If Islam is bad Arab is the first to leave it!

This a Moslem's defense for all the mistakes showed about Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMwe1iJlv0o

"Islamic Scholars Make Mistakes"- Abu [Sept 2019]

Moslems keep arguing by bringing in their own interpretations while CP is clearly showing him what is written in their own books.

They engage in lame attempt to defend their Islam saying, “maybe this what Allah meant” or “maybe the situation was such that” or “you have to understand the ‘SPECIFIC’ context”.

Go to their scholars and they will claim that “scholars are not always right”, in effect denying them.

What is straight forward in its intention to the normal mind is twisted and even turned upside down by these Moslems all in a bid to justify the indefensible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWObq02AvKU

Does Christian Prince Hate Muslims? [Sept 2019]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTfBjiVZH24
Christian Prince answers the question here!

Abu Destroys Christian Prince's Arguments [Sept 2019]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBODRHmoe_Y

The bell is the instrument of Satan according to Mohamed.

The Mohamed received Koran in the sound of a ringing bell. So, why would a revelation come to Mohamed in the sound of something that Islam claim is of the Satan and angels don’t come near?

Mohamed says the musical instrument of Satan is the bell, yet he received revelation in form of the same thing?
Narrated 'Aisha: Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah's Messenger "O Allah's Messenger! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?" Allah's Messenger replied, "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says." 'Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired divinely on a very cold day and noticed the sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over). (Sahih Al-Bukhari)

This clearly another conundrum for Moslems to get round.

Christian Prince - Abbas (Speakers Corner) says, Let's be Friends CP, Allah says you Can't


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyn2_1e3Ugg

Islam & High IQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-8czVmsPXM

Many Moslems know that there are things in their religion that are shameful. That is why they run from ‘weak’ hadith to ‘strong’ hadith. Where this does not work, they run to ‘Koran only!’.

When the Koran is shown them, they argue about what ‘exactly’ the Koran means.

They are so confused in their own religion that they eventually take consolation in ‘Allah knows best’.

At the end of the day they live in denial. They know that something is wrong with their religion yet they just ‘hope’ that they can hold on to it rather than face the reality of it. They let their emotions control them. As a result, they believe even the most ridiculous.
That is Islam! Surrender! – just accept it and ask no question no matter how ridiculous it is.

Muslims Left Speechless After Debate With Christian Prince [Sept 2019]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i47H8t-eP3k

Majority of Moslems do not know what is in their own books.
When faced with the facts, rather than accept them, they resort to denial. They live by their own made up image of Islam and not by what their books really state.
Christian Prince shows here among other things:
- That when Mohamed looks at a married woman and desired her, then the husband must divorce her so that she can become Mohamed’s.
- Mohamed bought, sold and owned slaves.

Christian Prince: Jesus is God in quran


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV8XC6HP0cU

Christian Prince: Jesus is God in quran
Here Christian Prince shows how the names of Allah in the quran can be linked the names Jesus claimed for himself – the truth, the resurrection, the first and the last, the King of kings, the guide and the light,

No Moslem can deny that Jesus made these claims about himself in the Bible. Therefore, when the Moslem is asking where Jesus said “I am God” he has all these to show him the answer to his question unless he is not truly seeking an answer to his question or seeking the truth.

Weak Hadith Defence

Are the ‘uncomfortable’ statements and actions of Mohamed correctly narrated and recorded by those who documented them? Did the hadith writers mix the ‘weak’ ones with ‘sound’ ones in their writings? Is the ‘weak’ hadith argument justifiable?

The hadith are the records of the oral traditions of Mohamed's sayings and actions that were later recorded by early Moslem scholars. In other words, the sayings about what Mohamed spoke or did that were previously communicated orally from one person to another were now codified into written documents called Hadith. The hadith include the names of the narrators of the words or actions of Mohamed.

The hadith contain embarrassing accounts of Mohamed's behaviour. Consequently, many modern Moslems claim many of these hadith are not authentic. Every so often a weak hadith defence is used to defend Mohamed's bad behaviour. A major one is the ‘weak’ hadith argument.
A weak hadith technically refers to the completeness of the chain of narrators and the reputation of each individual narrators within the chain of oral tradition that goes back to the eye witness of the act or saying of Mohamed. Even if there were a technical flaw in a hadith, it does not necessarily mean that the hadith is not an authentic one. Authenticity and weakness are two different concepts.

The Koran has less technical support for its authenticity than do many hadiths. Yet, the Koran is considered authentic by traditional Moslems. So, if an historical saying must be rejected because it is technically weak, then much of the Koran would have to be rejected too.

Some Moslems use the weak hadith defence, because they approach Mohamed with their own wishful preconceived ideas about him. So, without deliberate thought or scrutiny, they reject any hadith that does not meet the standard of their emotional assumptions. Our beliefs should be grounded in historical reality: not wishful assumptions.

It is dishonest to reject a hadith on the basis of a person’s like or dislike of its content. What we like or dislike is not an appropriate standard to judge past history. Present-day beliefs don't determine the events of the past.

There is very detailed historical information on the life and teachings of Mohamed that is found in the written collections of the ancient Moslem oral traditions of which the hadith are one.

The Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim collections are considered to be authentic historical records by orthodox Moslems. So, a weak hadith defence is not justified when these sources are used to critique Mohamed sayings and behaviour.

Their extensive collections provide detailed information on the thoughts and actions of Mohamed. In fact, these collections provide vastly more information on the life and teachings of Mohamed than does the Koran itself.

However, when someone examines these accepted hadiths, they find some accounts in which Mohamed displays unfavourable behaviour. This behaviour is an embarrassment to many Moslems who seek to defend Mohammedanism today. Often, these Moslems seek to minimize these historical accounts by claiming that these hadiths are weak; and, therefore, they should be ignored in discussion of Mohamed’s religion.
But, is this weak hadith argument a legitimate defence of Mohamed’s character? Or, is it a convenient trick to divert the attention away from the unfavourable actions of Mohamed? Why should the ancient writings of the great traditional Moslem scholars be set aside so conveniently whenever Mohamed’s questionable behaviour is presented from scholarly traditional Moslem sources by non-Moslems?

Why Moslems do this is first, because they assume Mohamed to be a perfect and flawless person. Secondly, they erroneously believe that all his sayings and actions were divinely inspired by Allah. As a result, they readily set aside things that traditional Moslem scholars accepted as true. What they have done therefore is setting aside historical reality for their biases and assumptions. However, this is unfortunate, because historical reality should take precedent over our religious assumptions. Instead, our religious belief should be in accordance with historical reality. Therefore, the historical record found in the hadith should open the eyes of Moslems to who their prophet truly was and what their religion is all about.

sagenaija:
Weak Hadith Defence

Are the ‘uncomfortable’ statements and actions of Mohamed correctly narrated and recorded by those who documented them? Did the hadith writers mix the ‘weak’ ones with ‘sound’ ones in their writings? Is the ‘weak’ hadith argument justifiable?

The hadith are the records of the oral traditions of Mohamed's sayings and actions that were later recorded by early Moslem scholars. In other words, the sayings about what Mohamed spoke or did that were previously communicated orally from one person to another were now codified into written documents called Hadith. The hadith include the names of the narrators of the words or actions of Mohamed.

The hadith contain embarrassing accounts of Mohamed's behaviour. Consequently, many modern Moslems claim many of these hadith are not authentic. Every so often a weak hadith defence is used to defend Mohamed's bad behaviour. A major one is the ‘weak’ hadith argument.
A weak hadith technically refers to the completeness of the chain of narrators and the reputation of each individual narrators within the chain of oral tradition that goes back to the eye witness of the act or saying of Mohamed. Even if there were a technical flaw in a hadith, it does not necessarily mean that the hadith is not an authentic one. Authenticity and weakness are two different concepts.

The Koran has less technical support for its authenticity than do many hadiths. Yet, the Koran is considered authentic by traditional Moslems. So, if an historical saying must be rejected because it is technically weak, then much of the Koran would have to be rejected too.

Some Moslems use the weak hadith defence, because they approach Mohamed with their own wishful preconceived ideas about him. So, without deliberate thought or scrutiny, they reject any hadith that does not meet the standard of their emotional assumptions. Our beliefs should be grounded in historical reality: not wishful assumptions.

It is dishonest to reject a hadith on the basis of a person’s like or dislike of its content. What we like or dislike is not an appropriate standard to judge past history. Present-day beliefs don't determine the events of the past.

There is very detailed historical information on the life and teachings of Mohamed that is found in the written collections of the ancient Moslem oral traditions of which the hadith are one.

The Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim collections are considered to be authentic historical records by orthodox Moslems. So, a weak hadith defence is not justified when these sources are used to critique Mohamed sayings and behaviour.

Their extensive collections provide detailed information on the thoughts and actions of Mohamed. In fact, these collections provide vastly more information on the life and teachings of Mohamed than does the Koran itself.

However, when someone examines these accepted hadiths, they find some accounts in which Mohamed displays unfavourable behaviour. This behaviour is an embarrassment to many Moslems who seek to defend Mohammedanism today. Often, these Moslems seek to minimize these historical accounts by claiming that these hadiths are weak; and, therefore, they should be ignored in discussion of Mohamed’s religion.
But, is this weak hadith argument a legitimate defence of Mohamed’s character? Or, is it a convenient trick to divert the attention away from the unfavourable actions of Mohamed? Why should the ancient writings of the great traditional Moslem scholars be set aside so conveniently whenever Mohamed’s questionable behaviour is presented from scholarly traditional Moslem sources by non-Moslems?

Why Moslems do this is first, because they assume Mohamed to be a perfect and flawless person. Secondly, they erroneously believe that all his sayings and actions were divinely inspired by Allah. As a result, they readily set aside things that traditional Moslem scholars accepted as true. What they have done therefore is setting aside historical reality for their biases and assumptions. However, this is unfortunate, because historical reality should take precedent over our religious assumptions. Instead, our religious belief should be in accordance with historical reality. Therefore, the historical record found in the hadith should open the eyes of Moslems to who their prophet truly was and what their religion is all about.

The Christian bible is more like weak Hadiths,too many stupid write ups that don't make sense.An Hadith is considered weak if its chain of transmission is somehow not reliable,you can't just believe everyones word,even if the sayings of a weak Hadith goes in line with Quran,it will not be accepted, Bukhari in his words said he collected upto 500000 Hadiths out of which 12000 are good and are recorded down.The Christian people just believe things in the bible by saying its all written through Gods inspiration.How can someone be describing how to have sex inside what you call Gods inspiration

sulasa07:

The Christian bible is more like weak Hadiths,too many stupid write ups that don't make sense.An Hadith is considered weak if its chain of transmission is somehow not reliable,you can't just believe everyones word,even if the sayings of a weak Hadith goes in line with Quran,it will not be accepted, Bukhari in his words said he collected upto 500000 Hadiths out of which 12000 are good and are recorded down.The Christian people just believe things in the bible by saying its all written through Gods inspiration.How can someone be describing how to have sex inside what you call Gods inspiration

Does your attack on the Bible prove that the truth of the claim above is questionable?
Why not rather address the issue and show if it right or wrong?

On the chain of transmission; if a man decides to list an ‘accepted’ name of narrators and uses that to justify his hadith wouldn’t it be accepted simply on the basis of known chain of narrators?

Are the books of questionable individuals not accepted today by Islam?
Haf’s Koran is accepted by millions of Moslems today. Yet because the man was said to be of questionable character HIS HADITH IS REJECTED. How do you reconcile that?

Btw, how many years will it take a SINGLE man to look at 500,000 (five hundred thousand) documents, scrutinize them, determine source, confirm the character of writer, etc before concluding that they are right or wrong? Do the simple maths.

Bottom line; address the issue rather than use debaters’ logical fallacies. So, Sulasa07, sticking strictly to what was stated, is there any thing wrong in particular about what was posted above?

sagenaija:


Does your attack on the Bible prove that the truth of the claim above is questionable?
Why not rather address the issue and show if it right or wrong?

On the chain of transmission; if a man decides to list an ‘accepted’ name of narrators and uses that to justify his hadith wouldn’t it be accepted simply on the basis of known chain of narrators?

Are the books of questionable individuals not accepted today by Islam?
Haf’s Koran is accepted by millions of Moslems today. Yet because the man was said to be of questionable character HIS HADITH IS REJECTED. How do you reconcile that?

Btw, how many years will it take a SINGLE man to look at 500,000 (five hundred thousand) documents, scrutinize them, determine source, confirm the character of writer, etc before concluding that they are right or wrong? Do the simple maths.

Bottom line; address the issue rather than use debaters’ logical fallacies. So, Sulasa07, sticking strictly to what was stated, is there any thing wrong in particular about what was posted above?

Why can't he collect 500000 Hadiths,you do the maths for me since I know no book

sagenaija:
Haf’s Koran is accepted by millions of Moslems today. Yet because the man was said to be of questionable character HIS HADITH IS REJECTED. How do you reconcile that?

Tradition has it that Haf, the man whose quranic recitation method is accepted by over 85% of Muslims worldwide, had a questionable character and his hadith compilations was rejected as completely false. How come his rendition of the Koran is accepted while all his hadith was rejected? Islam can be really weird at times.

true2god:
Tradition has it that Haf, the man whose quranic recitation method is accepted by over 85% of Muslims worldwide, had a questionable character and his hadith compilations was rejected as completely false. How come his rendition of the Koran is accepted while all his hadith was rejected? Islam can be really weird at times.

Did you say "weird at times"?
I think "all the time" is more like it. Only those who practice their own 'brand' of Islam appear to be more decent than weird.

sulasa07:

Why can't he collect 500000 Hadiths,you do the maths for me since I know no book

The following is from a Moslem scholar:

HADITH A RE-EVALUATION
By Kassim Ahmad
Translated from the Malay original by Syed Akbar Ali

Kassim Ahmad notes: “It stands to reason that the hadith writers depended on much story-telling to fill in the blanks. Many 'authentic' narrators whom the hadith writers allude to in their chains of isnad were wholly fabricated names.” Ahmad also notes that it was “preposterous and impossible” for Bukhari to have meticulously considered over six hundred thousand hadith texts to pick his authentic 7,275 hadith texts in his lifetime in an age when the camel journey was the only available means to cover long desert distances.

According to him:
It is not our intention to say that Bukhari, Muslim and others were fabricators. However, even students of elementary psychology or communication will testify that a simple message of, say, 15 words will get distorted after passing through only about five messengers. (Our readers are welcome to try out this experiment). Keep in mind that the hadith contains thousands of detailed and complex narrations — everything from ablution to jurisprudence. These narrations passed through hundreds of narrators who were spread out over thousands of miles of desert, and spanned over two to three hundred years of history. All this at a time when news traveled at the speed of a camel gait, recorded on pieces of leather or bone or scrolls in a land that had neither paper nor the abundance of scribes to write anything down!

Therefore, it is not likely that the various hadith writers could have been accurate, however much they wanted to, in checking the authenticity of the hadith which they wrote down. A camel journey from Mecca to Damascus might take a month or two. In fact, any journey by camel between the major populated areas of the Arabian deserts took much time. It makes it highly unlikely that the hadith writers checked out all the thousands of details personally. Otherwise, they must have spent a large part of their lives sitting on the backs of very fast-moving camels. History has recorded who these hadith writers were, where they lived and how much travelling they undertook. As for the camels, a camel's gait remains much the same then as it is now. It stands to reason that the hadith writers depended on much story-telling to fill in the blanks. Many `authentic' narrators whom the hadith writers allude to in their chains of isnad were wholly fabricated names. To overcome this type of logical criticism, the hadith writers came up with an ingenious device to actually pull the wool over our eyes. They came up with the concept of ta`dil of the Companions. This concept states that the Companions of the Prophet are wholly protected from committing any error whenever they recall or narrate the sayings of the Prophet! Page 44

But the hadith writers are still insistent. According to some, at least Bukhari's hadith is infallible. Why? Because Bukhari is reported to have sifted through more than 600,000 hadiths and had picked only 7,275 to be included in his `authentic' collection. This fact is put forward to impress upon the reader that Bukhari was meticulous and thorough in his life's work. Bukhari merely took 1.25% of all the hadiths he came across as authentic. But a simple calculation will show that these figures are preposterous and impossible to be achieved by Bukhari or any other human being.

If, on the average, a hadith consists of three simple sentences (in truth many hadiths run into paragraphs), then Bukhari would have had to collect, read, investigate, evaluate and record over 1.8 million sentences over a period of 40 years. This is the equivalent of researching (which include the long camel journeys to and fro across the desert) and attesting to the authenticity of over 300 books, each equivalent to the thickness and complexity of a Quran, over a period of 40 years! Compare this to the 6346 verses only of the one Quran which God in His all encompassing mercy gave to the Prophet over a period of 23 years!

According to another source, Ibn Hanbal reported that there were over 7 million `authentic' hadiths. If this were true, then working for 23 years at a pace of 18 hours a day, seven days a week, the Prophet would have had to produce one hadith every 77 seconds! There would definitely have been no time left at all for the Prophet to have done anything like living his life and carrying out his mission as a Prophet! Page45

Questions:
Is there manuscript evidence showing us hadith at about Mohamed’s time since they contain stories and statements he made?

Can we be absolutely sure that stories were not just ‘created’ and backed up with accepted chain of narrators?

Does Islamic history not show us that several so-called narrators ended up being condemned as unreliable by people like Bukhari? Yet did he not include some of these same people in his own hadith? So, what happened?

Did Allah give INSPIRATION to narrators, writers and compilers of hadths?

Bukhari's Reliability

For each Hadith that Bukhari memorized, he must have taken some time to memorized. Now, what about analysing each of the hadith? How long would it take for Bukhari to analyse each of the Hadith? Five minutes? Ten minutes? Twenty minutes? Thirty minutes? He must have done his best to try to determine which were actually said by Mohamed or not. Since analysing is not just reading, it would take quite a while to eventually confirm a hadith as true or not and rewrite it down afresh in his new compilation; unless he was INSPIRED by Allah and endued with a special gift to ‘recognise’ the genuineness of a hadith in seconds!

Moslems will refuse ‘INSPIRATION’ because that would mean another ‘Prophet’ came after the seal of the prophets – Mohamed.
So, if we take 20 minutes for each hadith that will take about 23 years to compile doing NOTHING ELSE 24 HOURS A DAY – no eating, no sleep, no other engagement! If we factor in the time for these other necessities of life that period goes up to 30 years and more.

Unless of course he had a team that engaged in the work which then bore his name.

Smart Muslima Exposing Her Prophet (PBUH) [Oct 2019]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NLDb8g6x1U

Mohamed married a 6-year old.
He said there will be more women in hell.
Also that the woman is deficient to the man.
A man can beat his wife in Islam.

Christian Prince - a Muslim Accepts Jesus as Lord Live on Air on the 11 Oct 2019


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUbFkBkOqPE

600 Winged Angel [Oct 2019]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj2yzjVWK1w

Really!!

Christian Prince - AL Lah the Moon God and Akbar the Sun God had 3 Daughters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwEZnllITE0

Three daughters of Allah?

Christian Prince - Comedy of Islam - Amazed By The Quran With Nouman Ali Khan


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OoFM7zOvVQ
Crazy fairy tales taken as real.
Flies and dogs are regarded as spies for a god.
Birds watch people deeds.
Guys, some fly may get to see your phone password and give it out to someone else!
Comical to say the least.

Moslems generally don't want to hear the truth about their own religion because they don't want their illusions destroyed.

They are enjoying a fantasy and are afraid that the true reality of their religion will blow away their fantasy.

Truth can be hard to swallow particular for those who have been long in lie: just as light can be harsh to the eyes of those who have been long in the dark.

Indonesia newspapers exposing christian prince

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXAvTAvtzro

Islamic Scholars are challenging Christian Prince to come for a debate in Indonesia.
They must be sure that they can defeat him easily.

Al-Khadir prophet (Green) story according to Muhammad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUeHd0GAHYY

Stories according to Mohamed.
Story about Bahrain, a legend. Qur'an 18:61. Sahih Bukari has more of the story.
A fountain of life that revived a whale out of water. Moses tracked the fish in the ocean.

Christian Prince - Mohammad Qasim Admits Satan Was Appointed by Allah


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwQgxOpoRgA

Islam teaches that a man can do all the good in this world and still end up in hell because that is what has been written by Allah for him.
Islam teaches that a man can do all the bad things in this world and still enter paradise because that is what has been written for him.
Allah has programmed everyone for good or for evil. The implications are mind boggling.

According to the hadith:
Abdullah b. Mas’ud reported that Allah decides the destiny of each person.
Sahih Bukhari confirmed the Mas’ud report stating that what has been written by Allah determines a person’s behaviour.
Sahih al-Bukhari 7454, Book 97, Hadith 80

Bruce Lee Learned from Prophet Mohamed Kung Fu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvJkMhQqlhY

Can you take Muhammad stories seriously? #1 fishing in Saturday warning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOVZ8bbQU0c
Mohamed claimed Allah told him this story.
Allah turned the Jews into monkeys because they fished on Saturday.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, chapter 32, page 415.
Koran 2:65

Masters of Lust - Allah and His Prophet Mohamed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJlRsSGFSPI