The Growing Greatness of Muhammad (S+) In The Eyes of Much of The World

[InvestigateTruth]

His cutting of hands and feet of the Qurish tribe alone was certainly not defensive.
Then the apostle heard that Abu Sufyan was coming from Syria with a large caravan of Qurish, containing their money and merchandise, accompanied by some thirty or forty men… When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, "This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-badr.htm
Their is plenty more historical facts there that you can dismiss and explain away if they contradict your position.

Copying things from a Biased website does not help you my friend.

You are ignoring many things. The acts in the old testament were the shadows of things clearly revealed in the new testament. Jesus was the clear revelation and he never killed or instructed anyone to kill anyone else. He taught the exact opposite. Muhammad simply claimed God gave him permission to justify his lust for power and wealth. It seems every time he wanted someone else’s wife or money, or anything else he conveniently had God declare he could do so. It is classic tyrant behavior.

No, what you are ignoring is that God who is the Father of Jesus according to your belief gave Moses the Laws and asked to kill those who work on Sabbath.
How come you accepted your religion then? Do you think it is fair to kill people simply because they work on Sabbath Day?
Is Jesus better than His Father?

No I do not. These matters occurring are based on the historical method. They are recorded by his own followers, biographers, and wives. The issues surrounding demon possession are well documented and catalogued.

Again this is what you claim based on false and biased websites.

Supernatural events are not detectable by natural methods.

Then don't bring them to a logical discussion.
I only discuss based on Verifiable Facts. Not just some things you personally belief.

No this is inconvenient for you position and so is discarded by the presence of a cognitive dissonance stronger that I have ever seen. It is a matter of history. I would post the documents but they will do not good as you reject everything that contradicts your claims. Christ did not marry a six year old.

So what? The Messenger of God does only what God allows Him.
Does bible gives any law what should be the age of Marriage?
Muhammad is the Promised One of Jesus when He talked about His Two Witness.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I know you do you make up whatever is necessary to allow Baha'i to survive. Tell me this when God says that Solomon was an idolater and keeps Moses out of the promise land because of disobedience and then you declare they were sinless who's side do you think you are on. You are calling God a liar.

Support your claim based on verses of Bible. References please.

No it isn't that was just what you had to do to make it fit with your theology.
No it isn't he literally wrote the statutes that are used for evidence presentation used in courtrooms around the world. I use to work on federal court rooms and have seen them. He also created one of the most respected if not the most respected law schools on Earth. Harvard. Whether you agree or not and I imagine you won't if it is inconvenient that he is the greatest in history. I defy you to present any reason not to believe his judgments and claims on the issue. Present any one with greater credentials or is more respected in the field. Will you tell Einstein and Newton their physics is wrong, Neil's Bore that his math is wrong, Riemann that his equation is false, Collins that his genome work is messed up, or tell God what his scriptures mean if that is the only way to retain faith in your religion?

I would say You learned Bible from the wrong people who themselves did not understand it. But since you are biased, you cannot change your position.
Your literal interpretation simply does not work my friend.

There is no possible way or reason to adopt a symbolic interpretation other than total preference. By no rule that exists in Biblical textual scholarship is you position tenable.
My Gosh. Just when I think it can't be more ridiculous. Moses was not known for his Rod. It was Aaron’s rod that he on occasion carried. It is also that rod that was put in the Ark of the Covenant. You are surely not suggesting that he put his wisdom in the ark. What about the snakes the Egyptians produced. Aaron’s rod ate them. Are you forced by your religion to say that Aaron's wisdom ate the Egyptians wisdom? Is there anything that will not be distorted to protect your position?

See above please.

Would you reject gravity if gravity was inconvenient? The bible says Jesus was the son of God, Muhammad (who shows up over 500 hundred years later) says no, The bible says he was crucified dead and buried, Muhammad (who never met him) said no, The Bible says he was ressurected from death, Muhammad (who was not a witness) said he either swooned - was raised without dyeing- or was never crucified to start off with. The bible says he was the savior of the world, Muhammad (who was no prophet) said he was only a prophet. I can keep going but facts have no effect so why bother. Your beliefs have forced you to reject the conclusions of the experts in many fields without explenation, forced you to violate every rule of biblical exegesis. has forced you into an understand of scripture that renders it meaningless and illogical, etc..

I have already discussed this with you.
Quran talks about the spiritual reality of Christ that was not cruicified. You are confusing that with His physical body. Again, your literal interpretation does not work my friend.

My friend, the ones that you learned the Bible Interpretation, are the ones that used to say the earth is flat. They used to say the earth is only a few thousands years old. Those churches keep changing their literal false interpretations, and in recent years they learned from Baha'is that some of the verses of Bible are symbolic. So, thanks to Baha'i Faith helping your case to survive.

How much right Christianity gives for women? Can they even talk in the churches? Does not Bible say, Women do not talk in churches? Does not Bible say Women are to submitte to men? Does not Bible allows slavery? Does not Bible allow having several wives? Did not those prophets of Bible had many many wives? How did you accept your religion then? The Miracles that you never witnessed? Jesus who you never saw? Based on sayings of People? Bind Faith?

Peace

 

[FearGod]

His cutting of hands and feet of the Qurish tribe alone was certainly not defensive.
Then the apostle heard that Abu Sufyan was coming from Syria with a large caravan of Qurish, containing their money and merchandise, accompanied by some thirty or forty men… When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, "This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-badr.htm
Their is plenty more historical facts there that you can dismiss and explain away if they contradict your position.

From your answer i realize that you know nothing about Islam by just copying from unreliable source which means that you got no knowledge about Prophet Mohammed and by relying on Ibn Isshaaq stories who was known as a liar.

Inaccurate, Twisted & Fabricated Stories about Prophet Mohammad


You are ignoring many things. The acts in the old testament were the shadows of things clearly revealed in the new testament. Jesus was the clear revelation and he never killed or instructed anyone to kill anyone else. He taught the exact opposite. Muhammad simply claimed God gave him permission to justify his lust for power and wealth. It seems every time he wanted someone else’s wife or money, or anything else he conveniently had God declare he could do so. It is classic tyrant behavior.

Are you saying that Jesus as part of god of the trinity didn't instruct to kill anyone,then tell me which God order whoever does not keep the sabbath, to be put to death,is he the other part of god,how many god do you got.


No I do not. These matters occurring are based on the historical method. They are recorded by his own followers, biographers, and wives. The issues surrounding demon possession are well documented and catalogued. Supernatural events are not detectable by natural methods. Science only deals with a narrow band or reality. There is no justification or excuse for asserting it as the sole arbiter of truth. His episodes exactly match every detail recorded in the bible or Catholic records and many secular studies concerning this issue. Empirical methods no more apply to demonic possession than they do to schizophrenia.

The demonic possession,order not to steal,not to have fun with girlfriends and not to commit adultery,what a mannerly demon.

No this is inconvenient for you position and so is discarded by the presence of a cognitive dissonance stronger that I have ever seen. It is a matter of history. I would post the documents but they will do not good as you reject everything that contradicts your claims. Christ did not marry a six year old.

Did you lived with christ or Mohammed that you saw and witnessed with whom they did sleep

There is no historical proof. There is evidence. Evidence strong enough to hold up in modern courtrooms. Witness testimony is used in every form of the historical method.

Where are the wintnesses ? i didn't hear the news,did they appear in the CNN news.


Are you suggesting that people who desire some form of proof (which he admitted he couldn't do until he saw they would reject him then completely reversed his stance and said the Quran was a miracle which it isn't) from someone who says they are from God are not justified? We are instructed to test anyone from God. The fact they were asking for it shows they were searching for the truth. Your distortions are tragic. The times in the bible when Jesus refused was when the Pharisees on asked in order to contend with him so don't add your misunderstanding of that to the mix.
Of what use is proof when talking to someone who let's preference dictate what is

Miracles,how can we know that there was any miracles such as walking on the sea etc,did you witness it yourself,was you there.

true. Baha'i is famous or infamous for that. I spent a long time giving you information about verses so iron clad that to dismiss it reveals a level of cognitive dissonance that is indescribable. If it didn't work then why would it help now?

Again, I have a different interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
All Messengers of God are sinless perfectly. All the Biblical stories which apparently rebukes the Prophets, in reality are directed to the people, through a wisdom which is absolute mercy, in order that the people may not be discouraged and heart-broken.

The jews believe that the true messiah should freed them from the Romans,but they found out that Jesus wasn't the true Messiah and even they believe that the new testament was a false one,they believe that Jesus and mohammed were liers,
so didn't they see Jesus walking on the surface of the sea or making the death alive ,oh my god,if i'll debate with you a lot i'll become an atheist.

 

[1robin]

Copying things from a Biased website does not help you my friend.

I see you have invented a new way to dismiss things you find inconvenient. This was a quote by:
Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār ibn Khiyār (according to some sources, ibn Khabbār, or Kūmān, or Kūtān,[3] : محمد بن إسحاق بن يسار بن خيار‎, or simply ibn Isḥaq ابن إسحاق, meaning "the son of Isaac") (died 767, or 761[2]) was an and . Under the aegis of the , Ibn Ishaq collected oral traditions that formed the basis of the most important biography of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Ibn Ishaq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I do not care what site it was on. It was his words not the sites. I regard this dismissing of any site that conflicts with your views as biased, a cop out. If they are so biased then proving them wrong should be easy. I have never once ever dismissed a claim because it was from a site hostile to my view.

No, what you are ignoring is that God who is the Father of Jesus according to your belief gave Moses the Laws and asked to kill those who work on Sabbath.

I am not ignoring anything, I have confirmed what you claim here many times. If you want a clear example of God's un clouded desires then Jesus is where you look. That was his purpose. God's command for the Jews for a specific time are not applicable in any general claim. If God had told every race of people on the earth to obey those rules for all time then it would be fitting for this discussion. This is a discussion about two men and has nothing to do with what God told the Jews to do.

How come you accepted your religion then? Do you think it is fair to kill people simply because they work on Sabbath Day?
Is Jesus better than His Father?

I think it was the correct act for the Jews at that time. I am not required to do it, so It is irrelevant. This is a diversion. Stick to the issue. Muhammad versus Jesus a comparison of character and actions.

Again this is what you claim based on false and biased websites.

So is this the new place holder for arguments that can't be made.

Then don't bring them to a logical discussion.
I only discuss based on Verifiable Facts. Not just some things you personally belief.

As anyone who actually knows anything about theological historical debates knows natural methods (empirical) methods are not used for the detection or as the standard for establishing super natural claims. I guess that would not matter to a religion that does not have any super natural claims to test. What is always used is witness testimony, the historical method, and textual criticism. I reject your attempt to define by what standards supernatural claims are established by.

So what? The Messenger of God does only what God allows Him.
Does bible gives any law what should be the age of Marriage?
Muhammad is the Promised One of Jesus when He talked about His Two Witness.

Almost every culture that has ever existed has established the minimum age for marriage at post puberty. There is no way to justify marrying a six year old it is pointless and desperate to try. Do you actually think that claim in the last sentence would have any influence on me. The bible in no way what so ever says anything what so ever about Muhammad, with the exception of it's teachings on false prophets. If you want to believe these things you are welcome but you should not think they will have any effect on me.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

The conversation between 1robin and InvestigateTruth shows the subjectivity, and outright absurdity, of the OP. It's impossible to prove, and has become pointless to debate about. Some people here don't even know the actual biography of Mohammed, just what they've been taught to believe about him (this happens alot within Christianity), which makes even debating the topic pointless. How can you prove something like the OP, when it's clear there can be no objective, universal criteria?

 

[1robin]

Support your claim based on verses of Bible. References please.

New International Version (©1984)
He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.
1 Kings 11:5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.
This is concerning his idolatry. There are dozens of them but if you arbitrarily dismiss one I am not bothering with the rest. If you are not familiar with his idolatry you really don't know the bible.
Every sunday school child knows that story of David and Bathsheeba. He had her husband Uria (I think) killed so he could have her. Samuel or Nathan told him a parable about the situation and David condemned the man in the story which he didn't know was him. He said the man should die. God took his son for that sin. I did not feel like looking it up. It should not be necessary.

I would say You learned Bible from the wrong people who themselves did not understand it. But since you are biased, you cannot change your position.
Your literal interpretation simply does not work my friend.

Being that my understanding is by and large the same as virtually all scholars on the subject I am afraid this isn't the case. There is quite simply no justification for your view, but plenty for mine. That includes scholar's, commentator's, the biblical characters themselves, the plain reading of the texts, an indepth reasearch of the texts, accepted biblical exegesis. You are in a mightly small crowd.

See above please.

Why it wasn't correct the first time.

I have already discussed this with you.
Quran talks about the spiritual reality of Christ that was not cruicified. You are confusing that with His physical body. Again, your literal interpretation does not work my friend.

The Quran is so vague on the issue, that it seems every Muslim takes a different stance. I accept thier interpretations of their scriptures over a person whom I know gets the bible wrong in every instance. Professional Muslim debaters have said that he was substituted for, he only swooned, that there never was a crucifixion, and that he died physically but not spiritually. Any thing goes but the truth. I am not interested in what non contemporary people say about the event, the eye witnesses are plenty.

My friend, the ones that you learned the Bible Interpretation, are the ones that used to say the earth is flat. They used to say the earth is only a few thousands years old. Those churches keep changing their literal false interpretations, and in recent years they learned from Baha'is that some of the verses of Bible are symbolic. So, thanks to Baha'i Faith helping your case to survive.

What are you talking about? The bible its self says the earth isn't flat. I do not read middle age Catholic interpretations. I read revered and studied church fathers, modern textual scholars even the critics, and proffessional theologians. I do not know what you are talking about.

How much right Christianity gives for women? Can they even talk in the churches?

That was directed to one church that was having trouble with this particular issue. It is no general comand. Besides silence is the least imposition made in Islam.

Does not Bible say, Women do not talk in churches? Does not Bible say Women are to submitte to men?

The same way it also says for men to submit to women.

Does not Bible allows slavery?

Not slavery as you know it. As in the diabolical kind that Muslims trafficked in all over africa. It was almost always voluntary in Israel.

Does not Bible allow having several wives? Did not those prophets of Bible had many many wives?

No it does not allow it. God punished many for it and it always resulted in sin and misery. He did tolerate it to some extent in that he didn't instantly kill any one who did it. Jesus if you will remember is the subject and he did not do it.

It however How did you accept your religion then?

By understanding what the bible says unlike what you say it does.

The Miracles that you never witnessed?

I have experienced miracles I do not need to witness every single one to know they are real. The testimony in the bible that meets every modern standard of historical methods and Jurice Prudence as said by their top scholars would be suffecient even if I had not.

Jesus who you never saw?

This is really hypocritical. You believe he existed as well. And you are defending Muhammad who you never met. You are even making interpretations that never existed.

Based on sayings of People? Bind Faith?

I do not have time for rants. None of this is accurate and the worlds top experts agree. I would not bother telling me well understood scriptures have a completely different meaning than every one knows they do without some kind of way unknown revealed to justify it. Every single thing by which interpretations are studied is on my side.

 

[sojourner]

Quran talks about the spiritual reality of Christ that was not cruicified. You are confusing that with His physical body. Again, your literal interpretation does not work my friend.

One has to wonder how a document written a half millenium after the fact, by people who were not Judaic, were any more historically correct about Jesus than the biblical writers, some writing less than 10 years after Jesus' death. If you want to avoid belief and heresay, it seems that you'd be looking for documents that were as close to the event as possible. Just sayin'...

 

[FearGod]

I see you have invented a new way to dismiss things you find inconvenient. This was a quote by:[/color]
Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār ibn Khiyār (according to some sources, ibn Khabbār, or Kūmān, or Kūtān,[3] : محمد بن إسحاق بن يسار بن خيار‎, or simply ibn Isḥaq ابن إسحاق, meaning "the son of Isaac") (died 767, or 761[2]) was an and . Under the aegis of the , Ibn Ishaq collected oral traditions that formed the basis of the most important biography of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Ibn Ishaq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I do not care what site it was on. It was his words not the sites. I regard this dismissing of any site that conflicts with your views as biased, a cop out. If they are so biased then proving them wrong should be easy. I have never once ever dismissed a claim because it was from a site hostile to my view.

Are you going to teach us who is ibn Ishaq,i studied him while i was in the elementary scool as a lier and fake muslim.


i don't ask you to search for the truth about ibn Ishaq,because i know you aren't interesting to know anything except to search for bad stories about Islam

Section #3 Why Ibn Ishaq can't be trusted/The Problems with Ibn Ishaq

"The Life of Muhammad" by Ibn Ishaq has been quoted by many critics of Islam. They get excited when Ibn Ishaq paints a bad picture of Prophet Muhammad and use it in their writings to attack Islam. Although Ibn Ishaq was the earliest of the traditionists to write a biography of the events that pertained to the time of Muhammad (p) there are several severe problems with his writings. As Bassam Zawadi says" just because something is early doesn't mean it is true". He has a good point. Not everyone back then was reliable and honest. Ibn Ishaq was known to be careless in him collecting stories about the Prophet, etc. ​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Several respected Muslim theologians rightly reject his (Ibn Ishaq's) authority for several reasons: [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](A)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] That he was a Shi'i favouring Ali over all the other contenders to the Khilfa[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](B)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] That he held the view that Man has free will, which is kind of contrary to the Quranic perception. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](C) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That his Isnads (chains of transmissions) were defective, ie not 'iron' tight by naming all the reporters, which is important because this determines whether the transmitter of the story is trustworthy or not. Ibn Ishaq was not an eye witness to any of the events of Prophet Muhammad's life. Ibn Ishaq was writing about 150 years after the Prophet's death so this is very important. In Islamic sciences in order for a report of the Prophet (peace be on him) to be true is if the isnad is solid or not.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](D) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He used reports of traditions gathered from Jewish sources. Jews made up a lot of false stories/legends of Prophet Muhammad (just like the early Christians living outside of Palestine made up a lot of myths and legends of Jesus and put them in the Gospels). Making up stories and legends about the Prophet are unnacceptable in the eyes of many Islamic scholars. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](E)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Ibn Ishaq was (for lack of better term) a "suck up" to the Jews of Arabia. He said several complimentary reports of the Jews of Arabia, despite the fact that the Jews of Arabia were constatnly fighting with the Arabs and were charging interest when loaning money. The Jews of Madinah were constatly plotting againist the Prophet Muhammad. They were always trying to undermine his authority. In fact they sided with the Makkans in order to assinate the Prophet. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](F) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Most important of all, his report about Laylat al Qadr (the first revelation), contradicts all the hadith versions. The hadith collectors Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, etc were more careful in collecting their hadith (their chains of transmission). [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](G) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are several stories in Ibn Ishaq which are never found in the hadith. The reason why is because several hadith collectors such as Bukhari-- did not trust Ibn Ishaq. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ibn Ishaq as an author was in fact subjected to devastating attacks by scholars, contemporary or later, on two particular accounts. One was his uncritical inclusion in his Sira of so much spurious or forged poetry [7] ;the other his unquestioning acceptance of just such a story as that of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza [8]. It gets worse for Ibn Ishaq though. First let's talk about what Imam Malk thought of Ibn Ishaq. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Who Was Imam Malik? What Did Imam Malik have to Say about Ibn Ishaq?[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Malik bin Anas Bin Malik bin Abu Amir Al-Asbahi (715-801 C.E.) or Imam Malik-- lived cloest in the time to the life of Prophet Muhammad of all the collectors of the hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, etc). He was born more than 80 years after the death of the Prophet. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Imam Malik was a complier of a respected hadith collection, called Muwatta. Imam Malik was a hadith scholar. Imam Malik called Ibn Ishaq a liar and an imposter for writing false stories about Prophet Muhammad. Imam Malik has said that Ibn Ishaq "reports traditions on the authority of the Jews". [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][9] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ibn Ishaq was condemned by some of our major Islamic scholars.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah said:[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Allah has provided evidence (i.e. Isnad) establishing the authenticity or lack thereof of the narrations that are necessary in matters of the religion[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. It is well known that most of what was reported in aspects of Tafsir (commentaries on the Qur'an) is similar to narrations reporting Maghazi (or Seerah) and battles, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]promoting Imam Ahmad to state that three matters do not have Isnad: Tafsir, Mala'him (i.e. great battles), and Maghazi.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] This is because most of their narrations are of the Maraseel (plural for Mursal) type, such as narrations reported by Urwah Ibn az-Zubair, ash-Sha'bi, az-Zuhri, Musa Ibn Uqbah [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and Ibn Ishaq[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]." [10] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Imam Malik was not the only contemporary of Ibn Ishaq's to have problems with him. Despite writing the earliest biography of Prophet Muhammad, Scholars such as al-Nisa'I and Yahya b. Kattan did not view Ibn Ishaq as a reliable or authoritative source of Hadith. [11] Though some thought his use of collective isnad (chains of tranmissions) problematized his Hadith, several people [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]went so far as to call Ibn Ishaq a liar on matters of Hadith[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Others claim Ibn Ishaq included verses in his Sira that he knew were not authentic. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Reference : The-Problems-with-Ibn-Ishaq[/FONT]

 

[1robin]

His cutting of hands and feet of the Qurish tribe alone was certainly not defensive.
Then the apostle heard that Abu Sufyan was coming from Syria with a large caravan of Qurish, containing their money and merchandise, accompanied by some thirty or forty men… When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, "This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-badr.htm
Their is plenty more historical facts there that you can dismiss and explain away if they contradict your position.

From your answer i realize that you know nothing about Islam by just copying from unreliable source which means that you got no knowledge about Prophet Mohammed and by relying on Ibn Isshaaq stories who was known as a liar.

Apparently you do not know enough to recognise those were the words of a respected and accepted biographer of Muhammad. Appeals to sites as biased if they dissagree with you is a cop out. If I kept trck of every site a Muslim dismised and claimed as biased I could not find a single one to quote from. Either prove it wrong if it is so biased or punt.

Inaccurate, Twisted & Fabricated Stories about Prophet Mohammad

Does this include the words of his own biographers. This Qurish story is well known in secular historian circles.

Are you saying that Jesus as part of god of the trinity didn't instruct to kill anyone,then tell me which God order whoever does not keep the sabbath, to be put to death,is he the other part of god,how many god do you got.

I am saying that the instructions to the Jews only for specific time only are not to be looked at as a general characteristic of God. If it was some general mandate to all instead of a very rare and unique instruction it might apply to a different topic. The Quran is full of verses that suggest general warfare against unbelievers the bible does not contain a single one. I was comparing Jesus and Muhammad not God and Allah. I do not say the bible's wars were defensive so I have nothing to defend. You do and so must defend that claim. You would have to say why any of this is applicable before I know what to resond with. By the way I have no position concerning the Trinity and so do not defend it.

The demonic possession,order not to steal,not to have fun with girlfriends and not to commit adultery,what a mannerly demon.

Combine that with multiple wives, marrying a six year old, killing many, raiding Caravans, creating what IMO is the most destructive false religion in history, saying about Christ exactly what the bible says the anti-christ will say, etc......and not so mannerly. Believe me I know you think you can undue all these things with enough words. When you get somewhere around the 500th excuse you start to be doubtfull. IN fact if you know much about demonic influence or possesion, the behavior of the individual is many times polite and courteous. Demons are liars and try to gain the trust of others. I think it is influence not possesion in Muhammd's case.

Did you lived with christ or Mohammed that you saw and witnessed with whom they did sleep

I never mentioned sleeping. It is a matter of history that he married a prepubescent girl. That is all I said. Are you actually refutting this? I know many terrible reasons given to make it look like a good thing but I have never heard anyone deny it before.

Where are the wintnesses ? i didn't hear the news,did they appear in the CNN news.

Then I guess the Quran is just a bunch of trash as well because Muhammad did not appear on CNN either. Is it some kind of standard you use that the only witnesses to any event possible must be on CNN. What kind of scholarship is this mess? Witness testimony is established by the historical method. It is how Ceaser, Socrates, Plato, Jesus, Muhammad or any other character that existed in antiquity is established. What are you talking about?

Miracles,how can we know that there was any miracles such as walking on the sea etc,did you witness it yourself,was you there.

So only things I can see are true. Strange Idea. I guess 99.9% of the universe, 99.9% of science, 99.9% of history, 99.9% of the earth, 99.9% of literature etc never existed because I didn't see them. THis is nonsence. PLease review the historical method. I insist on at least some knowledge in the area you wish to debate. In fact witness testimony just as what is in the bible is used everyday around the world in courtrooms in order to determine what happened in life and death issues. I guess no murder you personally didn't witness ever happened.

The jews believe that the true messiah should freed them from the Romans,but they found out that Jesus wasn't the true Messiah and even they believe that the new testament was a false one,they believe that Jesus and mohammed were liers,

so didn't they see Jesus walking on the surface of the sea or making the death alive ,oh my god,if i'll debate with you a lot i'll become an atheist.

You do realise the apostles were Jews don't you, as well as much of the early church. Plus a vast number of messianic Jews through the years. In fact my favorite desciple Paul was a Jew taught by the greatest expert on the law around. Paul if any Jew knew the law and he also knew Jesus. I do not see what the Jews believe as relevant to me. Many people do not believe. So?

 

[Meow Mix]

The conversation between 1robin and InvestigateTruth shows the subjectivity, and outright absurdity, of the OP. It's impossible to prove, and has become pointless to debate about. Some people here don't even know the actual biography of Mohammed, just what they've been taught to believe about him (this happens alot within Christianity), which makes even debating the topic pointless. How can you prove something like the OP, when it's clear there can be no objective, universal criteria?

I am the greatest human. I even have the greatest humility

There. Topic settled!

EDIT: Alternatively, Gene Ray is the greatest human. After all, there's a website that says so. It must be true. Right?

 

[1robin]

Are you going to teach us who is ibn Ishaq,i studied him while i was in the elementary scool as a lier and fake muslim.


i don't ask you to search for the truth about ibn Ishaq,because i know you aren't interesting to know anything except to search for bad stories about Islam

Section #3 Why Ibn Ishaq can't be trusted/The Problems with Ibn Ishaq

"The Life of Muhammad" by Ibn Ishaq has been quoted by many critics of Islam. They get excited when Ibn Ishaq paints a bad picture of Prophet Muhammad and use it in their writings to attack Islam. Although Ibn Ishaq was the earliest of the traditionists to write a biography of the events that pertained to the time of Muhammad (p) there are several severe problems with his writings. As Bassam Zawadi says" just because something is early doesn't mean it is true". He has a good point. Not everyone back then was reliable and honest. Ibn Ishaq was known to be careless in him collecting stories about the Prophet, etc. ​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Several respected Muslim theologians rightly reject his (Ibn Ishaq's) authority for several reasons: [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](A)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] That he was a Shi'i favouring Ali over all the other contenders to the Khilfa[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](B)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] That he held the view that Man has free will, which is kind of contrary to the Quranic perception. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](C) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That his Isnads (chains of transmissions) were defective, ie not 'iron' tight by naming all the reporters, which is important because this determines whether the transmitter of the story is trustworthy or not. Ibn Ishaq was not an eye witness to any of the events of Prophet Muhammad's life. Ibn Ishaq was writing about 150 years after the Prophet's death so this is very important. In Islamic sciences in order for a report of the Prophet (peace be on him) to be true is if the isnad is solid or not.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](D) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He used reports of traditions gathered from Jewish sources. Jews made up a lot of false stories/legends of Prophet Muhammad (just like the early Christians living outside of Palestine made up a lot of myths and legends of Jesus and put them in the Gospels). Making up stories and legends about the Prophet are unnacceptable in the eyes of many Islamic scholars. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Who Was Imam Malik? What Did Imam Malik have to Say about Ibn Ishaq?[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Malik bin Anas Bin Malik bin Abu Amir Al-Asbahi (715-801 C.E.) or Imam Malik-- lived cloest in the time to the life of Prophet Muhammad of all the collectors of the hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, etc). He was born more than 80 years after the death of the Prophet. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Imam Malik was a complier of a respected hadith collection, called Muwatta. Imam Malik was a hadith scholar. Imam Malik called Ibn Ishaq a liar and an imposter for writing false stories about Prophet Muhammad. Imam Malik has said that Ibn Ishaq "reports traditions on the authority of the Jews". [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][9] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ibn Ishaq was condemned by some of our major Islamic scholars.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah said:[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Allah has provided evidence (i.e. Isnad) establishing the authenticity or lack thereof of the narrations that are necessary in matters of the religion[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. It is well known that most of what was reported in aspects of Tafsir (commentaries on the Qur'an) is similar to narrations reporting Maghazi (or Seerah) and battles, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]promoting Imam Ahmad to state that three matters do not have Isnad: Tafsir, Mala'him (i.e. great battles), and Maghazi.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] This is because most of their narrations are of the Maraseel (plural for Mursal) type, such as narrations reported by Urwah Ibn az-Zubair, ash-Sha'bi, az-Zuhri, Musa Ibn Uqbah [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and Ibn Ishaq[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]." [10] [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Reference : The-Problems-with-Ibn-Ishaq[/FONT]

I am very well aware that Islam rejects any one on the basis of whether they like what they say or not among other things I have no access to. Sometimes they even reject the unflattering parts of things and keep the rest. I am also aware that works were at one time accepted until at some future date something was found that was unflattering that was missed before and so they are out as well. I do not have time to wait until every inconvenient claim is stripped and all complementary ones are accepted. If secular sources say they are respected works that is enough for me. If you wish to challenge what he says specifically I am open to that. Acceptance and rejection seems to be based on preference and changes throught time.

This is what Wiki says about him. Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār ibn Khiyār (according to some sources, ibn Khabbār, or Kūmān, or Kūtān,[3] Arabic: محمد بن إسحاق بن يسار بن خيار‎, or simply ibn Isḥaq ابن إسحاق, meaning "the son of Isaac") (died 767, or 761[2]) was an Arab Muslim historian and hagiographer. Under the aegis of the 'Abbasid caliph Al-Mansur, Ibn Ishaq collected oral traditions that formed the basis of the most important biography of the Islamic prophetMuhammad.

Notable scholars like the jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal appreciated his efforts in collecting sīra narratives and accepted him on maghāzī, despite having reservations on his methods on matters of fiqh.[3] Ibn Ishaq also influenced later sīra writers like Ibn Hishām and Ibn Sayyid al-Nās. Other scholars, like Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, made use of his chronological ordering of events.[

In hadith studies, ibn Isḥaq's hadith is generally thought to be "good" (ḥasan) (assuming an accurate and trustworthy isnad, or chain of transmission)[23] and himself having a reputation of being "sincere" or "trustworthy" (ṣadūq).
Ibn Ishaq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not care about this guy. Either show what is wrong with his claims or move on. I am not going to keep a list of sites, biographers, and any one else you deem to be acceptable. I do not ask this of people who challenge me about the bible. I show their claims wrong of say I do not know, or admit they are correct. I never say what source may and may not be used and I do not even pay attention to what site I am at. I have tried to not use answering Islam because some other Muslim didn't like that one but this is getting out of hand.

 

[FearGod]

I am very well aware that Islam rejects any one on the basis of whether they like what they say or not among other things I have no access to. Sometimes they even reject the unflattering parts of things and keep the rest. I am also aware that works were at one time accepted until at some future date something was found that was unflattering that was missed before and so they are out as well. I do not have time to wait until every inconvenient claim is stripped and all complementary ones are accepted. If secular sources say they are respected works that is enough for me. If you wish to challenge what he says specifically I am open to that. Acceptance and rejection seems to be based on preference and changes throught time.

This is what Wiki says about him. Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār ibn Khiyār (according to some sources, ibn Khabbār, or Kūmān, or Kūtān,[3] Arabic: محمد بن إسحاق بن يسار بن خيار‎, or simply ibn Isḥaq ابن إسحاق, meaning "the son of Isaac") (died 767, or 761[2]) was an Arab Muslim historian and hagiographer. Under the aegis of the 'Abbasid caliph Al-Mansur, Ibn Ishaq collected oral traditions that formed the basis of the most important biography of the Islamic prophetMuhammad.

Notable scholars like the jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal appreciated his efforts in collecting sīra narratives and accepted him on maghāzī, despite having reservations on his methods on matters of fiqh.[3] Ibn Ishaq also influenced later sīra writers like Ibn Hishām and Ibn Sayyid al-Nās. Other scholars, like Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, made use of his chronological ordering of events.[

In hadith studies, ibn Isḥaq's hadith is generally thought to be "good" (ḥasan) (assuming an accurate and trustworthy isnad, or chain of transmission)[23] and himself having a reputation of being "sincere" or "trustworthy" (ṣadūq).
Ibn Ishaq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not care about this guy. Either show what is wrong with his claims or move on. I am not going to keep a list of sites, biographers, and any one else you deem to be acceptable. I do not ask this of people who challenge me about the bible. I show their claims wrong of say I do not know, or admit they are correct. I never say what source may and may not be used and I do not even pay attention to what site I am at. I have tried to not use answering Islam because some other Muslim didn't like that one but this is getting out of hand.

instead of looking for stories then there is one trusted book which is called the holy quran,we won't deny even one verse of it and willing to challenge whatever from the first page to the last one.

 

[1robin]

instead of looking for stories then there is one trusted book which is called the holy quran,we won't deny even one verse of it and willing to challenge whatever from the first page to the last one.

You will however do any number of Gymnastics to avoid the obvious implications of those verses. How about this one the Quran says it is a copy of the tablets in heaven as in perfect Arabic. It also contains over 100 words that predate the Arabian language and were in use and invented by other cultures. It also contains teachings that were later abrogated by Muhammad. It also contained at one time Satanic verses. It also contains unique verses that were decided on by Uthman and he burned the rest. How does Uthman know what he decided on is on the tablets? Why did Muhammads wives say many times that certain verses were lost and that many of the people who had memorized certain verses were killed in yet another defensive between one group of Muslims and another before the Quran was compiled and then later burned by Uthman. If you can handle that one then I will give you some hard ones. It's atough row to hoe. Good luck.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I see you have invented a new way to dismiss things you find inconvenient. This was a quote by:[/COLOR]
Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār ibn Khiyār (according to some sources, ibn Khabbār, or Kūmān, or Kūtān,[3] : محمد بن إسحاق بن يسار بن خيار‎, or simply ibn Isḥaq ابن إسحاق, meaning "the son of Isaac") (died 767, or 761[2]) was an and . Under the aegis of the , Ibn Ishaq collected oral traditions that formed the basis of the most important biography of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Ibn Ishaq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I do not care what site it was on. It was his words not the sites. I regard this dismissing of any site that conflicts with your views as biased, a cop out. If they are so biased then proving them wrong should be easy. I have never once ever dismissed a claim because it was from a site hostile to my view.

Well, there is no agreement that this event actually happened in terms of historical evidence. You need to have several unbiased witnesses that independently confirm this event the way you are saying it. Generally these cases when go to courts, can be only accepted when there is enough evidence.

I am not ignoring anything, I have confirmed what you claim here many times. If you want a clear example of God's un clouded desires then Jesus is where you look. That was his purpose. God's command for the Jews for a specific time are not applicable in any general claim. If God had told every race of people on the earth to obey those rules for all time then it would be fitting for this discussion. This is a discussion about two men and has nothing to do with what God told the Jews to do.

Yeah, but here, in order to justify your own belief you come up with a way to make it look ok.
I am sorry, but you are completely being biased.

I think it was the correct act for the Jews at that time. I am not required to do it, so It is irrelevant. This is a diversion. Stick to the issue. Muhammad versus Jesus a comparison of character and actions.

Ok, so, you think it was a correct act at that time. This is what you think, how do you know what you think is correct?
Moreover, the actions of Muhammad can be said were ok for that time.
You seem to be biased, and your reasoning is not convincing.

As anyone who actually knows anything about theological historical debates knows natural methods (empirical) methods are not used for the detection or as the standard for establishing super natural claims. I guess that would not matter to a religion that does not have any super natural claims to test. What is always used is witness testimony, the historical method, and textual criticism. I reject your attempt to define by what standards supernatural claims are established by.

I am not denying that the religion must have a supernatural source. What you ignore is that, you claim that certain Miracles happened but you fail to give any recorded historical and verifiable evidence. I am not denying the possibility of Miracles.

Almost every culture that has ever existed has established the minimum age for marriage at post puberty. There is no way to justify marrying a six year old it is pointless and desperate to try. Do you actually think that claim in the last sentence would have any influence on me. The bible in no way what so ever says anything what so ever about Muhammad, with the exception of it's teachings on false prophets. If you want to believe these things you are welcome but you should not think they will have any effect on me.

We are not talking about cultures. We are talking about committing sins as per God's definition. You are accusing Muhammad of committing sins.
You need to bring a law from Bible, and show how Muhammad transgressed that law. So far you failed to prove anything.

 

[1robin]

Well, there is no agreement that this event actually happened in terms of historical evidence. You need to have several unbiased witnesses that independently confirm this event the way you are saying it. Generally these cases when go to courts, can be only accepted when there is enough evidence.

This is very well known. I do not have time to dig this up today but will do so if necessary soon. I have never even heard a Muslim apologist deny the event. Are you actually saying that an extremely early and respected biographer of Muhammad made this up? I can't believe that is what you are saying.

Yeah, but here, in order to justify your own belief you come up with a way to make it look ok.
I am sorry, but you are completely being biased.

You are something else. If I was biased I would deny that these wars took place in the bible. I do not. They are just not relevant to a Jesus (as a man) verses Muhammad discussion concerning what we know they did. Allah verses God maybe not here.

Ok, so, you think it was a correct act at that time. This is what you think, how do you know what you think is correct?
Moreover, the actions of Muhammad can be said were ok for that time.
You seem to be biased, and your reasoning is not convincing.

I am through discussing events that happened over three thousand years ago in a discussion about Jesus and Muhammands record as men. Bring that up some where it applies. I have shown that Muhammads actions are far more consistent with a power hungry, money grubber than any heroic warrior for God. There are countless stories of his ordering executions for reasons that boggle the mind. One woman had her baby stripped from her arms and was then stabbed. One old man who taunted Muhammad by makeing up verses just as good as anything in the Quran was killed. I am not comparing Muhammad to Gideon, Saul, or David. I am comparing him to Christ.

I am not denying that the religion must have a supernatural source. What you ignore is that, you claim that certain Miracles happened but you fail to give any recorded historical and verifiable evidence. I am not denying the possibility of Miracles.

For the last time witness testimony is viewed as evidence by the historical method, modern law, textual criticism, and theological exegesis. What could there possibly be besides what the bible reliably gives for historical miracles? You demand a time macine or deny everything I guess. I bet even if you saw them you would still deny it. People did for the same reasons you do through out the bible.

We are not talking about cultures. We are talking about committing sins as per God's definition. You are accusing Muhammad of committing sins.
You need to bring a law from Bible, and show how Muhammad transgressed that law. So far you failed to prove anything.

If you wish tyo declare the marriage of a 6 year old girl who is not old enough to agree or dissagree ok that is on you. I prefer to not call obvious acts of evil as though they are good even if I need to to support an unsupportable position. I will add the marriage and sexual assault of a minor to the list of things that must be defended in order to support your position. Is anything off that list. If this isn't I don't know what could be. If you want the bibles stance on the issue why didn't you say? It is after puberty. The earliest age I have ever heard given for this was 12 but I imagine it was normally on up in the teens. It is easily found if you want it. In fact if you will promise to abandon your stance on Muhammad I will dig it up. If not why should I?

 

[al-amiyr]

How about this one the Quran says it is a copy of the tablets in heaven as in perfect Arabic. It also contains over 100 words that predate the Arabian language and were in use and invented by other cultures.

Below is a link to my thread which contains more of my explanations on this subject, with some of my drawings and explanatory diagrams:

The Qur'aan Lexicographical Model: The Remarkable Language Program Upon Which The Qur'aan Is Based.

 

[FearGod]

You will however do any number of Gymnastics to avoid the obvious implications of those verses. How about this one the Quran says it is a copy of the tablets in heaven as in perfect Arabic. It also contains over 100 words that predate the Arabian language and were in use and invented by other cultures. It also contains teachings that were later abrogated by Muhammad. It also contained at one time Satanic verses. It also contains unique verses that were decided on by Uthman and he burned the rest. How does Uthman know what he decided on is on the tablets? Why did Muhammads wives say many times that certain verses were lost and that many of the people who had memorized certain verses were killed in yet another defensive between one group of Muslims and another before the Quran was compiled and then later burned by Uthman. If you can handle that one then I will give you some hard ones. It's atough row to hoe. Good luck.

Again you are talking about stories which is silly,you are discussing an issue which isn't yours but you are again copying what others had tried which is to find even a single evidence that the quran may have one mistake,then they found nothing and they invented the story of the language of the quran.

You are saying that there are some words aren't arbic,so what is the words which you claim it to be non arabic words and your evidences back to thousands of years ago that it itsn't arabic.

And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray [thereby] whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.(14:4)

So show us the words which you claim as non arabic words and your tangible evidence of it's origin source.

Note : words that used by another cultures wouldn't mean that it isn't arabic.
for example:
Sugar : it'll be thought that it is an english word but actually it is an arabic word,so even if the word found in other language that won't mean itsn't arabic and you'll have a hard job to know the origin of each word before thousands of years ago.

Algebra : we may thought that it is an english word,but it is arabic word.
Chemistry : arabic word.....etc.

So if a word found in another language then it isn't an evidence for it's origin.

So locating the origin of the words is as silly as trying to know the first ancestor of the human being which is in common with the chimps.

And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge.(30:22)

 

[al-amiyr]

“It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.”
-Annie Besant, THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD,

The admiration of Muhammad (S+) grows greater and greater. Is it not amazing that the more they speak against Muhammad (S+) his stature grows higher and higher. Present another man the same!

 

[loverOfTruth]

I am very well aware that Islam rejects any one on the basis of whether they like what they say or not among other things I have no access to. Sometimes they even reject the unflattering parts of things and keep the rest. I am also aware that works were at one time accepted until at some future date something was found that was unflattering that was missed before and so they are out as well. I do not have time to wait until every inconvenient claim is stripped and all complementary ones are accepted. If secular sources say they are respected works that is enough for me. If you wish to challenge what he says specifically I am open to that. Acceptance and rejection seems to be based on preference and changes throught time.

This is what Wiki says about him. Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār ibn Khiyār (according to some sources, ibn Khabbār, or Kūmān, or Kūtān,[3] Arabic: محمد بن إسحاق بن يسار بن خيار‎, or simply ibn Isḥaq ابن إسحاق, meaning "the son of Isaac") (died 767, or 761[2]) was an Arab Muslim historian and hagiographer. Under the aegis of the 'Abbasid caliph Al-Mansur, Ibn Ishaq collected oral traditions that formed the basis of the most important biography of the Islamic prophetMuhammad.

Notable scholars like the jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal appreciated his efforts in collecting sīra narratives and accepted him on maghāzī, despite having reservations on his methods on matters of fiqh.[3] Ibn Ishaq also influenced later sīra writers like Ibn Hishām and Ibn Sayyid al-Nās. Other scholars, like Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, made use of his chronological ordering of events.[

In hadith studies, ibn Isḥaq's hadith is generally thought to be "good" (ḥasan) (assuming an accurate and trustworthy isnad, or chain of transmission)[23] and himself having a reputation of being "sincere" or "trustworthy" (ṣadūq).
Ibn Ishaq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not care about this guy. Either show what is wrong with his claims or move on. I am not going to keep a list of sites, biographers, and any one else you deem to be acceptable. I do not ask this of people who challenge me about the bible. I show their claims wrong of say I do not know, or admit they are correct. I never say what source may and may not be used and I do not even pay attention to what site I am at. I have tried to not use answering Islam because some other Muslim didn't like that one but this is getting out of hand.

Hi there, hope you remember me. I am surprised you are still stuck with Ibn Ishaq even after I have explained it to you earlier in a different thread. Let me explain one more time....

Ibn Ishaq was written before Sahih Bukhari/Muslim (the most authentic Hadith collections) and did not go through the same rigorous Isnad(science of chain of narrators) validation as the Sahih(authentics) hadiths. That's why we are not obliged to accept it.

 

[1robin]

Again you are talking about stories which is silly,you are discussing an issue which isn't yours but you are again copying what others had tried which is to find even a single evidence that the quran may have one mistake,then they found nothing and they invented the story of the language of the quran.

What are you talking about? You and I both know the Quran says it is in pure Arabic. It is a very simply matter to find the culture where words were initiated. This is not obscure story it is a very simple idea. The Quran claims it is in pure Arabic and it has words from other cultures it is. It is very simple.

You are saying that there are some words aren't arbic,so what is the words which you claim it to be non arabic words and your evidences back to thousands of years ago that it itsn't arabic.

I will provide the words but the Quran isn't true unless shown false. That is not how this works. THe Quran makes extraordinary claims and so it must provide extra ordinary words. I will do the job that the Quran should do but it is backwards.

[FONT=Arial,Bold]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Tafaq'a [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Romanian word means" intended to do", as in The Heights chapter[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Bold](Surat Al-A'raf) 22 [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]- "[/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Al-toar [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]"is a Syrian word means "the mountain", as in the Cow chapter (Surat Al-[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]Baqarah) 63[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]- "[/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Al-Raq'im [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Romanian word means "the tablet" as in The Cave chapter (Surat Al-[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]Kahf) 9[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]- "[/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Ta-Ha [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Hebrew word as in Ta-Ha chapter[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]-" [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Senin [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]"is a Hebrew word means "beautiful"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]-"[/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]As-Sijjîl [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Persian word means "the book" as in the Prophets chapter (Surat Al-[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]Anbiya') 104[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]- "[/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Al-Istabrek [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]"is a Persian word means "the thick" as in The Smoke chapter (Surat Ad-[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]Dukhan) 53[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]- " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Al-Soundos [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is an Indian word means" the thin curtain" as in The Smoke chapter[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold](Surat Ad-Dukhan) 53[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]- " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Sariah[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Greek word means " a small river" as in Mary chapter (Surat Maryam) 24[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]- " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Meshkat [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is an Ethiopian word means " a niche in the wall" as in the light [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]chapter(Surat An-Nur)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]- "[/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Jouhan'm [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Hebrew word means " the hell" as in the Spoils of War(Surat Al-[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]Anfal) 36[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]- " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Al-Zakât [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Hebrew word means " the tax from money"[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]- " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Sajjîl [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Persian word means "the stony mud"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]- " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Ad-Durie [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is an Ethiopian word means " a shinning planet"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]-" [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Nashet-Al lail [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is an Ethiopian word means " wake up by night" as in The One [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]wrapped in Garments chapter (Surat Al-Muzzammil) 6[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]- ' [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]keflain [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is an Ethiopian word means " two folds" as the iron chapter (Surat Al-Hadid)[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]28[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]- " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Al-Q'swara [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is an Ethiopian word means " the lion" as in The One Enveloped [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]chapter (Surat Al-Muddathir) 51[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]- " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Al-Melah Al-Okhra [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Coptic word means "the first religion" as in Saad chapter [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]( Surat saad) 7[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]- ' [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Wara'hom [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Coptic word means "behind them " as in The Cave chapter (Surat Al-[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]Kahf) [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]-' [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Bata'nha [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Coptic word means " its external look" as in The Most Gracious [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]chapter(Surat Ar-Rahman) 54[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]- " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Uho'd [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Hebrew word means " one " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]-" [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]As-Sam'd [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Hebrew word means" inclusive of all characters"[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]-" [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Abareeq' [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Persian word means "vessels" as in The Event chapter (Surat Al-Waqi'ah) 18 [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]-' [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Injeel [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Greek words means " annunciation" [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]- " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Tabout [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]' is a Coptic word means " a box "[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]-" [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Saradeq' [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Persian word means " a tent"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]- " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Surah [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Syrian word means " a book chapter "[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]- " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Al-Ferdous [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Persian word means " the garden"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]- ' [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]At-Taghout [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is an Ethiopian word means " the opposites"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]-' [/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Mao'un [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]" is a Hebrew word means " the pot"[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Bold]Those are only few examples of the non-Arabic foreign words included in the quran,[/FONT]
http://www.fatherzakaria.net/books/qaf/pdf/46-Episode.pdf
Do me a favor if you find a mistake or two do not then condemn the whole list. That is cheating. If God says his book is pure Arabic then it should not be only 99% Arabic.

And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray [thereby] whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.(14:4)

I do not see the relevance.

So show us the words which you claim as non arabic words and your tangible evidence of it's origin source.

Done.

Note : words that used by another cultures wouldn't mean that it isn't arabic.
for example:
Sugar : it'll be thought that it is an english word but actually it is an arabic word,so even if the word found in other language that won't mean itsn't arabic and you'll have a hard job to know the origin of each word before thousands of years ago.

I do not care what someone thinks a word is I care only about what culture produced it.

Algebra : we may thought that it is an english word,but it is arabic word.
Chemistry : arabic word.....etc.

If that is true then they are Arabic I do not care if someone thinks they are English. Algebra existed in ancient Greece. It may bean Arabic word but the field isn't.

So if a word found in another language then it isn't an evidence for it's origin.

I never said it was. As well a word used by Arabs does not make it Arabic.

So locating the origin of the words is as silly as trying to know the first ancestor of the human being which is in common with the chimps.

No it isn't it is even a field of study called etymology.

And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge.(30:22)

What? I did not that different languages do not exist. This has nothing to do with the issue. What happened to the other 4 or 5 questions I had?
​