₦airaland Forum

toneyb:
That viaro man is a bad, bad man. He ended up driving our man away.

It is comments like this that make viaro want to cry (haven't done so for a very long while).

MyJoe:
Persecution is much more serious than people having beliefs questioned.

Thank you for putting it in a better way than I had thought of.

Chrisbenogor:
Viaro stop making noise, again like pilgrim you manage to run around looking for trivial issues to shift focus from what we are actually discussing and I will not get sucked in.

What are we "actually discussing"?

No, viaro is not making noise. If you weren't looking for where to vomit your own instability, no one invited you here in the first place - and the childish grumbling about my quoting your post showed me you were a disturbance to yourself. Your being sucked in is your own problem - not mine or anyone else's.

To reassure you, I did not look for trivial issues but dealt precisely with the concerns in th OP. Actually I had quite a load of well articulated pointers and evidences for the comments I was going to make, but it seemed the s[color=Black]pa[/color]m got me and I had no choice than to edit my post and leave the redaction standing. If you have any substance in your discussions at all, I would have seen far more than your complaints than the miserly back-and-forth and typically atheist excuses you tend to wave as your firstaid.

1.Please point out where I accused you of playing one side?

Easy. Please show me where I stated that you "accused" me?

2. When a thread is opened to discuss genocide in Rwanda for instance we can say oh yes the tutsi's were wrong or right, but no because the person asking is german he has to deal with hitlers own too.

And how does that bear upon the concerns of what I stated in regards to the OP? I am neither German nor a Tutsi (oh yeah, I understand that was an analogy .[color=Black].[/color]. so pls don't go splitting hairs over that) - but even so, if the OP had wanted to talk about merely persecution of "us (atheists)" without reference to CHRISTIANS, I would simply take no notice of his boredom. Did you miss the fact that he had mentioned "Christians" in the OP as well? Which is why I think your grumbling about tutsi and german is just fine piffling and nothing else.

Even if you do point out what hitler did me I have passed my own quick judgement that is was wrong something that religious people will never admit simple.

But Chris, did you calm down to notice that I highlighted the same thing? Let me bring the quote again in my initial response:

       'Christians have been guilty of persecuting Atheists much to our shame.
        And Atheists have been guilty of persecuting Christians, much to their shame.'

If worrying over what is wrong is your problem, then by that quote above I was indicating the same thing resonating throughout my initial posts - please see again the following:

(1)

viaro:

toneyb: Often you hear the most hate filled ridiculous comments you can imagine coming out of the mouth of the servants of Allah and the Children of Jehovah.

That's shamefully true - but we know of far worse bigotry spewing out of the bowels of atheists themselves. The difference IMO is that atheists tend to assume an air of idealistic comfort in their ridiculous aspersions and blatant hate-mongering.

(2)

viaro:

toneyb: Yet the slightest comment against them raises they're fury beyond believe. You see them summarily condemning people most of the time, justifying hate, bigotry, genocide and death. Yet they are very quick to clutch the persecution card when their beliefs or actions are questioned?

We're all guilty in this; but far more shameful is that the atheist assumes this is unique to religious people and is too slow to admit that far worse things greet us everyday from atheist quarters.

You can see from the above that you statement that  religious people don't admit certain obvious issues {as in ". . .that is was wrong something that religious people will never admit simple"} is FACTUALLY FALSE!

The problem here is that the typical atheist will pretend to not see that religious people admit that certain 'wrong things' have been committed by religious folks in the name of religion; but the same typical atheist at the same time will not be happy to EQUALLY and READILY admit that atheists are as guilty of the things they charge against religious people.

If then it is a happy trend to deplore these 'wrong', then the atheist should be willing to admit that atheists themselves do the same thing without reference to religion - that would be far more sincere and intelligent than the silly excuses that atheists who murder other people are doing "their own business", or that calling atheists to wake up from their piffling is 'tiring' simply because you can's stand the fact of what is presented.

Chrisbenogor:
I am really bad a the divide and conquer thing, just try and get the general message I am trying to send and forget the grammar and syntax of the words, all I am saying in a summary is simple, if this thread is about hitlers murder of 6 million Jews let us discuss it, saying that the OP is Rwandan does not take away that hitler killed 6 million jews and has nothing to do with hypocrisy, I will be a hypocrite if I cannot see anything wrong with anyone killing in the name of religion or lack of it in some instances and be happy with it in some instances, you can accuse me of never raising a thread to talk of atheistic murders and we can discuss that.

I am trying to understand your message without reading any specially assigned syntax into your comments, trust me. The one thing that I find funny is your far-fetched analogy (which simply does not apply here at all), so that the way you try to excuse the fact that atheists are guilty of the same thing here expressed in the OP is rather humorous.

It would be hypocritical and intellectually dishonest either ways (whether for the atheist or for viaro) to excuse the concerns in the OP positing this thingy about CHRISTIANS and Muslims being so eager to "preach against us (atheists)" - that would just be like asking the Christian to pretend that atheists never preach againt Christians and/or Muslims .[color=Black].[/color]. and eagerly so! It has nothing to do with the far-fetched German commenting on a Rwandan genocide that has nothing to do with the Germans.

Oh and by the wayThe above sounded like you were throwing a tantrum, hope you did not break anything.

I was not - you wish. It does not take anything away from the fact that your excuses at atheist murders are shameful, to say the least.

michelin89:
In my opinion you all will rot in hell just like us who never believed in any god.

So em . . . as an atheist, do you really believe you will rot in hell??

manmustwac:
Since it is inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.

Christopher Hutchens

Please tell Hitchens this:

Since it is inconceivable that all ATHEISMS can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.

- viaro.

Chrisbenogor:
Typical pilgrim defence, your boredom or your being tired still does not change that those people were murdered. Like I told tpia if your problem is the killings by atheists raise a thread and I will be the first to condemn it, just raise the thread.

This is rather sick and redundant, Chris. It's obvious that it's not only pilgrim that thinks that these atheistic excuses have become such a silly bore - I'd followed the same thing in tpia's comments (and others as well) when you atheists glory in the same arguments. The fact is that atheists will see these things as peculiarly "religious" instead of standing up to admit on equal terms that ATHEISTS MURDER people free of charge and as as guilty as the charge they lay at the doorstep of religious people! Your piddling here is even more childish than the initial whining about my quoting your post - as if that is the bigger thing to worry about and there's a new rule on NL that no one should be quoting posts by Chrisbenogor!

I had initially presented BOTH sides of the OP's concern -

viaro:
Between the mixed voices heard on this subject are a few examples below:

(a)   'Christians have been guilty of persecuting Atheists much to our shame. And Atheists have been guilty of persecuting Christians, much to their shame.' [Trent Mcclure at Helium]

That should tell you at least that I was not trying to play to just one side of the problem. The very things that the OP in his atheistic outlook was ascribing to religious people quite well sits entrenched in atheist experiences - that is FACT! I wonder if you missed that before complaining here like you're the only one affected by this subject simply because I 'quoted your post'? The way you guys present your arguments sometimes leaves one very sorry for you indeed.

Chrisbenogor:
If a thread is about the blood thirsty Moses then lets discuss the gore he brought to innocent women and children, the whole your people are doing it too argument sucks.

Your argument in particular sucks! You often glory in waving that same argument repeatedly to the point of such hypocrisy in failing to see that atheists are as guilty as what they charge at religious folks. In case you missed it, I noted that BOTH sides of the issue should be presented and observed by the atheist who is often only interested in whining and griping on and on about 'religious people' persecuting "us (atheists)". Pretending otherwise is what makes the atheist's argument really suck!

Besides if another atheist kills people I dont see how concerns me that is their business, you can raise it up to me if you think my lifestyle is similar to theirs but that should be another thread ok or at least not in your defence.

Please pass and stop whinging! It sucks to read your comments about atheists murdering people swept under the excuse of "that is their business" - the typical atheistic excuse of convenience. If someone would say the same thing about it being the business of religious people killing anyone, you will burn NL with your bigotry and plutonic hypocrisy. Your fellows should be truly ashamed at your excuses.

Fhemmmy:
The kids want to be a pastor and even live like their father, what is the big deal about it, if the father is a great role model and living the life as God tells us to

Hehe .[color=Black].[/color]. them 'role models' roam all over the place. Sample a few below (note the apprentice sons understudying their fathers mentors)

[list][flash=290,230]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BgGjkIMq0k&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]
"Are you outa ya mind? I want my money
NOW!"[/list]

[list][flash=290,230]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcUjtIRPeDw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]
"Everybody knows my children . . .
mercedes . . . convertible"
(son nods head as he takes in the lessons!) [/list]

Chrisbenogor:
If it was for the thread you should not have quoted my post.

I didn't know that. Perhaps quoting yours was the problem - just about the same thing in my quoting others for the sake of the thread (toneyb's and jagunlabi's). I apologise if quoting yours was missing the point.

Chrisbenogor:
Viaro abeg take a chill pill, what I said was for the thread generally, why the thing dey bite you?

But what I said was also for the thread generally - why does it bite you?

Chrisbenogor:
Yes I can say christians are fond of the whole your people are doing it too thing, I dont really post on muslim threads so I dont know what their response thingy, you tell a christian look Moses ordered the death of women and children and they say oh pinochet was an atheist he did the same thing.

Yes, we have grown quite bored with the usual antics of atheists complaining only about 'deaths and murders' as if atheist regimes are not guilty of the same thing! That is why I hinted that the usual atheistic thing to do is pretend to look the other way when such issues are brought to the fore and asking the atheists to grow up!

The atheist who plays the 'victim's card' when these issues are pointed out in the atheist camp is actually being intellectually dishonest and hypocritical - that is not to say that I ignored the fact that some of these worrying trends are present among religious people. The basic point here is that these convenient piddling runs across board - they are not perculiar or unique to religious folks: atheists are as guilty of the same things complained about in the OP.

Chrisbenogor:
All this your people are doing it too arguments can tire me

It shouldn't be tiring if and only if atheists are going to be honest without being funny.

jagunlabi:
All social or religious groups devoid of any spiritual depth are totally embedded in the EGO, therefore they always play the persecution card and use special pleading to get their way. They are all ego driven in their nature.Their "i am right, so everybody else must be wrong, and if i am not allowed to be right, then i am being persecuted" way of thinking clearly shows that nature.

Absolutely spot on! Forget the issue of 'spiritual depth' - it does not matter what level of spirituality (or the lack thereof) may be evident in the lives of the 'persecution card carriers', people naturally tend to do these things. The funny thing is that some atheists assume these issues (persecution, reasons why people turn to beliefs, etc) are to be attributed only to religious people in the idea that the same issues have no bearing in the lives and experiences of atheists themselves. It is the height of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty for the atheist to complain about these things in religious people without acknowledging that the same complaints sit quite well with atheists themselves.

toneyb:
They are so eager to preach against us (atheists), gays, any other religion outside of their own . . .

That's again the very precise thing you will find many atheists do! It's funny you almost sound like you're waving the victim's card here yourself in that quip of "preach against us (atheists)", haha. But atheists are also eager to preach against religious people, no? The perfect sport for atheist has always been to lash out against 'religion' to the point where one begins to wonder that you folks sometimes do not take a minute to ponder on your own atheist fundamentalism.

. . . and anyone living a lifestyle they that is different from their or which they don't approve.

Oh c'mon, dude! Do atheists smile approvingly of the beliefs and lifestyle of religious people? Where? When? How? The bottomline factually played out daily is that atheists themselves are quite as guilty on this point on account of their own disapproval of the lifestyles of those who hold religious or other beliefs different from their own! Please let me know if you have the stomach to debate this and I shall only be too gald to point you to several examples.

Often you hear the most hate filled ridiculous comments you can imagine coming out of the mouth of the servants of Allah and the Children of Jehovah.

That's shamefully true - but we know of far worse bigotry spewing out of the bowels of atheists themselves. The difference IMO is that atheists tend to assume an air of idealistic comfort in their ridiculous aspersions and blatant hate-mongering.

Yet the slightest comment against them raises they're fury beyond believe. You see them summarily condemning people most of the time, justifying hate, bigotry, genocide and death. Yet they are very quick to clutch the persecution card when their beliefs or actions are questioned?

We're all guilty in this; but far more shameful is that the atheist assumes this is unique to religious people and is too slow to admit that far worse things greet us everyday from atheist quarters. Most atheists would sooner condemn people, justify their own hate and bigotry (with a smack of plutonic pride) and excuse deaths under atheist regimes, than apply their thinking to sensible issues. Yes, it's all done in the name of the 'persecution card' that atheists also wave in our faces when questioned.

The atheists or others from another religion makes fun of them and it's persecution for their beliefs. . It seems to me that, anyone daring to tell a Christian or a Muslim to follow the laws, and not force their religion on others is "persecution" these days.

Let me guess: do atheists care two rat's behind about following 'the laws'? Hahaha ... dude, this is one subject where I'd really like to school you up on how many atheists just like to break the law! Try me - your life will never be the same after the revelation!

My own theory is that they are fed misconceptions of none believers for as long as they are indoctrinated in the infallibility theories of their god and its important to dispel these opinions too.

Just pass, hehe. I don't think you would be positing such an unfounded theory if only you thought carefully through your arguments and realised that atheists often feed themselves on their atheistic indoctrinations and misconceptions about believers. Although we have to admit that many beliefs which religious people hold are quite misplaced - but we know also that many atheists hold quite unfounded beliefs about religious people. What the informed theist tries to do today is seeking to understand people and issues without misconstruing them for what they are not. Perhaps you might like to try that sometimes.

@toneyb,

Howdy my guy?

toneyb:
I will like to hear the opinion of other atheist in the house.

Er, let me quickly comment on your tripe before the happy atheists in the house sing their halleluyah chorus!

You know, everyone actually plays the persecution card regardless whether they are religious or not - it just depends on knowing how to wind up or twist the arm of whosoever you hope to lead into waving the victim's card. But just to be sure, even atheists themselves do the very same things: even where atheists argue that they don't have any 'beliefs', it is not hard to find them flinching and then flagging the 's.o.s victim's support' banner!

Let me draw some out from your post:

Why are Christians and Muslims so eager to play the persecution card when they persecute so many?

It is ironic that you as an atheist should be asking that question; but do atheists not do the same and even more than that? Certainly, the reasons are either the same (where atheists and atheist governments have no qualms 'persecuting' religious people) or they may be other reasons for the atheist complaining of being persecuted. Between the mixed voices heard on this subject are a few examples below:

(a)   'Christians have been guilty of persecuting Atheists much to our shame. And Atheists have been guilty of persecuting Christians, much to their shame.' [Trent Mcclure at Helium]

(b)   Someone by the catch name 'Sinister minister' whines about 'Persecution of Atheists in Public Schools' - often happens in that part of the world known as America, hehe.

On a more serious note, the subject of persecution is not such a light thing. Many religious people suffer untold persecution under atheist regimes - for no other reason than having religious beliefs. We know many atheists would like to just keep that obvious example hush-hush, but toneyb, if you give any bit of seriousness to the reality of atheistic persecution of religious people, I doubt this thread would have been cast in the frivolous manner as appear in your OP.

^^^
@experts,

Third then, we take a look at ¬ "The Missing Verse(s) of the Quran on Suckling"

Sahih Muslim: Sahi Muslim, Book 008, Number 3421:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).

Sahih Muslim: Sahi Muslim, Book 008, Number 3422:
'Amra reported that she beard 'A'isha (Allah he pleased with her) discussing fosterage which (makes marriage) unlawful; and she ('A'isha) said: There was revealed in the Holy Qur'an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings).

So again, mr experts, could you show us where the verses on 'suckling' could be found today in your Quran in its 'entirety'?? Indeed, it is possible that I might have missed it or perhaps not remembered having read it - but please do us the favour of finding those verses (ten and five sucklings) and posting them for us.

Let's recap:

We noted that there are verses which are arguably not found in the Quran today even though Islamic sources (like the "sahih" [authentic] hadiths) tell us that such verses were actually once found among the revealed ones. The examples we have discussed above are -

       ¬  "The Missing Verse(s) of the Quran on Stoning"

       ¬  "The Cancelled Verse(s) of the Martyrs of Badr"

      ¬   "The Missing Verse(s) of the Quran on Suckling"

If it is established that any quranic verse at all for that matter which was revealed by 'Allah' cannot be found in the Quran, would you be arguing the same thing as Sabeel did - that the Quran was 'written in its entirety AND memorized in its entirety from the time it was revealed to our time'?? If you want to maintain that line of argument, then please first find those missing verses for us in the pages of the Quran you have today in its "entirety" - or tell us why we have such cases of missing and cancelled verses from you Quran of today.

Failing to see these points quite simply render the plagiarised arguments of Sabeel Ahmed redundant.

^^^
@experts,

Second then, we look at ¬ "The Cancelled Verse(s) of the Martyrs of Badr"

(a)

Hadith Bukhari: Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 59, Number 421:
Narrated Anas bin Malik :
The Prophet invoked evil upon those (people) who killed his companions at Bir Mauna for 30 days (in the morning prayer). He invoked evil upon (tribes of) Ril, Lihyan and Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and His Apostle. Allah revealed a Quranic Verse to His Prophet regarding those who had been killed, i.e. the Muslims killed at Bir Ma'una, and we recited the Verse till later it was cancelled. (The Verse was 'Inform our people that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and we are pleased with Him."

(b)

Hadith Bukhari: Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 59, Number 416:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
|| . . . . We used to read a verse of the Qur'an revealed in their connection, but later the verse was cancelled. It was: "convey to our people on our behalf the information that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and has made us pleased." (Anas bin Malik added Allah's Prophet said Qunut for one month in the morning prayer, invoking evil upon some of the 'Arab tribes (namely), Ril, Dhakwan, Usaiya, and Bani Libyan. (Anas added Those seventy Ansari men were killed at the well of Mauna.

(c)

Hadith Bukhari: Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 59, Number 417:
||. . . . Then Allah revealed to us a verse that was among the cancelled ones later on. It was: 'We have met our Lord and He is pleased with us and has made us pleased.' (After this event) the Prophet invoked evil on the infidels every morning for 30 days. He invoked evil upon the (tribes of) Ril, Dhakwan, Bani Lihyan and Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and His Apostle.

Please expert, could either you or Sabeel please tell us why the verse on the martyrs of the battle of Badr is nowhere to be found in the Quran which you argue for 'preservation' in its "entirety"? Yes, we understand that the verse in question was cancelled - but does that not speak volumes to the fact that what you have as the Quran today is not its touted "entirety" but rather a redaction at the behest of the third Caliph Uthman?

^^^
@experts,

(b)     So, from the hadith above in (a), it is possible that there were "disagreements" between the copyists, such that what came out as the final copy of the Quran was simply a matter of the 'ijma' ('concensus') of the 'mujtahid' ('islamic scholars') in Uthman's redaction committee. What the text itself said was not their primary concern of importance: rather, far more important to them was their own opinion as to how any verse should be written - if they "disagreed", then they chose rather to adopt what Uthman advised.

It is perhaps for that reason that we find a whole lot of 'disagreements' between the reciters of the quranic verses. For example, Sahih Bukhari Vol. 6, Bk 61, # 514 reveals one such among several of such disagreements between reciters - {"This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you)"}.

Not only were there such 'disagreements' in style of recitations, but also in content of those verses which are arguably not in the Quran. I don't know so many of such verses (still researching though); but here are a few that have featured in some discussions:

       ¬  "The Missing Verse(s) of the Quran on Stoning"

       ¬  "The Cancelled Verse(s) of the Martyrs of Badr"

       ¬   "The Missing Verse(s) of the Quran on Suckling"


So, first then with ¬ "The Missing Verse(s) of the Quran on Stoning"

Hadith Muslim: Sahih Muslim, Book 017, Number 4194:
'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.

I don't remember reading any verse in the Quran on stoning for adultery (it is possible that I might've missed it in my first reading); so a pertinent question to ask you (mr expert) here is this: Where is the verse on stoning in the Quran? Afterall, Umar b. Khattab claims that such a verse was revealed to Muhammad, the reciters indeed 'recited it, retained it in [their] memory and understood it' - so, why do we not find it in the Quran today?

^^^
@expert,

viaro:
We shall examine this point soon enough.

So, here we are to have a look. From Sabeel's arguments which you reposted:

experts:
Therefore, for any claimants to proclaim that their scripture is preserved in purity, they have to provide concrete evidence that the Scripture was written in its entirety AND memorized in its entirety from the time it was revealed to our time, in a continuous and unbroken chain.

Could you maintain that argument for the Quran - that it was:

             'written AND memorized in its entirety
              from the time it was revealed to our time,'?

Is that what the 'real evidence' from Islamic sources reveal to us in answer to that basic question? I don't think so - nada, zilch, nix.

Let's review some evidences from Islamic sources to the contrary in Sabeel's arguments:

FACT:  The Quran was not written and/or memorised in its entirety from the time it was 'revealed' to our time.

(a)    It is common knowledge that the third Caliph Uthman, after the redaction of the Quran, ordered all the other quranic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. This is attested in the hadith - Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 61, #510:

[list]. . . 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)'[/list]

One wonders why there should be any "disagreements" at all if all copies of the Quran were exactly the same in their entirety. Also, what are we to make of Said bin Thabit's statement that he had missed a verse when copying the Quran? Could it be possible that other verses were also missed that Muslim apologists are happy not to let the world know anything about?

@experts,
For now, let us understand that your concerns are NOT new on Nairaland. There is hardly any need to have answered to your reposting of that plagiarised argument here, especially where you made this claim in subsequent reply:

experts:
no, the Qur'an came to correct the corruption of the bible.

Actually, that is a fallacy. First, the Quran does not argue that the Bible is 'corrupt'; and more importantly in the second place, the Quran did not 'come' at any time to "correct" anything in the Bible or any other religious text for that matter! Instead, the Quran itself claims that it came to CONFIRM the Bible! Surprised? Don't be.

Your muslim claim about the Quran having come to 'correct' the Bible has been soundly debunked in another thread: 'Babs787, Where Did The Qur'an Say So?'. Any reader who's interested may find the discussion there quite illuminating - and you, expert in particular, may find some very pertinent 'corrections' there for your unfounded notions.

Not too long ago I started reading the Quran in English - and now that I've completed reading it, I can agree that there's not a single verse where Allah or Muhammad ever claimed that the Quran came to "correct" the Bible on any matter! Nada. Zilch. Nix. Not one verse ever. And in addition to the quranic verses given in the other thread above, let me post you some others to show that the Quran came to "CONFIRM" the Bible:

(1)

Quran 2 vs. 97 [Hilali-Khan tr.]
Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him): "Whoever is an enemy to Jibrael (Gabriel) (let him die in his fury), for indeed he has brought it (this Qur'an) down to your heart by Allah's Permission, confirming what came before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] and guidance and glad tidings for the believers.

(2)

Quran 3 vs. 3 [Hilali-Khan tr.]
It is He Who has sent down the Book (the Qur'an) to you (Muhammad SAW) with truth, confirming what came before it. And he sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel).

(3)

Quran 3 vs. 50 [Hilali-Khan tr.]
And I have come confirming that which was before me of the Taurat (Torah), and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a proof from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me.

(4)

Quran 4 vs. 47 [Hilali-Khan tr.]
O you who have been given the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Believe in what We have revealed (to Muhammad SAW) confirming what is (already) with you, before We efface faces (by making them like the back of necks; without nose, mouth, eyes, etc.) and turn them hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbathbreakers. And the Commandment of Allah is always executed.

(5)

Quran 5 vs. 46 [Yusuf Ali tr.]
And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God.

(6)

Quran 46 vs. 30, [Hilali-Khan tr,]
They said: "O our people! Verily! We have heard a Book (this Qur'an) sent down after Musa (Moses), confirming what came before it, it guides to the truth and to a Straight Path (i.e. Islam).

Eh, mr. experts, the question now is: where did the Quran say that it came to "correct" anything in the Bible? But hey, why do you Muslims like making claims from your dribbling apologists without first checking for yourselves whether your plagiarism makes sense or not?

Now, just in case I might have missed it in my first reading of your quran, please find any verse(s) anywhere in the quran showing that it was given to "correct" anything in the Bible - and then post it.

Aside from the Quran poorly plagiarising and then "CONFIRMING" the Bible, we find that there are other sources in Islamic history which indicate that the Quran in its present form has NOT been preserved 'in its entirety BOTH in writing AND in memory from the day of its revelation until our time'. We shall examine this point soon enough.

@experts,

Please next time kindly let us know that you are reposting a plagiarised material from other sources. The article in your OP is not original to you but is attributed to one 'Sabeel Ahmed'. Some of us have come across Sabeel's redundant argument which has been recycled in many Muslim websites (try either IslamAwareness or Falsafah for example).

However, while Sabeel may have been on the illusion that his article was watertight, problem is that he did not tell you guys some very important things that prove more than a challenge to his ideas. We shall see some of them.

experts:
There are hundreds of religions flourishing around the world: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Bahaism, Babism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, Jehovas Witnesses, Jainism, Confucianism etc. And each of these religions claim that their scripture is preserved from the day it was revealed (written) until our time.

Now, of all the religions mentioned above, does any one of them possess their scriptures in its entirety BOTH in writing AND in memory from the day of its revelation until our time.

Almost certainly not. We know that transcribing any document may involve certain problems with preservation, which again may affect other areas such as original manuscripts, translation difficulties and authenticity of content and style. These are very simple things to understand if you have any clue about literary or textual criticism. This fact holds true no matter the type or subject of the document - whether religious or non-religious documents.

Even so, the interesting thing here is that among all those religions you mentioned, Islam is not excluded (see it highlighted in the first quote above) - which tells us that your own religion Islam also suffers the same problems you see in others. Did you think about that before reposting Sabeel's misadventures here?

toba:
Muhammad himself admitted that he was possessed by a devil:

How are you, toba?

Well, that one is new on me. But be that as it may, I don't know what the OP was arguing that makes any sense. Let me spend some time playing with his recycled post and see how else to deal with his concerns.

manmustwac:
[quote author=viaro link=topic=417451.msg5764489#msg5764489 date=1269518784]Now that may make some sense. Although some atheists live without any sense of any Being looking down on their welfare, I've always wondered what the atheist thinks about life and death - such questions as the origin or life, the mystery of death, the realities that are beyond the ambit of naturalism and the materialistic worldviews, etc. But all those are discussions for another time.

good i'll be waiting for you to start the topic [/quote]Anytime anyone of you may so desire to start any such topics, viaro is game.

^^^

mantraa:
You dont need to love him or fear him.

Just as above - the same display of atheistic preaching to the choir.

You also dont need to fear the devil or the fictitious place called hell.

No, you may not feel the "need" to do so; but I seriously wonder why atheists have no answers to certain phenomena about supernatural realities. Ever heard of such a thing as atheists believing in things that atheism cannot explain - such as the existence of ghosts and spirits? This is not an argument about the meaning of ghosts and spirits; rather, more than that is the fact that there are atheists who believe in these things either through having experienced them or otherwise related to their realities. How do you as an atheist explain that without resorting to the typical atheistic "pat-answers"?

All you need to do is realise that so far as we understand all humans evolved from the same natural elements that are part of this universe that all life evolved from. There are no special chosen peoples. The sooner we all realise this, the better.

Interesting, that ^^^.  Please can you as an atheist tell us in plain language what is the origin of life? Forget the mantra about life evolving from natural elements blah-blah .[color=Black].[/color]. what I really want to know is where life came from as the basic foundation before all talk about evolving this and that: how does atheism explain the ORIGIN of life in the first place?

Then we can use our intelligence constructively and move forward towards more unity and a fairer, more peaceful world. We are already moving in the right direction.

Please wake up. The current century is no better than that last one that has seen the world far more disquieted than any other time in human history. What peaceful world has resulted from all the "constructive intelligences" that stood limp in the face of global disasters, political upheavals, natural catastrophes, as well social unrests around the world? The hard fact is that humanity with its acclaimed "constructive intelligence" cannot help itself when we're faced with tough issues that rub us hard in reality.

In my opinion, there is no god. We are here on our own.

That is your opinion - well articulated in just the same manner of the 18 reasons why people hold their own beliefs.

There are no supernatural deities observing, guiding or protecting us.

Speak for yourself rather than make sweeping statements. It is such kinds of atheist bragado assumptions that make us feel very sorry on the atheist's behalf - not so much that religious people are super-heroes (no, they're not), but rather that the atheist who makes such generalisations is piffling over matters that he or she has never investigated to an absolute point.

We are responsible for our own actions and our own destiny.

Most religious believers also affirm human responsibility in human action; but the atheist has first to tell us what he means by 'destiny' and what sense that word makes in atheism. You are better off being silent on concepts that atheism has no grounds to appeal to - just an observation.

However, If any one of the hundreds of 'omnipotent' gods decided to come down to earth and reveal himself to everyone i will be very happy to change my opinion. He/she could so easily put all religious arguments to rest in an instant.

Please don't humour yourself. Christianity articulates that request so very well - for Christ is the revelation of God. Has that changed your opinion? No - because you would not remain an atheist before posting the above. Your cliché is typical of Christopher Hitchens' non-starter - a perfect escape hatch he employs when his own arguments collapse right in front of his eyes. Try something else.

mantraa:
I do not believe in the existence of any of the gods being worshipped at present or in our history. There have literally been thousands that people spend their entire lives worshipping and praying to. If it brings you comfort and a purpose for your existence then that is all well and good for you.

This is all getting very interesting indeed. Perhaps again one may say the same about you as an atheist. Your choice to not believe in any gods is your choice - and you're expressing just about the same reasons from among the OP's "18 reasons" for your atheistic beliefs in much the same way that religious people hold their own beliefs. The connection here is the same: 'If it brings you comfort and a purpose for your existence then that is all well and good for you'.

You believe you have found the answer to how you got here on this planet earth and why you are here in this vast universe.

Have you as an atheist found any answers? Why does it really bother the typical atheist that other people find any answers for meaning of their existence at all, where in very fact the atheist often does not have any purpose or meaning to life and existence?

For me though, i truly think that there is much more to it than that and one day we will discover the truth.

Hehe .[color=Black].[/color]. pardon me, but I truly think that again is another classic atheist excuse. Please note that I'm not out against you in particular; but it strikes me that when the atheist is faced with ultimate questions about life and existence, it plays out in much the same pattern in their answers: forever thinking there's more than that and never able to point to anything concrete. 'One day we will discover the truth' - the 'truth' about what? Why is it that atheism has never ever tried to produce that 'truth' about ultimate questions of the origin and purpose of life and yet forever thinks [prophetically] that "one day" we will they will discover what they already are rejecting here and now? Anyways, I respect the fact that it was your opinion and remains yours.

Religion has served its purpose and now it is time for us all to move out of our infancy and accept that there are no gods.

If atheism denies any purpose to life and has no answers to the question of the origin of life and existence, what does it ever offer anybody? It rather seems that atheism is struggling with its own "infancy" about the classic denial of the existence of God, gods and the supernatural. In which case, it would behove the atheist to move out of his/her own infancy and accept that atheism has no answers to what it cannot explain. It is the simplest thing to deny anything, quite another world entirely to find answers to ultimate questions of reality.

You dont need to 'spread the word' or defend him.

No, the atheist does not need to "spread the word" to defend his/her own denials of the existence of God and the supernatural - and they do so (e.g., Atheist spread the word). Could you tell us why the atheist feels a "need" to engage in "spreading the word"? This all brings us back to the same observation made earlier: that the OP's 18 reasons for why people turn to or hold religious beliefs also apply to why atheists hold their own beliefs in much the same religious manner - so no biggy here.

You dont need to worship or pray to him.

You sound like the typical atheist preaching to the choir. The atheist does not need to worship or pray to God (or any god/gods) ^{i deeply wish Deep Sight was hanging around long enough to see this now} - but why do they (atheists) feel any need to campaign and preach about this in the first place? Perhaps the atheist needs first to turn inward and flag out against those "atheistic religions" that seem to escape the typical atheist's radar when it comes to real discussions, no?

As an asides, as a postscript to 'the typical atheist preaching to the choir', you may want to consider the new wave of atheists now being touted as 'atheist evangelists' (just search around: Dawkins, Hitchens, and a few others in the 'new atheism' bandwagon). However, not many atheists are impressed by the airy arguments of these 'atheists evangelists'. An example is Bruce Sheiman who makes a case for religion in his book, "An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion Than Without It" (Alpha Books) - see a review article at Zenit.

The typical atheist may feel the need to campaign that they dont need to worship or pray to God; but then, would that not be typically preaching to the choir?

manmustwac:
when you think about it the vast majority of the people on this planet are religious. I believe religion gives hope and the strengh to continue in this world of injustice and unfare tratment it is good for the believer to believe that there is someone looking down on them and that there is a better life after this one

Now that may make some sense. Although some atheists live without any sense of any Being looking down on their welfare, I've always wondered what the atheist thinks about life and death - such questions as the origin or life, the mystery of death, the realities that are beyond the ambit of naturalism and the materialistic worldviews, etc. But all those are discussions for another time.

mantraa:
I also do not believe in the existence of all the following gods.

No problem. Your non-belief is simply an excuse around the basic point here - that atheists hold on to their beliefs in the same way that religious people do. What you do not believe in does not negate the fact that you hold on to your beliefs in the same manner delineated in the OP's "18 convenient piddling" .[color=Black].[/color]. which prolly explains the conjecture in your next line:

Or maybe i am a believer in their non existence.

Another way of stating the obvious fact .[color=Black].[/color]. that your reasons for holding on to your own "beliefs" is no less religious as in the same manner that the OP identified earlier?

As a christian or a muslim or hindu etc. you probably share 99.9999% the same belief as me.

Tall dream. Since when have you become one who holds a belief identical to the point of 99.9999% as in Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism .[color=Black].[/color]. or any other worldview for that matter? Perhaps you need to identify your own 'belief' as in the clause {"the same belief"} before you come to the conclusion that Christians or Muslims or Hindus "share" {"the same belief"} as yours. Otherwise, what you have tried to argue is mere affirming the 18 convenient excuses for atheists holding their own beliefs in much the same way as do religious people - it is either that, or your argument is plain false.

'All of those other gods are man made, fictional, and definitely not real. Except for the one that i was indoctrinated into believing in'. Can you not see the irony that out of all the gods that you dont believe in.

No - there's no "irony" in your statement, for the Christian worldview does not dismiss "[a]ll of those other gods" out of hand as you want to believe for yourself. The fact is, the Christian worldview leaves open the question of people believing in whatever 'gods' they want to - it does not see them as "fictional" or assumes that they are "definitely not real".

In very fact, .[color=Black].[/color]. (a) while it remains that people may worship any such 'gods' [1 Cor. 8:5 - "though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)"], (b) the Christian worldview recognizes and affirms a very distinct Deity [1 Cor. 8:6 - "but to us there is but one God"].

The atheist may make up all sorts of "ironies" that don't even make sense within the atheistic matrix, but they only end up demonstrating the very fact that many atheistic arguments are ironically fallacious.

i just believe in one less than you.

If you're an atheist, then that's either a lie, or another demonstrable atheist convenient piddling (no offense). It does not matter anyhow how many less you may believe in - at least it is up to you to show us if you believe in ANY at all. So making this fluff about "I just believe" is rather comical - the atheist who makes appeal to such piffling had better look for another excuse. No, seriously.

Look at yourself in relation to the bigger picture of world religions. It is not possible for them all to be right.

True - but no one here is asking that they all have to be 'right'. The question is simply this: some dude came up with some "Top 18 reasons why people turn to, or hold religious beliefs" - and so far all we have seen is a case made for the inclusion of atheists who hold their own "beliefs" (whatever they may be) in much the same religious manner as do religious people. More to the point is that there is not one single atheism - we know there are DIFFERENT TYPES OF ATHEISM - and that is a testimony to the fact that not all atheists within all types of atheism can be "right", else there would be no need to have different types of atheism in the first place.

According to christians, all muslims are going to hell. according to muslims, and jews, all christians are going to hell.

And how does that pat-answer demonstrate your own convenient excuse for holding your own beliefs as an atheist? What any other adherent believes does not negate the fact that atheists also hold their beliefs in much the same way as do religious people - that is the issue here, not the concern of the atheists to excuse his own religiousity on other people's beliefs.

This is so silly that people are murdering people because of this. If would be funny if it wasnt so sad.

Yea, please find another excuse. Atheistic governments persecute and murder their own citizens without any help of Christian, Muslim, or Hindu beliefs - that is the most silly and ironically sad thing in all your efforts about what you "believe".

The question is: it's a matter of the OP's reasons for why people believe or hold unto their religious beliefs. The "18 reasons" he gives are just about the same reasons why atheists hold unto their own beliefs in much the same religious manner. And yes, if you do ask anyday, there are many atheists are very deeply "religious" - they may deny this, but at least we can start from those 'Atheistic Religions'.

Respects

Same here.

jagunlabi:
Is believing in a deity that necessary to be human and to experience?

I don't think that's the issue here in this thread. Perhaps I might've failed to see the connection, but who in this thread seems to have predicated the question of human existence on the necessity of believing in a deity? But that does not take anything away from the basics here, nor should we confuse between human existence and worldviews.

The belief in the existence of a god is way overrated.

In the same sense that you don't seem to be a non-believer in whatever 'deity' of sorts you believe in - is that way overrated as well?

InesQor:
@viaro: My guy, e don tey na! Good to read a post from you again. Kai! I have missed you and DeepSight's numerous cross-thread scuffles and banters!

@InesQor, I've really missed Nairaland the last few days - been so busy during the day that it's practically (almost) impossible to sit and post anything (blame most of it on 'work'), hehe!

Oh boy, see list! This mantraa of a person is a joker! LOL!!

True - and it does not surprise me that it all adds up to the very same thing we have seen about why atheists hold on to their beliefs in the same way that religious people do.

^^ haha .[color=Black].[/color]. colonel toba, viaro has been quite busy the last few days. I try to show online between times though. Hope you're doing good.

toneyb:
OK, so here's my Top 18 reasons why people turn to, or hold religious beliefs:

If one has to read your '18 reasons' objectively without colourations of any particular religion, it becomes obvious that some of those 'reasons' apply to why some hold on to their atheism in the same religious manner that you see in others. Here are some:

toneyb:
-  Promise of personal comfort or some promise of being special and different from others.

Also true of many atheists whose atheism gives them some sort of 'personal comfort', an euphoria of 'being special' where they see themselves as 'different from others'. It only needs to be expounded to see the connection:

(a)  'personal comfort' - we know some atheists who have asserted that so-and-so
        (e.g. Darwinism) makes their atheism 'intellectually satisfying'; other atheists
        also feel this 'personal comfort' for one reason or another for their atheism.

(b)  'being special' - you only have to look around (on the net, for instance) to see
        how many atheists go about claiming they are the 'brights' - it gives them that
        air of being special - and they brag about it being so.

(c)   'different from others' - without much effort, it is easy to see how many atheists
        regard themselves as different from others ('others' most certainly meaning those
        who have any religious belief(s)). By extension, the very fact that there are even
        different types of atheism recognized by atheists themselves is a testimony to
        the fact that atheists are indeed 'different from others'.

I use just that as an example; but, of course, one could take each and every one of your '18 reaons' and expound upon them to show that just about the same thing appears in atheism. Which is interesting - because it would boil down to just one thing: someone else might then be able to see the same thing and understand that your reasons could be used in a sensible way to show "Why ATHEISTS Believe Or Hold Unto Their Religiously Atheistic Beliefs".

But let's run through a few other examples in your '18 reasons' -

-  Desire for fellowship with others (a social outlet).

Isn't it obvious that atheists desire some sort of "fellowship with others" in the same sense of the 'social outlet'? One doesn't have to look too hard to find quite a number of such 'atheist fellowship(s)' - like the example of the 'New Jersey Atheist Fellowship' (NJAF). Could we as well say that fits into one other 'reason' why atheists hold unto their beliefs in much the same way as you assume for just religious people?

-  A sense of belonging.

-  A sense of community.

Actually, those are no different from the previous 'reasons'. A sense of either "belonging" or "community" is why atheists seek "fellowship" in the first place - in which case you're only making a case for atheism being one of those "religions" you're trying to identify by your so-called "18 reasons". Not only so, but you will find that atheists themselves are constantly seeking this sense of belonging and/or community, such as the example in this Atheist Community of Austin.

-  Emotional dissatisfaction.

It depends on what you mean. However, taken at face value, I know of quite a lot of atheists who hold on to their atheist beliefs on account of their own emotional dissatisfaction (ED).

It is this point of ED in your '18 reasons' that sort of gives me the idea that some of your points were ferreted from a few other sources rather than your own ideas. An example of such a source would be "Atheist Deconversion" by Brian Holtz, where most of your points also have been listed, including:

        -  Personal misfortune such as disability, injury, illness,
           or the misfortune of a loved one. (crutch syndrome).

         -  Personal failure or crisis related to substance abuse,
            gambling, guilty conscience, imprisonment, etc.

        -  Personal dissatisfaction with one’s social, romantic, or
           vocational circumstances.

        -  Desire to reform one's morality or behavior.

        -  Desire for hope in divine reward.

        -  Personal injustice or victim-hood.

But, of course, it could possibly have been from another source - nonetheless, it does not appear to be your own original idea. Yet, both the ED (emotional dissatisfaction) and the above listed are just the same things that one could find among many atheists, rather than being something unique with religious people or their beliefs.

(ps: Brian Holtz expands the ED as 'emotional dissatisfaction with the logical implications of atheism' - and that is one of my favourite subjects to deal with when discussing with the bragado atheist).

-  Feelings of guilt or shame (the slick time-worn tools of Christianity and Islam).

I reckon that is one of the tools of some atheist who feel that their atheism has no leg to stand on unless they hang their own feelings of shame and guilt on any religious worldview they find uncomfortable. The propaganda here is very slick indeed, for many atheist take the default position on these things as if the only thing associated with any religious view is a sense of 'guilt/shame' and atheism and atheists do not have any such experiences. At best, the atheist who appeals to that piffle is, IMO, demonstrating his/her own sense of guilt and shame (for whatever reason) but looking to hang such on 'religion'.

-  Non thinking, or a laziness in thinking, including a love for pat-answers.

This is truly my favourite among the 'reasons' why atheists hold on to their atheistic beliefs. The sheer laziness in thinking and the ready-made pat-answers which atheists spew on very important questions are quite a comic, no offence. Even without the question of a belief in the existence of God and the supernatural, what has atheism actually contributed to the world? It is one thing to ridicule belief systems that you do not hold or subscribe to; but quite another thing when you actually have absolutely no answers or the slightest clue what an atheist wants to argue about, especially in the next point:

-  The complexity of the Universe.

And what is the atheist's answer? At least, many who are religious try to reason out issues on the complexity of the universe where thinkers are expected to be serious and astute. I would have to sit with a heavy dose of patience and sense of humour to see the pat-answers often proffered by atheists on questions about the universe and the origin of life.

-  And NUMBER ONE: It just happens to be the religion that you were raised, indoctrinated, conditioned and brainwashed with to accept and follow right from childhood.

This is the number one ATHEIST LIE.

Dude, many people who were never raised in some particular religion grow up to become adherents of some other religions. The same applies to atheists who were raised in Christian homes but grew up to become atheists rather than Christian. Same also in the case where some grew up in atheist homes to become Christians.

The idea that "it just happens to be the religion in which someone was raised" is simply a redundant lie. Please find a way to etiolate that lie from your list of 18 convenient piddling.

Mudley313:
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings, "

(1) Who were those 'Christian chroniclers'?

(2) What are the "all Christian teachings" that Emperor Theodosius follow?

chakula:
Heavenly Abode
5 "Moses and Muhummed both lie buried on earth, but according to you,
Jesus rests in heaven. Is this true?": "Therefore
Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses."

No, that is not true. We know that even though Moses was buried on earth and nobody knows his sepulchre (Deut. 34:6), the man Moses himself does not lie in the dust of the earth. Why? because the same Moses was seen at the mount of Transfiguration in Matthew 17:3 - "And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him". In the same way, after His resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples (Mark 16:14).

Please tell me: where did Muhammad ever appear to any of his followers in Islam?

chakula:
Marriage Ties
(3) "Moses and Muhummed married and begat children, but Jesus remained
a bachelor all his life.is this true?
"Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses."

If marrying and begetting children is the criteria for judging that Muhammad was like Moses, there are many other prophets who fitted the description far better than Muhammad.

For instance, Moses had two wives (some believe and interpret as three wives) - unlike Muhammad who had more than 20 wives. Is there a similarity there? Not only so, Moses' wives were not possessed from others - unlike Muhammad's case of having a very young girl (of 9 years old) as his fav wife, besides taking other people's wives as his own . . . how was Muhammad then like unto Moses?

chakula:
How they Departed
4 "Both Moses and Muhummed died natural deaths, but according to
Christianity, Jesus was violently killed on the cross. Is this true?"
Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but
Muhummed is like Moses."

There are many prophets who are like unto Moses as far as 'natural deaths' are concerned - so Muhammad dying a 'natural death' does not satisfy the criteria of being like unto Moses.

As far as we know, Muhammad died from pains he suffered from eating poisoned meat from a Jewess, which is not what happened to Moses. According to the "authentic" hadiths (that is, SAHIH hadith) of Bukhari, there are allusions to this fact of how Muhammad died:

[list]What happened ~~
(a)  Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 3, Bk 47, Num. 786:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet
who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was
asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see
the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's
Apostle .[/list]

[list]What resulted from that poisoning ~~
(b)  Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5, Bk 59, Num. 713
'Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died,
used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food
I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being
cut from that poison."[/list]

From hadith quoted at (a) above, we know that the poison seriously affected Muhammad; and from hadith (b) above, even Aisha narrated how Muhammad used to experience the pain from the poisoning (remember: "the prophet in his ailment in which he died".

This shows that Muhammad's death was very unlike the death of Moses - for Moses was not poisoned by an Arab, nor by a Jewess: and he lived to see the ripe age of one hundred and twenty (Deut. 34:7), whereas Muhammad died a painful death at 63 years old - just about half the age of Moses .  . . what similarity do you see in that?