Repost it. Maybe I missed it. And, I will answer each one of them. Nevertheless, I had asked 5 questions that went in thin air. Re-post your question and attach to it the answers to my questions too.

LegalWolf:


Lol, if you go back to the question. It was in parts. Knowing fully well that your yhwh is indefensible, you answered the east one and took off on the other part because the logical conclusion anyone can draw is that a pagan defined your religion.

In any event, on your question, my answer is No. So?

Nyamuri:
Please I suggest you stop replying and engaging with that lunatic! Why are u giving him the fuel to keep insulting our beloved prophet!! Just look at the nonsense his saying.. haba!

Brother, thank you so much. The issue I have is this - if we don't debunk them, others may be misled. I know that with respect to him, my effort his in futility as he is blinded by bigotry. What about others whose faith is not strong... Once I am able to debunk some of his nonsense and I see that he keeps beating around the bush, I will just put a link to all my posts and stop.

Once again, shukran akhi

Sixfiguresmart:
Repost it. Maybe I missed it. And, I will answer each one of them. Nevertheless, I had asked 5 questions that went in thin air. Re-post your question and attach to it the answers to my questions too.

I will keep it tidy. I think you muddle up everything by posting about 5 several times and I have to respond to each and everyone. In doing so, we lose track of everything. Please don't quote me more than once so I can see all your questions in one post and respond to everyone of it. And I will do the same as well. So our gaze is fully focused on the topic.

My question was - if you believe trinity is not the central doctrine of christianity, what is

To this, your answer was resurrection. But don't resurrection rest in believe in God? Is it logically possible for a Christian to have faith in resurrection WITHOUT HAVING FAITH IN GOD ? This begs for an answer as it will dictate the next line of follow up questions and the fallacy of your logic.

Now your question was 'Do you consider the above scholar a man of KNOWLEDGE?"

The simple answer is Yes I do. Do you want a more elaborate response? Also, you said you asked me five previous questions. Please post them so I can respond.

Again, remember do not muddle up issues. You can compartmentalize your response into my part and your part (as I did). But when you make multiple posts, we lose track of everything

I have told you the core doctrine of Christianity already. The resurrection of Jesus who
Was killed and who paid his life as a ransom to deliver us from sin and death.

The trinity doctrine has no foundation on the word of God. The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the son of God, and that Jehovah is the God of Jesus. 1 corinthians 11:3 asserts that Jesus has a head JUST AS Jesus heads the man.

Yes, the resurrection rests on faith in God. The same God who resurrected Jesus. The Bible said that he was SAVED from death. So, he too needed salvation. He is the first of all to be saved that way. God saved him according to the Bible Hebrews 5:7. He prayed to his father and God. John 20:17.

The quran confirms that Jesus birth happened by divine providence. When allah stooped low to a woman's vagina to blow his spirit into her womb.

It also confirms that allah prayed as did Jesus.

Bring your follup question. I will wait.

My question is: You assert that the scholar who wrote that Mohammed dropped the pants and spread the legs of a human male apart, went on his knees supposedly, and dropped the mouth that he used to pray to allah down to this man's PRIVATE peniss is a man of KNOWLEDGE. of whose knowledge was that scholar a man?

I have kept your rule. I am your obedient sheep. Answering all your questionS. I asked one only. Still on one. Just do not want to compound you with a litany of questions. I haven't muddled the conversation up.

LegalWolf:


I will keep it tidy. I think you muddle up everything by posting about 5 several times and I have to respond to each and everyone. In doing so, we lose track of everything. Please don't quote me more than once so I can see all your questions in one post and respond to everyone of it. And I will do the same as well. So our gaze is fully focused on the topic.

My question was - if you believe trinity is not the central doctrine of christianity, what is

To this, your answer was resurrection. But don't resurrection rest in believe in God? Is it logically possible for a Christian to have faith in resurrection WITHOUT HAVING FAITH IN GOD ? This begs for an answer as it will dictate the next line of follow up questions and the fallacy of your logic.

Now your question was 'Do you consider the above scholar a man of KNOWLEDGE?"

The simple answer is Yes I do. Do you want a more elaborate response? Also, you said you asked me five previous questions. Please post them so I can respond.

Again, remember do not muddle up issues. You can compartmentalize your response into my part and your part (as I did). But when you make multiple posts, we lose track of everything

You have a point, unfortunately the guy is blinded by hate and bigotry! I hope others see logic. Jazakallah

LegalWolf:


Brother, thank you so much. The issue I have is this - if we don't debunk them, others may be misled. I know that with respect to him, my effort his in futility as he is blinded by bigotry. What about others whose faith is not strong... Once I am able to debunk some of his nonsense and I see that he keeps beating around the bush, I will just put a link to all my posts and stop.

Once again, shukran akhi

hahahaha I love the way you pat each other on the back for clowning. Look at what had spread in the Islamic world before the 19th century. Not even in secret. It was an orgy.

Noteworthy is the fact that your committee identified thighing minors as HARMFUL. And this harmful act is what your prophet did to 6 year old Aisha by a man with an avalanche of wives and sex slaves.
Read:

The permanent committee for scientific research and religious sanctions has looked onto the request of Abu Abdallah Mohammed Al Shamry which was sent to the committee from[b] the general secretariat of the Committee of Higher Scholars number 1809 date 3/5/1421[/b]. The requester asked the following:

Lately, It has spread on a large scale, especially in weddings, the habit of thighing little boys; what is the ruling of the Quran on this? Especially, that God’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) has thighed Ayesha (may God be pleased with her)

The committee, after studying the request, has ruled the following:

It is not the true guidance of Muslims throughout centuries to resort to the use of these unlawful practices, which were imported to our countries through the immoral videos that are being sent by the infidels and enemies of Islam. As for the thighing of the messenger of God to his fiancée Ayesha, she was six years old and he could not engage in sexual intercourse with her because of her young age, therefore he used to place his penis between her thighs and rub it lightly. In addition, the messenger of God had full control of his penis in contrary to the believers. Therefore, it is not permitted to practice thighing, whether in weddings, or at homes, or schools, due to its grave harm. And may God curse the infidels who brought these practices to our countries

Nyamuri:
You have a point, unfortunately the guy is blinded by hate and bigotry! I hope others see logic. Jazakallah

This is not hate. This is fact. I copied and pasted the decision by the highest islamic committee ever and you call it hate and bigotry.

For almost 24 hours you still haven't fulfilled your promise. You accused me of running away. You called the public on me and presented this so-called debate. You set the rules and you call the shots. I have respected every single rule. I have answered all your questions and even refused to ask you anything new or repost my previous question. I am stuck on one simple question and you still refuse to answer me.

I told you that this debate will be lopsided. I am still waiting. I do not believe that there is any court session right now. My questions one word only.

LegalWolf:


Lol. I’ll answer your question. I promise I will. But you were only being clever by half. I said if believe in father, son and Holy Ghost is not the most central Christian doctrine, can you tell me one doctrine more Fundamental than that?

Sixfiguresmart:
I have told you the core doctrine of Christianity already. The resurrection of Jesus who
Was killed and who paid his life as a ransom to deliver us from sin and death.

The trinity doctrine has no foundation on the word of God. The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the son of God, and that Jehovah is the God of Jesus. 1 corinthians 11:3 asserts that Jesus has a head JUST AS Jesus heads the man.

Yes, the resurrection rests on faith in God. The same God who resurrected Jesus. The Bible said that he was SAVED from death. So, he too needed salvation. He is the first of all to be saved that way. God saved him according to the Bible Hebrews 5:7. He prayed to his father and God. John 20:17.

The quran confirms that Jesus birth happened by divine providence. When allah stooped low to a woman's vagina to blow his spirit into her womb.

It also confirms that allah prayed as did Jesus.

Bring your follup question. I will wait.

My question is: You assert that the scholar who wrote that Mohammed dropped the pants and spread the legs of a human male apart, went on his knees supposedly, and dropped the mouth that he used to pray to allah down to this man's PRIVATE peniss is a man of KNOWLEDGE. of whose knowledge was that scholar a man?

I have kept your rule. I am your obedient sheep. Answering all your questionS. I asked one only. Still on one. Just do not want to compound you with a litany of questions. I haven't muddled the conversation up.

I've got lots of mentions and I will like keep the thread tidy. I think this is where we left. Recall I said I want us to use just one thread so that points would not be flying up and down and we would lose track of everything. I will answer on your questions one issue and after that, I will throw my jab on another issue. That keeps things in firm perspective

Now, if this is the thread we left it before I got busy, let me know. If there are other threads where u left so many questions - in your response to this, please just copy so that I can respond to your question and everything will be fine. Is that okay? But before I go on detailing my response, it appears you are all out on the offensive. I answered your question in one of my previous threads and I asked if you want a more elaborate answer or you didn't say a word.

In response to your answer, what kinda scholar is Al- Haythami. The answer is - he was a faqih (scholar of fiqh) of the Shafi'i madhab. So that is the short answer. Do you want more elaborate explanation?

I want to clear your questions before proceeding to shattering the stupidity of both Trinity and the hoax called resurrection. So, are there more follow up questions to the one I answered. Please bring all your questions on

LegalWolf:


I've got lots of mentions and I will like keep the thread tidy. I think this is where we left. Recall I said I want us to use just one thread so that points would not be flying up and down and we would lose track of everything. I will answer on your questions one issue and after that, I will throw my jab on another issue. That keeps things in firm perspective

Now, if this is the thread we left it before I got busy, let me know. If there are other threads where u left so many questions - in your response to this, please just copy so that I can respond to your question and everything will be fine. Is that okay? But before I go on detailing my response, it appears you are all out on the offensive. I answered your question in one of my previous threads and I asked if you want a more elaborate answer or you didn't say a word.

In response to your answer, what kinda scholar is Al- Haythami. The answer is - he was a faqih (scholar of fiqh) of the Shafi'i madhab. So that is the short answer. Do you want more elaborate explanation?

I want to clear your questions before proceeding to shattering the stupidity of both Trinity and the hoax called resurrection. So, are there more follow up questions to the one I answered. Please bring all your questions on

Bro, remember that you set the rules and I follow. You can't be bigger than your own rules.

Can you provide a straight response? That is what I asked. I don't want to know the details yet. Give me a name. I will post the question again.


My question is: You assert that the scholar who wrote that Mohammed dropped the pants and spread the legs of a human male apart, went on his knees supposedly, and dropped the mouth that he used to pray to allah down to this man's PRIVATE peniss is a man of KNOWLEDGE. of whose knowledge was that scholar a man

You can also continue with the trinity doctrine. I'm here.

Sixfiguresmart:
Bro, remember that you set the rules and I follow. You can't be bigger than your own rules.

Can you provide a straight response? That is what I asked. I don't want to know the details yet. Give me a name. I will post the question again.


My question is: You assert that the scholar who wrote that Mohammed dropped the pants and spread the legs of a human male apart, went on his knees supposedly, and dropped the mouth that he used to pray to allah down to this man's PRIVATE peniss is a man of KNOWLEDGE. of whose knowledge was that scholar a man

What sort of nonsense is this? Your question is [b] 'of whose knowledge was that scholar a man'? [/b]Does that sound intelligible to you? Even the idi0t called yhwh, who apparently is not as smart as I am, can't decipher that. Yet, despite how unintelligible your question was, I figured out you were asking for his theological specialization which I gave. So what were you expecting?

LegalWolf:


What sort of nonsense is this? Your question is [b] 'of whose knowledge was that scholar a man'? [/b]Does that sound intelligible to you? Even the idi0t called yhwh, who apparently is not as smart as I am, can't decipher that. Yet, despite how unintelligible your question was, I figured out you were asking for his theological specialization which I gave. So what were you expecting?

I gladly accept the insult. Anyway, back to the question haha. You can never run away. Might be too advanced for you. I will rephrase the question.

My question is: You asserted that the scholar who wrote that Mohammed dropped the pants and spread the legs of a male apart is a man of KNOWLEDGE. In the same line, the scholar proclaimed that he used his lips to ennoble the peniss of the male. So, whose knowledge was he a man of?

Sixfiguresmart:
I gladly accept the insult. Anyway, back to the question haha. You can never run away. Might be too advanced for you. I will rephrase the question.

My question is: You asserted that the scholar who wrote that Mohammed dropped the pants and spread the legs of a male apart is a man of KNOWLEDGE. In the same line, the scholar proclaimed that he used his lips to ennoble the peniss of the male. So, whose knowledge was he a man of?

It is not a matter of you accepting the insults. It's basic fact that the question is unintelligible and yhwh is an idi0t. Now let me put the question to you that 'whose knowledge are you a man of'? How does that sound? Is it not basic commonsense that the question does not make any sense?

I would have asked you to ask yhwh, but he is also an idi0t. So now I'm stuck...dealing with two idi0ts - one bigger and the other a worshipper of an idi0t. What an irony. Please make sense of that question so I can answer you and move to more interesting conversation on the trinity and resurrection.

LegalWolf:

It is not a matter of you accepting the insults. It's basic fact that the question is unintelligible and yhwh is an idi0t. Now let me put the question to you that 'whose knowledge are you a man of'? How does that sound? Is it not basic commonsense that the question does not make any sense?

I would have asked you to ask yhwh, but he is also an idi0t. So now I'm stuck...dealing with two idi0ts - one bigger and the other a worshipper of an idi0t. What an irony. Please make sense of that question so I can answer you and move to more interesting conversation on the trinity and resurrection.

Anything you say, I agree. But we have to return to the topic. Haha you are barking like a dying rabid dog. The question is like a big bone that you can neither swallow or vomit.

I will rephrase it again.

You had earlier confirmed to me that Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami was a scholar of KNOWLEDGE. Here is your response:

LegalWolf:
Now your question was 'Do you consider the above scholar a man of KNOWLEDGE?"

The simple answer is Yes I do.

You are a lawyer so you are not new to interrogation in this framework.
The above author of the Hadith whom you confirmed a man of KNOWLEDGE wrote that Mohammed spread the legs of a naked man apart and kissed his penisss. Mohammed did this to Hussein and to Hassan. Two distinct male. To perform this act, he must have pulled their underwear to get them naked because obviously they were naked.

Again, that author was a well-respected author who was educated in one of the highest Islamic institutes and by a highly famed and respected guru in Islam. His Hadith is preserved IN THE ISLAMIC INSTITUTE and is critically acclaimed and endorsed as one of Islam publication. The production and edited were endorsed by the highest institute in Islamic.

Therefore, my question is: Whose KNOWLEDGE was in that author a man of?

I will give you an example to the basic in Christianity. Timothy knew the holy writings. So he was a man of the knowledge of God. Psalm 1:1 said that the man with the knowledge of God is happy.

You cannot go on playing ignorant and acting like a slime. Act your age and stand tall to the height of your education and profession. You are not a baby for crying out loud. You are a lawyer and should be able to read to understand.

Sixfiguresmart:
Anything you say, I agree. But we have to return to the topic. Haha you are barking like a dying rabid dog. The question is like a big bone that you can neither swallow or vomit.

I will rephrase it again.

You had earlier confirmed to me that Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami was a scholar of KNOWLEDGE. Here is your response:
You are a lawyer so you are not new to interrogation in this framework.
The above author of the Hadith whom you confirmed a man of KNOWLEDGE wrote that Mohammed spread the legs of a naked man apart and kissed his penisss. Mohammed did this to Hussein and to Hassan. Two distinct male. To perform this act, he must have pulled their underwear to get them naked because obviously they were naked.

Again, that author was a well-respected author who was educated in one of the highest Islamic institutes and by a highly famed and respected guru in Islam. His Hadith is preserved IN THE ISLAMIC INSTITUTE and is critically acclaimed and endorsed as one of Islam publication. The production and edited were endorsed by the highest institute in Islamic.

Therefore, my question is: Whose KNOWLEDGE was in that author a man of?

I will give you an example to the basic in Christianity. Timothy knew the holy writings. So he was a man of the knowledge of God. Psalm 1:1 said that the man with the knowledge of God is happy.

You cannot go on playing ignorant and acting like a slime. Act your age and stand tall to the height of your education and profession. You are not a baby for crying out loud. You are a lawyer and should be able to read to understand.

Lol, like I said your question is unintelligible. Or perharp, the way you frame your thought is defective. But let me take a cue from your example to answer your question, Al-Haythami has knowledge of ALLAH too since he specialized in HIS laws as a faqih. Mind you, he is a Shafi'i scholar while I am a Maliki student. But nevertheless, hope that answers your question.

So

AntiChristian:


Where did the verse say they were praying to Muhammad?

Differentiate between "praying to" and "praying for"?

See the way you just trapped yourself !

If allah did not pray to Muhammed but pray for Muhammed, the question is, "who was allah praying to"

Was he praying to himself on behalf of Muhammed or what

Cc TenQ

Samunique:


See the way you just trapped yourself !

If allah did not pray to Muhammed but pray for Muhammed, the question is, "who was allah praying to"

Was he praying to himself on behalf of Muhammed or what

Cc TenQ

Don't mind them. They went to bribe Google to re_translate the Qur'an into English for a fee.

Check this out in Google translate
Composition102:
إِنَّ جبريل وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ ۚ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا

Compare with:

Quran 33:56
إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ وَمَلَـٰٓئِكَتَهُۥ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى ٱلنَّبِىِّ ۚ يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ صَلُّوا۟ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا۟ تَسْلِيمًا


How come a replacement of a single noun changed the meaning of a sentence. This must be a miracle of Allah!

LegalWolf:


Lol, like I said your question is unintelligible. Or perharp, the way you frame your thought is defective. But let me take a cue from your example to answer your question, Al-Haythami has knowledge of ALLAH too since he specialized in HIS laws as a faqih. Mind you, he is a Shafi'i scholar while I am a Maliki student. But nevertheless, hope that answers your question.

So

Sir, your level of cognizance is comparable to a primitive rat with swollen brain cells. You cannot answer a simple question and you want to debate? I like to be silly but your level of silliness is below the radar of human acceptance.

You were bragging for a debate. You see the reason why I do not like debating muslims? A simple question will never get an answer till eternity. I understand that you are being deceitful. You will never accept the truth even when it is glaring. You have simply jumped out of my question to the explanation of a dead man's history. I am on the work of this dead man. The excerpt right in front of us. You set the rule here to give a one-word response. You are breaking that rule.

So, do not ask for any debate from me ever. You are not trustworthy.

Sixfiguresmart:
Sir, your level of cognizance is comparable to a primitive rat with swollen brain cells. You cannot answer a simple question and you want to debate? I like to be silly but your level of silliness is below the radar of human acceptance.

You were bragging for a debate. You see the reason why I do not like debating muslims? A simple question will never get an answer till eternity. I understand that you are being deceitful. You will never accept the truth even when it is glaring. You have simply jumped out of my question to the explanation of a dead man's history. I am on the work of this dead man. The excerpt right in front of us. You set the rule here to give a one-word response. You are breaking that rule.

So, do not ask for any debate from me ever. You are not trustworthy.

This is ad hominem and you’re clutching on straws. You asked an unintelligible question, I pointed it out to you that your question as framed does not make sense. You gave a cue on how you want it answered and I responded. Now you’re typing this gibberish. Do I take it that you’ve abandoned this argument? Did I not give a one word response and even ask permission elaboration. So how am I breaking the rules?

Can I start asking questions about trinity, resurrection and authorship of the fable book cAlled Bible?

Sir, why should I waste my time on you. Simple interrogation and you failed but produced the biggest taqiya response in the universe. Whose knowledge did that author who confirmed that Mohammed spread the legs of a naked man and gave a mouth action go to an ISLAMIC Institute to learn?

You do not read through lines and letters. I wonder who you represents in the court. Even after I rebuffed the doctrines that you are bringing forth, you still insist on bringing it to me. You act like a malprogrammed bot.

LegalWolf:


This is ad hominem and you’re clutching on straws. You asked an unintelligible question, I pointed it out to you that your question as framed does not make sense. You gave a cue on how you want it answered and I responded. Now you’re typing this gibberish. Do I take it that you’ve abandoned this argument? Did I not give a one word response and even ask permission elaboration. So how am I breaking the rules?

Can I start asking questions about trinity, resurrection and authorship of the fable book cAlled Bible?

Sixfiguresmart:
Sir, why should I waste my time on you. Simple interrogation and you failed but produced the biggest taqiya response in the universe. Whose knowledge did that author who confirmed that Mohammed spread the legs of a naked man and gave a mouth action go to an ISLAMIC Institute to learn?

You do not read through lines and letters. I wonder who you represents in the court. Even after I rebuffed the doctrines that you are bringing forth, you still insist on bringing it to me. You act like a malprogrammed bot.

You’re the one playing dumb here. I asked you if the roles were reversed, how would you have answered it? What type of response were you expecting from me?

Like I’ve said countless times, it’s not a matter of my response. Your framing of the question is unintelligible. Despite making sense out of it, you’re still bitching away from the debate.

Well, thank you for giving me the honor to answer you in a reverse position. Here is my opinion:
ALLAH. That is a one-word response.

Now, why did I so answer? He was a respected islamic studies graduate, an islamic scholar, trained by a respected islamic guru. All his works were solely on Islamic education and studies. Moreover, his work was based on eyewitness report. He went further to provide the names of the eyewitnesses to authenticate his hadith. To concretize his respectable work, he was a contemporary of Mohammed and he lived within the vicinity of Saudi Arabia. He was closer to Mohammed that Al Bukhari. Therefore, his eyewitnesses were no strangers to Mohammed. According to Islamic history, that scholar remained a devout and righteous muslims until his death.

That gives all indication that he was a professional who was willing to tell the truth regardless of who gets offended by it. This Hadith was published in an Islamic publishing press and for Muslims.

In addition, his work is preserved INSIDE the islamic library and has been for thousands of years.

So, why was it difficult for you to answer that? Do you accept my response as the fact or is there something to dispute about it?

LegalWolf:


You’re the one playing dumb here. I asked you if the roles were reversed, how would you have answered it? What type of response were you expecting from me?

Like I’ve said countless times, it’s not a matter of my response. Your framing of the question is unintelligible. Despite making sense out of it, you’re still bitching away from the debate.

Sixfiguresmart:
Well, thank you for giving me the honor to answer you in a reverse position. Here is my opinion:
ALLAH. That is a one-word response.

Now, why did I so answer? He was a respected islamic studies graduate, an islamic scholar, trained by a respected islamic guru. All his works were solely on Islamic education and studies. Moreover, his work was based on eyewitness report. He went further to provide the names of the eyewitnesses to authenticate his hadith. To concretize his respectable work, he was a contemporary of Mohammed and he lived within the vicinity of Saudi Arabia. He was closer to Mohammed that Al Bukhari. Therefore, his eyewitnesses were no strangers to Mohammed. According to Islamic history, that scholar remained a devout and righteous muslims until his death.

That gives all indication that he was a professional who was willing to tell the truth regardless of who gets offended by it. This Hadith was published in an Islamic publishing press and for Muslims.

In addition, his work is preserved INSIDE the islamic library and has been for thousands of years.

So, why was it difficult for you to answer that? Do you accept my response as the fact or is there something to dispute about it?

It seems you are not following the conversation. I answered you that Al-Haythami knows Allah since he studied his law. So what did I say there that is different from the gibberish yo u are saying now?? Even after given you my one-word answer, did I not ask if you want more elaboration or not?


And wait let's clarify...who told you Al-Haythami was a contemporary of the prophet? What nonsense have your people been feeding you. Like I said, its impossible to defend the idi0t yhwh without sounding stupid. Please bring it on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, let us take it from there.

since you confirmed that it was Allah's knowledge. Was it allah's knowledge that Mohammed spread the legs of two naked men apart and kissed their penissesss?

LegalWolf:


It seems you are not following the conversation. I answered you that Al-Haythami knows Allah since he studied his law. So what did I say there that is different from the gibberish yo u are saying now?? Even after given you my one-word answer, did I not ask if you want more elaboration or not?


And wait let's clarify...who told you Al-Haythami was a contemporary of the prophet? What nonsense have your people been feeding you. Like I said, its impossible to defend the idi0t yhwh without sounding stupid. Please bring it on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sixfiguresmart:
Okay, let us take it from there.

since you confirmed that it was Allah's knowledge. Was it allah's knowledge that Mohammed spread the legs of two naked men apart and kissed their penissesss?

No.

islam agrees that there is good and bad.
since it is not the knowledge of allah, is it the knowledge of Satan?

LegalWolf:


No.

Sixfiguresmart:
islam agrees that there is good and bad.
since it is not the knowledge of allah, is it the knowledge of Satan?

MODIFIED: I don’t know if it the knowledge of Satan. and more importantly, the narration you’re quoting exist in the figment of your imagination

Who might know?

LegalWolf:


MODIFIED: I don’t know if it the knowledge of Satan. and more importantly, the narration you’re quoting exist in the figment of your imagination

Sixfiguresmart:
Who might know?

Just a little digression - now that all explanations are under, isn't it tidier?

To your question - It seems you're clutching to straws. Again, Al-Haythami has knowledge of Allah and the above narration you quoted exists is in the imagination of those who fabricated it. Simple as that. The Musnad is weak and it was not even reported by ANY of the six leading of scholars of hadith (in any form).

But then again, I asked you two questions which have you not responded to. In order to establish the credibility of your source, you claimed that Al-Haythami was a contemporary of the prophet. Do you acknowledge that is a LIE FABRICATED by you WITHOUT ANY CREDIBLE SOURCE to back it up?

Read the Hadith again.
In the Hadith, was quoting an eye-witness WHO SAW MOHAMMED. If mohammed had not lived an immorally reckless life and eventually dying on a teenager during an all-night sex romp, he would have lived as long as those eyewitnesses to meet the scholar. I am only quoting your book.

I am not debating you, Sir. I tried to but you are not the type. Your mates are in the cells. I see the kind of debate that you are accustomed to.

Do you accept that mohammed die during active service on a teenager?

LegalWolf:
Just a little digression - now that all explanations are under, isn't it tidier?

To your question - It seems you're clutching to straws. Again, Al-Haythami has knowledge of Allah and the above narration you quoted exists is in the imagination of those who fabricated it. Simple as that. The Musnad is weak and it was not even reported by ANY of the six leading of scholars of hadith (in any form).

But then again, I asked you two questions which have you not responded to. In order to establish the credibility of your source, you claimed that Al-Haythami was a contemporary of the prophet. Do you acknowledge that is a LIE FABRICATED by you WITHOUT ANY CREDIBLE SOURCE to back it up?

Sixfiguresmart:
Read the Hadith again.
In the Hadith, was quoting an eye-witness WHO SAW MOHAMMED. If mohammed had not lived an immorally reckless life and eventually dying on a teenager during an all-night sex romp, he would have lived as long as those eyewitnesses to meet the scholar. I am only quoting your book.

I am not debating you, Sir. I tried to but you are not the type. Your mates are in the cells. I see the kind of debate that you are accustomed to.

Do you accept that mohammed die during active service on a teenager?

Lol, Mr. Hypocrite. There is no hole for you to hide and I consider that it my life mission to show the world how dumb your religion is. I will make three points in response to you.

POINT ONE

These are your words:

'...He [Al- Haythami] was a respected islamic studies graduate, an islamic scholar, trained by a respected islamic guru. All his works were solely on Islamic education and studies. Moreover, his work was based on eyewitness report. He went further to provide the names of the eyewitnesses to authenticate his hadith. To concretize his respectable work, he was a contemporary of Mohammed and he lived within the vicinity of Saudi Arabia. He was closer to Mohammed that Al Bukhari. Therefore, his eyewitnesses were no strangers to Mohammed. According to Islamic history, that scholar remained a devout and righteous muslims until his death...' (first bracket mine).

As any sensible person can see, you went ahead to demonstrate that He (Al-Haythami), in this circumstance was both a contemporary of the prophet and gathered reports from eyewitnesses who were also contemporaneous with the prophet. Therefore, you want us to believe you.
BUT YOU LIED. THESE ARE YOUR WORDS NOT MINE and you deliberately presented falsehood to give your authority more weight than it deserves. Back to just the question I asked you, from what you type which I quoted above, did you lie that Al-Haythami was a contemporary of the prophet. Yes or no?

POINT TWO

I know you don't know and are more blinded by hate than anything. But I will just throw you a challenge - point to ONE weak hadith (that there is consensus of Islamic Scholars on) that the 'eye witness' did not hear or see the prophet. JUST ONE . And have you ever heard of what they call 'science of hadith' before?

I have more knowledge of christianity than you have of Islam. You do not know a single word of Arabic. More pathetic, your fable book called bible was originally written in Greek not the language the purported authors speak. More worrisome is that you know no modern Greek not to talk of the Byzantium Greek the bible was written and you have the nerve to debate. You must be insane.

POINT THREE
Lets even assume without conceding that you want us to accept a dhaif (or probably Maudhu hadith), would you be willing to accept criticism of Christianity if I rely on Apocrypha books? Like how Mary had a date with the idi0tic yhwh and how her breasts was fondled in the book of bartholomew? Or make references to more absurd stories?

If you want to use fake ahadith to discredit the prophet, you should be willing to let me use apocrypha books to discredit an already discredited yhwh and Christianity. Don't you think two can play the game?

LegalWolf:


Lol, Mr. Hypocrite. There is no hole for you to hide. I will make three points in response to you.

POINT ONE

These are your words:

'...He [Al- Haythami] was a respected islamic studies graduate, an islamic scholar, trained by a respected islamic guru. [b]All his works were solely on Islamic education and studies. Moreover, his work was based on eyewitness report. He went further to provide the names of the eyewitnesses to authenticate his hadith. To concretize his respectable work, he was a contemporary of Mohammed and he lived within the vicinity of Saudi Arabia. He was closer to Mohammed that Al Bukhari. Therefore, his eyewitnesses were no strangers to Mohammed. [/b]According to Islamic history, that scholar remained a devout and righteous muslims until his death.' (first bracket mine).

As any sensible person can see, you went ahead to demonstrate that He (Al-Haythami), in this circumstance was both a contemporary of the prophet and gathered reports from eyewitnesses who were also contemporaneous with the prophet. Therefore, you want us to believe you.
BUT YOU LIED. THESE ARE YOUR WORDS NOT MINE and you deliberately presented falsehood to give your authority more weight than it deserves. Back to just the question I asked you, from what you type which I quoted above, did you lie that Al-Haythami was a contemporary of the prophet. Yes or no?

POINT TWO

I know you don't know and are more blinded by hate than anything. But I will just throw you a challenge - point to ONE weak hadith (that there is consensus of Islamic Scholars on) that the 'eye witness' did not hear or see the prophet. JUST ONE . And have you ever heard of what they call 'science of hadith' before?

I have more knowledge of christianity than you have of Islam. You do not know a single word of Arabic. More pathetic, your fable book called bible was originally written in Greek not the language the purported authors speak. More worrisome is that you know no modern Greek not to talk of the Byzantium Greek the bible was written and you have the nerve to debate. You must be insane.

POINT THREE
Lets even assume without conceding that you want us to accept a dhaif (or probably Maudhu hadith), would you be willing to accept criticism of Christianity if I rely on Apocrypha books? Like how Mary had a date with the idi0tic yhwh and how her breasts was fondled in the book of bartholomew? Or make references to more absurd stories?

If you want to use fake ahadith to discredit the prophet, you should be willing to let me use apocrypha books to discredit an already discredited yhwh and Christianity. Don't you think two can play the game?

I thought you were so busy with work. You seem to love this subject. No excuses at all. You make time to respond. Meanwhile, you hadith said that he heard from the eyewitnesses. You just didn't expect that logic from me hahaha. It stunned you a bit.

Well, you the one who is more knowledgeable than the scholars might seem to have more fables like your scholars. You know Arabic. Applause! If your Arabian scholar could be tossed under a moving bus by you, who are you, then to speak the truth of allah to me? How can I ascertain that your knowledge is allah's?

You are dragging the apocrypha's ears and I do not accept it nor will I ever pay attention to it. It is not the Bible that Mohammed confirmed was from God.

Did mohammed thigh aisha as a minor, YES or NO?