been Uthman wouldn't have had to set the official version and call for others to be burnt. Clearly those other texts differed enough to be considered "troublesome". Including Muhammad’s son in law's Quran.

see, Arab tribes themselves had different accents and pronunciation. Hence the variations in the recitation of the Qur’an... Quran has different accent before uthman... So correct yourself, there was only one version of quran before but with different accents.... See... i don't know what accent you understand ... Irish speak English differently... American and Britisher different in their voice when it comes to uttering English... The result was that the Qur’an, too, began to be written according to varying pronunciations. Uthman subsequently ordered that all other copies of the Qur’an, which people had written on their own, should be handed over to the government. These were all then burnt by his order. i hope it would clear your doubts..

Wibbs wrote: »

Really? The works of Plato alone blow the doors off the Quran in philosophy. The works of Shakespeare are a magnitude better in cleverness and poetry. The Quran is incredibly repetitive, disjointed in theme, remarkably short and the strict adherence to the rhyme of it's oral tradition, shortens sentences and changes pronunciations. the lack of diacritical dots in the early texts leaves a lot of it very open to interpretation and some passages could have very different meanings. Who added the dots? Men, centuries later. It's also grammatically all over the place at times and full of contradictions. And this is the perfect book written by god?

See, you are comparing Prophets and words of God with ordinary human's work...The prophets come as guides to show the path toward God.... The plato's or shakepear couldn't blow the doors off the quran in philosophy.. The reason for this is, how many, in this world, are aware of plato's or shakepear philosophy.... Isn't it contradiction... But you will see follower of muhammad at every corner.....Arab authors have never accompolished in creating anything equal in strandard to the Qur'an itself is not surprising..... at first, they have acknowledged before-hand that it is unaccessable, and they have accepted its design as the perfect standard...

The famous Arabist from University of Oxford, Hamilton Gibb was open upon about the style of the Qur'an. In his words:

And in some other place, talking about the Prophet(P) and the Qur'an, he states:
Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.

As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style..... and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in which all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.

Wibbs wrote: »

3) The earliest Quranic texts are on coins and the dome of the rock dating to the late 7th century and they differ from later Quranic texts.

remember the clue accent, for example, i am not aware of english... let me give you plain example
(Bristish English) : not touch something with a bargepole
(American English) : not touch something with a ten-foot pole
(Bristish English) : flogging a dead horse
(American English) beating a dead horse
(Bristish English): lie of the land
American English : lay of the land

: That is what exactly uthman did, He made one accent of Quran by burning all other accent... To what extent you would deny reality...

Wibbs wrote: »

4) Historical problems in the passages about historical figures and times. The stuff about Alexander the Great is horribly inaccurate and laughably naive. It claims he was a righteous follower of Allah(I kid thee not dear reader). Alex, the drunken warlike lover of women and men, the polytheist who claimed he was a god himself(that's a stoning). Good bloke for a mad weekend he may have been, Muslim he was not.

Where you got this idea that Alexander is mentioned in quran...

Wibbs wrote: »

5) Scientific mistakes. There are shed loads of these, too many to mention, all rooted in early Greek thought bought in from outside. There are even mistakes in the buying in.

What science, the science which claimed "sun is stationery 50 years ago and It is mentioned in quran 1400 years ago.. That sun isn't stationery...

Wibbs wrote: »

6) One big proof of changes in the text. The direction of prayer. The Quran states to pray towards Mecca, specifically not Jerusalem, yet the earliest surviving mosques point towards Jerusalem. One of the earliest non Muslim sources, Jacob of Odessa notes the Arabs pray towards Jerusalem. No mention of Mecca(indeed there's no mention of Mecca at all anywhere until Islam grows). Something changed.

Islam wasn't a new law / religion..... The prophets, before muhammd, used Jersalem as direction so did the muhammad but later he changed it as per God order...