70 jawans killed in biggest Maoists/Naxal attack ever in India

[Kriterion]

Bossbhai said: He was a no-name when he first came to Arabia ... he traveled around gathering information ( guess who were the prime source of his information : The then Mullahs and scholars who according to you were interpreting 54:1 as a future event ) for many many years and promptly went back to his native in uzbek . So kindly tell me how the resident Mullahs of Saudi Arabia allowed Bukhari to completely mangle the interpretation of verses without so much as getting bent out shape. Unless you are going to now claim that these resident Mullahs were the original architects of liberalism you have no case when it comes to Bukhari and what he did.

Thank you for acknowledging that Bukhari gathered information via HEARSAY. which is why some of it is right, and a lot of it is ridiculous and contradictory. If it would be difficult for Bukhari to attain and propogate alternate viewpoints of Islam, then how did the Shia, Alawi, Ismaili, Twelver, Ahmadiyya, etc, etc, etc versions of Islam originate? If the "resident Mullahs" could thwart anyone from deviating, how do you explain the presence of countless sects within Islam? Furthermore, Since Bukhari came some 200 years after Muhammad's time, its entirely possible that someone fudged the stories up BEFORE his time. We can't know for certain, since Bukhari's are amongst the earliest written records. But your insistence that the Hadith are 100% reliable sources, even as you claim the companions lied about the Moon splitting hadith is just self-contradictory.

Bossbhai said: I don't think so. Hitler is a great example. But this is a futile discussion and we have been thru one iteration of it already.

Hitler was not psychotic. The biochemical imbalances of neurotransmitters in the brain are such, that psychotic patients progressively worsen, and cannot even hold down menial jobs. Muhammad raised a family, led armies in battle, actuall fought himself, and was successful. Even if you compare him to hitler, hitler achieved none of those things. He did not have a family. He did not personally fight after becoming Der Fuerher, and he led his nation to complete and utter defeat. Just FYI, Hitler was never diagnosed as having any psychotic medical condition because if he did people who met and spoke with him such as FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Mussolini, etc would have remarked that he was mentally ill, instead of just being a fanatically rascist autocrat. That link you once posted about some shrink diagnosing Hitler as a schizophrenic is a load of crap since Hitler failed to display any of the defining features of that disease. Thats not to say HItler was healthy, he had arrythmias and tremors, but that is not the same thing as being psychotic and having delusions of splitting the Moon.

Bossbhai said: when you claim to pocess thinking abilities that eluded millions ( if not billions ) over 14 centuries on a matter of a simple sentence no-longer than 5 words ... it is devoid of any common sense ( never mind intellect ) and hence you should not be the one to accuse me of lacking in intellect.

what other alternate explanation do you have that would explain you stating such blatantly obvious inaccuracies such as "semen comes from the testicles"? your repeated dismissals of science leads one to believe that you have nothing but disdain for all things intellectual. your habit of simply copying and pasting arguments without any originality of thought indicates the same. btw, yes, that "semen" gem is my absolute favorite Boss-ism. unless of course you were not accurately portraying your knowledge, in which case you'd be "dishonest".

Bossbhai said: Shifting goal posts are we ?. Your original position was that how could he get away with something preposterous. Those 6 items are pretty preposterous claims and actually the 3rd one which involves a winged horse is certainly just as audacious (if not more more) as the moon splitting one. Unless the audience is totally gullible there is no way anyone can get away claiming such a thing. So the bottom-line is that there is a long trend of preposterous claims that we now know are unverifiable and hence it is certainly not beyond Muhammad to make such a claim. Heck he said that one Muslim soldier is equal to 10 kaffir soldier and got away with it ( keep in mind that the was in-charge of dozens of armed expeditions ).

Not all. Science and/or logic can disprove the Moon splitting story simply because Muhammad would not knowingly agree to disprove himself. We can also say that Muhammad was not clincially psychotic since psychosis renders one unable to function on a day to day basis. You can disagree with medical science, and that is up to you. You cannot scientifically prove however that heaven does not contain wine and women. You also cannot scientifically prove that Muhammad did NOT ride a winged horse, just as you cannot prove that Ganesh, a half elephant, half man never existed. However the thing with all these claims, is that they cannot be verified as either true or false. Claiming to split the Moon can be verified by the people who are witnessing it. They either saw it happen or they didn't. For Muhammad to claim that he can split the Moon is the same as me claiming that I am a Test cricketer named Kriterion. You can easily verify by searching cricinfo whether such a player ever played a Test match or not. But I don't expect you to accept that since you have already dismissed medical science regarding the origins of semen and the implications of psychotic disorders.

Seedhi said: That is fine. But the meaning of the verse in question has been agreed to refer to an event that occurred during Muhammad's lifetime by a majority of Islamic scholars right from the companions of Muhammad who have claimed to witness the event themselves. Therefore the hour referred to in the verse is not the The Hour of Judgment.

1) the presence of the article "the" (al in arabic, written with the letters "alif" and "laam") indicates that there is only a single Hour. hence it must be the same Hour as other references in the Quran. 2) why would Muhammad claim to split the Quran to begin with? his followers already believed him. and why would he set himself up for more ridicule in front of the skeptics? thus Muhammad could NOT have claimed to split the moon. 3) it is not "right from the companions" of Muhammad. None of the companions of Muhammad left behind written records saying that they witnessed this event. it was only third parties who said that the companions said that they witnessed such an event.

Outsider said: But it's not clear at all that Muhammad wrote that verse to mean he split the moon.

thank you for bringing this to attention. Quran verse 54:1 does NOT say "I am splitting the Moon, look at me please" nor does it say "O Muhammad, thou didst split the Moon". It says "the Day of Judgement arrived and the Moon was split". Simple. Muhammad could not have hijacked the term "the Hour" to mean anything other than what it was understood at the time by the Jews and Christians to mean. If he had, then why use the same term in EVERY other Quran verse to mean exactly the Day of Judgement?

Seedhi said: It is pertinent that you brought up the Ganesha drinking milk "miracle". Now of course there is a scientific explanation (capillary action or evaporation etc) but a lot of people in this day and age were taken in and deluded by it. Similarly, Muhammad may have been clever/fortuitous enough to utilize such a natural phenomenon to his benefit and people believed it. After all this is how legends are built up using "miracles" and stuff.

1) what natural phenomenon would coincide with the alleged written record from companions (i.e the Hadith)...which states that the Moon was split into 2 pieces with each pieace on either side of the horizon? lunar eclipse? 2) if such an natural phenomenon occurred, then it would have been visible in other nearby places, and there would be some historical record of that. moreover, the skeptics would have been won over, at least some of them, even if the majority dismissed it as "magic".

Seedhi said: I am not saying this is exactly what he saw, but something similar could have caused the delusion. Another possibility is some refraction in the atmosphere. I dont know, maybe I am wrong.

I think you are, because clouds cannot be mistaken for the Moon. The Moon is a solid object that has craters and such visible with the naked eye. further more, the Moon spit and then was put back together again. Clouds don't do that quickly enough for it to appear that way. Just as the cloud you showed looks like a cloud and not a UFO or a jelly fish, no cloud can be confused for the Moon, because others would have confused it given the trillions of clouds seen by humanity over the course of recorded history. How come this refraction has never occurred again? And if it is only a once in a time thing, what are the chances it would happen just minutes after Muhammad would claim to do it? Think about it, Muhammad would have to gather people to witness his miracle BEFORE this refraction. How would he know what it would look like before it happened?

Seedhi said: The verse makes it quite clear the miracles are possible as a warning to people, which is exactly what I say is the interpretation regarding the "splitting" and the meccans. So you deliberately hacked off the last portion of the verse to make it fit your hypothesis, and it was definitely deliberate as you inserted the inverted commas that I have highlighted to make it seem you posted the whole verse. Shameful and extremely disappointing stuff from you. Clearly you dont have an open mind and from my POV there is no purpose served in continuing this discussion with you any further.

here i'd like to make a few points. Both Seedhi and Outsider are reading too much into this, IMO. there is nothing miraculous about a "she-camel", therefore while it maybe a "sign" it is certainly different that Muhammad splitting the Moon on demand. Further, the arabic word used here is "ayat" which has been translated variously as "sign" or "miracle" is NOT necessarily interpreted as such by Muslims. The best case in point being the term for the supreme religious leaders in Iran, the "Ayatollahs" which literally means "ayat of God" or "Sign of God". There is nothing miraculous about these men, and even their followers will acknowledge as much. Hence, the word "Miracle" as used in verse 54:2, does not necessarily imply Muhammad splitting the Moon as a miracle, but that the splitting of the Moon is a "sign" of the Day of Judgement.

[Kriterion]

Bossbhai said in another thread: Kriterion, Since when did you start valuing shoclastic works ? I thought you had allergy to that no ? Case in point is that thread where I provided many many links to scholarly works from many scholars spread over many centuries which you just simply discarded giving the example of how many scholars felt that the earth was flat for centuries. And this was regarding merely translating and interpreting a simple text no more than 5-6 words from the quran (talk about intellectual capacity !!! ). So before you go pointing fingers look at yourself on where you stand with regards to your take on scholarly work ( and ofcourse intellectual capacity ) elsewhere in a different thread. Unless and untill the said scholarly works are alligning to your viewpoint you just blindly reject them ( using the flat earth analogy ) . For crying out loud you claim that the entire Muslim world is wrong in their interpretation of 54:1 and then you come here and ridicule me of not knowing what "study" is and that I lack intellectual capacity.

Just because you yell the loudest, does not mean you have intellectual acumen. Quite frankly, if it wasn't so fun to get you riled up and have your ignorance on all topics exposed, I would't even be here, because having a rational discussion with you is more difficult than beating it to Whoopi Goldberg. For the record, I want scholars who meet the following criteria: 1) that they have actual degrees from an actual University in a field related to whatever their opining on. you might go to an automechanic to find out why you have a sore throat, but i prefer going to an actual medical professional. call me crazy... 2) that the scholars don't contradict themselves or have ambiguous or uncertain opinions. 3) that they have actual historical or scientific evidence to support their findings. 4) that when having evidence is not possible, that their conclusions can be supported by logic and critical thinking. I have made mistakes, and unlike you, I fess up to them. Its right here on this very thread. Given that, I'm still quite careful, so its extremely foolish to think that I'm going to set myself up for ridicule so easily by pointing fingers at you for something I do myself. That is not the case here.

Bossbhai said: I am fully aware that most people ( unlike you which is why I have been debating with you for soo long ) dont have the requisite ethics to even admit that they were wrong on a internet forum. I let the readers to decide based on what I have presented in the discussions.

Fifteen thousand posts here, can you provide one example of where you have admitted that you are wrong? Even on a topic as unimportant as whether Sachin is better than Bradman or not, you cannot refrain from mud-slinging and ad hominem. Of course, there are others involved as well. But I'm not discussing with them, nor have they claimed ludicrious assertions such as semen originating from the testicles. Speaking of that, you still have yet to admit that you are wrong, instead claiming that "you will address it when the time comes". I'm not going to let you get away from this humiliation so easily...you can keep running, but you certainly can't hide.

Bossbhai said: You yourselves have admitted that Muslims were the reason for all the death and destruction that has happened in the past and in the present.

which is proof positive that I can think "outside the box" and that I am willing to accept alternative viewpoints, beyond that which is shoved down my throat by whatever bigots abound. fact: you cannot make the same claim for yourself. you repeatedly contradict yourself: Early on in this thread you accused me of suffering from "cognitive dissonance"...and then some posts ago, you claimed I was a "blind believer" or a "blind follower" of Islam. How can you possibly be a blind follower and then have doubts about what you're following? With this excessive lack of cerebral capacity, forget appreciating my egotism for engaging in discussion with you for so long, the fact that you have been able to survive outside of the womb is a miracle of Biblical proportions.

As far as reproducing from Google is concerned ... could you tell me how exactly you are producing stuff in that debate we are having on the other thread ? Its not like you have undertaken a trip to Saudi Arabia and conducted your own research and are making posts based on that is it ? These discussions cannot be had without works that are available freely thanks to the wonderfull invention called internet. Attack the content that is put infront of you Instead of attacking the means by which that content is sourced.

99% of my posts are my own thoughts, my own opinions based on universally accepted historical accounts and and linear application of logic. 75% of what I have posted on this thread, i could copyright legally as my own s**t. in contrast, 90% of what you post is simply cut and paste jobs off the internet and represent the thoughts and works of others. so yes, i use google, but i'm not reliant on it. btw, i don't care if you simply copy paste from google (lies are lies regardless of their source)...but you can probably see why i sound like such a smug ***** on this forum, asides from it just being really fun.

[Kriterion]

Kriterion' date=' Pls go take a look at post#538 onwards and see if you need to see a shrink or a neurologist to rule out any early onset of Alzheimer's because you have started to reply twice to my posts without realizing that I have already answered your questions. [/quote'] from post 538 onwards you have had a discussion primarily with the Outsider - who has reiterated many of the points I made earlier in the thread. and why would you want me to see a doctor? the same person who would tell you that his psychotic patients can't keep a menial job even when on medication. that is diametrically opposed to your assertions that schizophrenic Muhammad could raise a family, found a religion, govern a state, lead an army, and fool billions of people over the years without any prescription meds. you still haven't addressed the issue, not even with your customary "i'll answer that question when the time comes" or "you answer my question first...". it seems as though someone else is suffering from some serious "cognitive dissonance" or are you incapable of seeing why you should?

But don't go away I will respond to your other accusations of honesty and original thought etc ... (without getting personal )

By continously highlighting these issues, I am the one who is tackling them. By continously delaying, you are the one one running away from what you love to call "uncomfortable facts". I may disappear for weeks at a time, but that is only because posting on this forum doesn't put food on my table - although it damn well should. You can start by providing an example of any post where you have admitted to some "mistake of thought" or conceded an argument to some other poster. Based on what I've read of your posts the last few years, I simply do not believe that you are capable of admitting mistakes plain and simple. Then we can get to things like how semen apparently originates from the testicles, and how the Great Wall of China must be some sort of miracle, and the shock of the sun setting on the western horizon - all of which you cited as "proof" that Quran is a hoax. As for calling you dishonest...damn straight I've called you dishonest. I will show you just a few reasons why. You indirectly support science because in this thread you have brought up scientific issues regarding the Quran. However, this is dishonest because in another thread, you claimed that "there are things that science can't explain and thats why we have religion". So you are a classic flip-flopper. That is called being dishonest. Unless you just have different standards for different religions. In which case you'd be a hypocrite. For me to butter you up and say "oh its ok, don't worry about it" would make the the liar and mean that I'm dishonest. So yeah, at the cost of tact, i'll be honest about what I feel. You've referred to me as suffering from "cognitive dissonance" and then promptly did an about-face and maligned me as a "blind follower". Dishonesty. Unless of course you admit to throwing words around without knowing their meanings. But then that would make you pretentious and/or ignorant. You have claimed, quite a few times, that certain Hindu texts are far more "violent" than anything found in the Quran. Yet, you have issue specifically with the Quran. Once again, this is hypocrisy. In light of all that, and this being an internet forum, I've not been very harsh. Remember, most threads get locked quite quickly...this one is still here. So yes, you can believe that I'm making "personal insults", but that would just be another fairy tale to add to the long list that you have already been duped by.

[Kriterion]

Just an update for any who might have been following this thread. Bossbhai and I have been exchanging intermittent PMs for the past several weeks as a "side discussion". To Bossbhai's credit, he has attempted to answer my challenge to him to explain his comments about "semen originating from the testicles". This post is written at his request, which I fully agree with. Bossbhai quoted Quran verse 86:7 as the example of a scientific error of scripture to disprove the Quran's authenticity - not an unfair move, admittedly. This verse, according to some translators, alleges that semen issues from the ribs. Three issues arise. 1) Whether the word "dafiq" in verse 86:7 refers to "semen" or "sperm", 2) whether the words from 86:7 indicate "ribs" or something else and 3) the scientific veracity of whatever it ends up saying. Now, I don't speak arabic although I have a very basic understanding of some of its format. I decided to plug the exact Quranic verses into the online dictionary (http://www.arabicenglishdictionary.org/) and see what it returns. As for the first point, the translation of "He has been created from a seminal fluid" came out to be "created from a water flush". While this is not a great translation, it is obvious that the reference to fluidity means that verse 86:6 is referring to semen and not to sperm cells. The third point is also similarily clear, although I did not think of it at first. Bossbhai said "Aha! the Quran is wrong because fertilization occurs due to sperm cells and not to semen!". But the correct answer, from a Embryological standpoint, is that sperm cells contribute only DNA to the fertilized egg. And this DNA is no different from that found in say a muscle cell or a skin cell, except that sperm only contains one copy and not 2. So in reality, sperm cells are nothing more than a fancy transport vehicle, and without the nourishment of semen (fructose, alkaline secretions) and fluidity it provides, sperm cells would be both unable to reach an egg, or even survive long enough to do anything with one were it lucky enough to get there. The second point is harder to resolve since even the online dictionary seems to have some glitches. I have used the dictionary provided by some software called "Babylon" and it returned a translation of "loin" for that term, which is non-specific, but certainly not incorrect. This was several months ago, when Bossbhai first raised the issue, and my free subscription has since expired. Now the online dictionary seems to translate the words "as-sulbi wat tara'ib" as "steel and costae verae". The reason I don't except the translation, despite coming from a online dictionary and therefore neutral source, is because the terms "steel and costa verae" do not make any sense as to the origins of semen. Where does steel come into the equation??? Although costae verae means "ribs", another question is why do the ribs get translated into a latin/medically technical term instead of the more simple "ribs"? My answer is computer error or glitch. Thus, I argue that the dictionary itself has limitations and glitches. *********************************** However, my original challenge(s) to Bossbhai were numerous, and he has only attempted to answer one. The others are as follows: 1) If all disbelievers are to be killed equally, why does the Quran offer peace to the ones in verse 9:4 and war to the ones in 9:5? 2) Why is the building of a large wall by some ancient figure considered impossible, especially in light of something like the Great Wall of China or the Pyramids of Giza? 3) Why is it hard to believe that someone saw the Sun setting on the horizon while looking westwards over the sea? 4) Why does verse 8:60 call for war but 8:61, the very next verse btw, agree that peace is greater than war? Bear in mind these are all "Medina" verses. 5) Why does another Medina verse, 2:256, state that there is "no compulsion" in matters of faith and religion? 6) Why does the Quran call for "justice" in two seperate Medina verses in 4:58 ("judge with justice") and 4:135 ("do not follow your own prejudice, lest you swerve from justice")? 7) Why does the Quran say "Never let hatred cause you to deviate from Justice" in verse 5:8? Yet again this is a so-called violent "Medina" chapter.

[Kriterion]

i may take a while to respond as i have a lot of work related things to take care of. i appreciate ur patience.

[Kriterion]

I have already shown you many errors which you doggedly refuse to accept. Unless you have found a way to prove Muhammad's journey on a winged horse , prove that the moon was split , explain discrepancies in the creation of earth at different places etc etc you have no case here. The discussion on 86:5-7 was a digression.But since you were adamant that I answer your question and began getting bellicose when I told you that I will answer it later I had to take it up.

1) If Muhammad was really God's Messenger, there is no reason why he could not lend him a winged horse for a night or two. This is a matter of belief, which is kinda what religion is about. Do I believe that Joseph Smith received magical golden plates in an upstate forest? No, because if I did I'd be a Mormon. But I cannot use this to refute Mormonism, because I cannot PROVE that an angel didn't give those plates to him, no matter how ridiculous it might sound to me personally. Abu Bakr faced the exact same question. The Quraish were giddy with joy when they saw him and thought that he can't possibly defend Muhammad after this crazy winged horse story. But Abu Bakr simply said if Muhammad said it, I believe it. Why? Because he already believes that Muhammad communicates with God. Why would anyone think "winged horse? Ok thats too much"? Does it make sense for a Christian to believe that Jesus is God's son, but reject that he could walk on water? 2) We don't know if the Moon was split or not. I was mistaken as to whether the Quran excluded miracles for Muhammad, so it is possible that Muhammad split the Moon as a miracle. However, the simple fact that the occurence was used during "the Hour" is known to all and sundry. The Hour is a future event, indicating the Moon was not split, but will come to be split in the End Times. The scholars are contradicting themselves, hence why I am skeptical of them, while you accept them since it makes your argument easy. Unfortunately anyone with critical thinking skills can differentiate between them. 3) There are no creational discrepansies, when you realize the arabic word "thumma" means "then". To a person who doesn't know math, 1 + 1 = 2 can look wrong. Doesn't mean that it is. Furthermore, the logical implication is that Muhammad, a business man, couldn't count that 4 + 4 does not equal 6. Or that he forgot that a week consists of 7 days. Yes, you will run away from this fact with pathologic "cognitive dissonance" by claiming to be too busy watching Bradman clips to be bothered with considering whether the man could count or not.

If you want to continue to believe that Testicles play no part in procreation you are free to believe so. Just make sure you have that conversation with your Urologist ( as explained in my PM) so that they update themselves with this new information.

For the record, the verse doesn't mention "ribs" or "backbone", but "loins". And loins includes the prostate and seminal vesicles (semen) as well as the testicles (spermatazoa). So no contradictions with science here.

This is no glitch ... even the google translation engine returns the same thing. First of all you cannot use that dictionary to translate the Arabic in Quran. AFAIK only scholars can interpret this correctly as it requires a lot of contextual understanding and the way the language was used. And most Islamic scholars translate that as Ribs or backbone. And hence I rest my case here having proven once again that a verse is wrong.

Only religious scholars can define words? Even the freaking dictionary translates the word as "loins" not as "ribs" or "backbone", so the scholars don't have a clue as to what they're talking about. Or they're taking hits from the same bong as you. What you have prove is that the scholars interpretation of the verse is wrong, not that the verse is wrong.

[Kriterion]

I'll also take the liberty to answer your [already answered if you only read my questions first, you didn't even need to answer them...see how ahead of the game I am, lol?] question(s).

As per that list you put up ... I have told you time and time again that I WILL answer every single damned question (See post#284) . I ain't running away anywhere. The long exchange of PMs is proof to that effect. But if you don't trust me even after all that I told you in the PM you should simply stop this debate because be rest assured that I will simply not answer your question until we settle the main question on the authenticity and accuracy of the Quran .. the reasons have been explained many times before (See post#284 , 318). In anycase you have not answered many of my questions .. such as this question which I posted more than a year ago : Can you tell me the no.of wars Muhammad fought and the events/situations that lead to these wars and Muhammads actions without looking into those evil Hadith ? How do you know these are all defensive wars ?

Running away or constantly throwing out new questions or challenges, same thing. The long list of PMs only proves that neither of us has much of a life outside of this debate (lol), not that you are answering my questions. On the other hand, I've allowed you to steer the course of this "debate" from day 1. Read into that whatever you will. As for your question, here is the answer, take it or leave it. Q: how do we know they are all defensive wars? a) Because the Quran, the only historical document attributable to Muhammad and not some tom, dick, and harry 5 generations later, only calls for defensive wars: "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah ." (Spoils of War, Verse 61 "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) "when you judge between people judge with justice. " (4:58) "O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice" (4:135) "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities." (2:190) b) i) When Muhammad first started preaching, there were very few Muslims, surrounded by non-muslims. It wouldn't befit such a shrewd tactitian to foolishly alienate them all and declare war on such a vast enemy. Even the Islamophobes speak of the peaceful meccan phase and the violent Medina phase. Unfortunately for those dimwitted bigots, all the above verses are from Medina chapters. Its akin to arguing Tendulkar faced greater attacks than Bradman and then finding out that Tendulkar only faced part timers. Eggs all over faces. ii) Forget Islamic apologists, ask a secular historian which came first Muhammad's raids of the Meccan caravans or the Meccan expulsion of Muhammad and all Muslims to Medina. Hint: the raids followed the eviction of Muslims and were compensation for it. iii) Ask a secular historian about the Treaty of Hudaibiyya and if the conditions of the treaty were favored for or against the Muslims. Another hint: the treaty was so skewed in the Muslims favor that Umar had seeds of doubt in his faith. Here's a bonus, this narration also proves the fallibility of the scholars. ********** Now here's a few questions for you: Will you admit that you don't like Muslims that you embrace bigotry against anyone who doesn't share your opinions from anything ranging from Sachin is the greatest batsman of all time even though he's possibly not even the greatest batsman of his era to politics and religion? Will you admit that you intentionally or unintentionally use the evils of men like Babur, Aurangzeb, bin Laden, et al to malign the character of Muhammad all the while arguing that the Quran is unreliable? Will you agree that if all sources are "unreliable" then it is impossible to say one way or the other that the man is good or evil?

[punjabi_khota]

[KhanSaab]

Wow. After going through this thread all I gotta say is kriterion you have the patience of a saint.

[lovish]

What this thread is all about ?? M not getting it Love is eternal - Albus dumbledore

[Mariyam]

Wow. After going through this thread all I gotta say is kriterion you have the patience of a saint.

I agree with you. But overall, this thread is like watching a boxing match on Valium. :P

[KhanSaab]

I agree with you. But overall, this thread is like watching a boxing match on Valium. :P

:haha: By the way is that faiz ahmed faiz in your sig?

[Kriterion]

Kriterion you forgot to answer the question on no.of wars fought by Muhammad as listed in the Quran (and not the Hadith). So what is the total number of wars he fought and what are the details ?

I don't know the exact number. Why not accept a number you will find acceptable? Lets say he fought a million wars and battles in his lifetime.

except you forget that this debate is an exercise to defend the Quran which you claimed has no errors , no scientific inaccuracies , no contradictions and perfectly logical and rational as it is authored by God himself. You cant use your beliefs as evidence in support of Quran. That is simply not acceptable.

Let me just show you how short-sighted this argument is. Lets assume that one can prove that Muhammad lie about the winged horse. What happens then? We then know that the Quran is unreliable...and its already proven that the Hadith are unreliable because they are supposedly based on the Quran and they often contradict what they say its based on. So now you have absolutely no reliable information on Muhammad at all. In fact, he may be a imaginary character like Robin Hood or Sherlock Holmes. Therefore, to center one's entire life and world view around the hatred of a person who does not exist either points to you being indoctrinated as a child or being a narrow minded individual as an adult.

Just to remind you the reason why we got into this authenticity business was because of your dogged claim that Muhammad never engaged in offensive warfare as there is a verse or two to that effect but are yet to answer my question that I posed more than a year ago as to how you know the details of all these wars without looking into the Hadith. In other words you cant use the same source which is under the scanner as evidence. This is equivalent to a jury taking the words of someone standing on trial and acquitting him. This is classic Circular Logic. You need to come up with some hard neutral Historical evidence to prove that Muhammad never engaged in offensive warfare. The context surrounding the Ridda Wars as explained in detail many many pages ago in this thread settles the case in my favor unless you can come up with reliable evidence to counter that.

Its even more circular using the hadith as ur reference point, which you do, because it came centuries after the Quran and was authored by multiple men who's sources were multiple chains of other men. The Quran at least is a single book from a single author and thus most likely the words of Muhammad himself - if he existed at all.

[Nova]

Discussions pertaining to religion are not allowed on ICF any more.