Infallibility No guard Against Stupidity

abcd writes <<< ..... WHAT IF the Quran was NOT transmitted to Muhammad by ``God``? WHAT IF he made it all up? >>>

Some people are just so pathetically ignorant that they read something clearbut just don`t get it. Like I said in those various posts the proof is in the message not the messenger, so if you have to find fault with Islam try to disprove the message and not use Ad Hominem against the messenger. What does that tell your dimwit mind?

#215 by masadi


[The Quran never asks you to obey person y, it always asks you to obey the ``rasool``- messenger and it explicity makes clear what the duty of the messenger was ``maa aler rasoole illa balagh``- there is NOTHING for the messenger except to convey the message. Nowhere does the Quran present the doings of the prophet as proof of the validity of the message and it states clearly where the proof is, in the book]

So the Quran is sacrosanct. Because it is a message from God. And Muhammad is merely the messenger.

Impressively rock-solid logic. No holes or nothing.


Ummm...er...ummmm ..... WHAT IF the Quran was NOT transmitted to Muhammad by ``God``? WHAT IF he made it all up? WHAT IF he borrowed liberally from the existing religious books of that area at that time? The Old and the New Testaments? And threw in some more stuff that suited him whenever required?


Ever think of that? Eh? Masadi Genius?

“In the beginning was the logos [literally, “the word”; loosely, Reason], and the logos is God.”

This is really the same as saying that the word ``islam`` and ``salaam`` both have the same root which means peace. Therefore, Islam is a peaceful religion. This kind of bullshit only appeals to madrassah students and choir boys, not to reasonable people carrying more than a gram of brain.


I read the whole speech too. The attack on Mohammad came early, and quite gratuitiously, and I am quite convinced that the Pope did that to spark exactly the kind of reaction that it did. Because now he can point his finger and say oh...look ...I was right all along. I for one have nothing but utter contempt and hate for all those who wear the cloak and claim to have greater proximity to the divine than the common man; let alone those jerks who make it their profession to do so. Joseph Ratzinger is the worst of that sort, in that he just doesn`t use this whole canard to live a life of luxury; he actually uses it to incite wars and hatred, all the while with despicable shamelessness, claiming the mantle of the very tradition which the Catholic church has relentlessly opposed.

Masadi:

``The Quran never asks you to obey person y, it always asks you to obey the ``rasool``- messenger and it explicity makes clear what the duty of the messenger was ``maa aler rasoole illa balagh``- there is NOTHING for the messenger except to convey the message. Nowhere does the Quran present the doings of the prophet as proof of the validity of the message and it states clearly where the proof is, in the book ``

.................................


you are a pathetic hypocrite, you have similar ideas about the prophet as does the pope yet you criticize him and fail to criticize others that have done the same while pointing to the validity of Ad Hominem in attacking Islam, which proves that you are not only a hypocrite but a damn fool.
[Reply to interact #215]``


So if I say Mohammad can go screw himself, it should not matter to you. After all, it`s not the messenger that is important but the message.

1. ``there is NOTHING for the messenger except to convey the message.``

2. ``you have similar ideas about the prophet as does the pope``

Does one not make two irrelevant?

#248 by sattar2

I see. So you mean the Israelis razing Palestinian fighters` homes and farms with bulldozers and sending their families with no shelter under the elements are actually ` low-life and wimps`? Please answer this and we will continue.

zeemax (#237),

I am not asking you to walk away. If someone wrongs you, and you cannot forgive, settle the score with HIM, and not with his 1-year old daughter.

But if you do decide to kill this 1-year-old, YOU are the low-life and the wimp I mentioned earlier.

re bjkumar #236

``I think that the Krauthammer makes eminent sense. He also conveys his facts in a rational and cool manner. That is why he is rtead by millions across the USA.
You have not disputed a single fact he quoted in the article in #234.``

I have no quarrel with the any facts that he might have quoted. It is the spin on those facts that I think betray his very prejudiced nature. If I didn`t have masadi on my hands at the moment (and the idiotic cretin at my heels :)) ) I might bother with a rational repudiation of Krauthammer`s article.

And, by the way, the fact that he is read my millions across the USA really counts for nothing.

masadi:
Actually, after re-reading your last post, I have a couple of questions:

Intersting to hear that Rasool is a function, and that it means ``being verbatim delivery of the message without addition, deletion interpretation or self-invention``. What I`d like to know is:

(a) where exactly in the Qur`an (not anywhere else, since that could just be a post hoc convenience) it is ``explained very clearly`` as being the above,

(b) where, if anywhere else in the Qur`an, the word rasool is used in precisely this sense, as opposed to referring to the Prophet Mohammed himself.

(Verse 4:80 of course, is not helpful as it could be interpreted both ways.)

(c) what word, if any, is used in the Qur`an to refer to the Prophet Muhammed himself, as opposed to `rasool` in the sense you have mentioned.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Plus he is shallow above all.

#242 by bjkumar

BJ,

You should see the debate between Krauthammer and James Galloway on Katrina on his site. He blew him away and everyone was laughing at Krauthammer. Krauthammer is a bigot and just plain stupid.

PM, 241

This one is worth a second

laughing my ass off

...and farting while scratching it...never mind that everyone is watching.

#236

I think that the Krauthammer makes eminent sense. He also conveys his facts in a rational and cool manner. That is why he is rtead by millions across the USA.

You have not disputed a single fact he quoted in the article in #234.

Godidiot`s post is worth a second re-run:

LMAO!!!!

#225 Godot:
[[I am not “Bapu.” PM cannot be shamed. His only tactic is to immediately resort to profanities and insults. He’s one shameless chootya who is too busy scratching himself. He just beats around the bush, letting out air from his ass while scratching himself. ]]


Keep the whiny posts comin`, cretin.. at least they provide comic relief to an otherwise academic board.

---

masadi: You will get back to me on which of the logical outcomes of the ayat you favour, won`t ya? Or, of course, you could always take the godidiotic route and continue whining about how I only curse, swear and throw profanities when someone challenges me logically.

Which reminds me: Would you aver cretin`s assinine statement about Isalm making all men equal in God`s eyes? C`mon, you`re many things, but not really and idiotic cretin, so I expect you`ll do better.

PM, 237

laughing my ass off

...and farting while scratching it...never mind that everyone is watching.

#233 by sattar2

Wait a minute ... you say ``if a person has an issue with you, and decides to hurt your wife and kids, would that seem fair to you? Such a person is a wimp, a worthless coward, a low-life.``

Exactly. So you are saying that I should tell that that person he`s a wimp, a worthless coward, a low-life .... so there! Thumb my nose at him and walk away?

No my friend but thanks for your advice. You do that. I would rather make sure to hurt him and whatever and whomever he cherishes real bad ...

mullah masadi: re. #222

Thanks for unwittingly proving my point, to which I`ll get in a minute. But first, let`s address this queer habit that you`ve probably picked up from Godiot, of ignoring the logical argument of my case by referencing my innocuous labelling. And yes, unless you take the term `mullah` as derogatory, it really is innocuous. But it`s all right, I understand. Whinig is the last refuge of the logically defeated.

``Very good that you`ve reverted to labels like Mullah because you have nothing to counter any of my arguments, it is actually quite pathetic even behram does better than what you have managed to put up.``

Actually, you two-bit snake-oil dealer, (there, is that a more descriptive label now?), if you refer to my post adressed to you, I have put up a very logical, rational prepudition of your position. Oddly enough, you spend the rest of your post attempting to counter that very edifice, an attempt that I shall, now, once and for all put to rest.

You write: ``Allah is a personality, a proper name for God, Rasool is a function which is explained very clearly as being verbatim delivery of the message without addition, deletion interpretation or self-invention. Now read 4:80 which tells you explicity that follwing the rasool is identical with following Allah``:

Snake-oil dealer, I have no need to read anything else that the Qur`an says unless it is going to inform one the ayat we are debating. And 4:80 does not do so. If anything, it confuses the issue, leading to a seeming contradiction. Allow me to point out what should be obvious to any unblinkered reader:

As you say, ``The source of Islam is just the Quran, the revelation of God, not the God and the prophet, not two Gods just ONE God, therefore ``Muslims`` become idolators when they associate other words attributed by hook or by crook to the messenger, completely alien to the Quran, regardless of what they call them.``

If I didn`t know better --and acutally, i don`t!-- I`d say that that last bit about ``words attributed by hook or by crook to the messenger`` is a classic red herring. Mullah sahib, I have not attributed ANY words to the messenger. I have ONLY taken one little ayat from the Qur`an, gone with your favoured choice of word (``rasool``) and attempted to show why you are wrong in what you contend. Maybe I was not lucid enough, given the weight of yout blinkers. Thanks to further clarification of terminology from you now, I can try from a different angle:

First, your quoting any ayat on how Muslims may not associate anyone/anything with God is hardly proof that the ayat: ``Obey Allah and his Messenger`` cannot possibly be exhorting people to follow the Prophet himself (as opposed to the Quran). So far I am arguing only only the logical plane. The only way reason you state that the ayat cannot be itnerpreted as is most obvious is that you believe that the the Qur`an cannot contradict itself. That, however, is far from etablished, mullah masaadi. You are merely begging the question (heard of that fallacy?) in your argument above.

Now, the only way in which one could actually accept your argument that the ayat does not call for following of the MAN Muhammed in addition to the message he transmitted, is by accepting that Allah is given to rhetorical redunancy. I have already pointed this out, but I can understand why you have difficulties, so here it is again:

Obey Allah and His Messenger -- (the Qur`an) -- (1)

Now, as per your own statement, Allah`s will is revealed only though the Quran, or, in the context above,
Allah = the Qur`an

---

(2)

Substituting (2) in (1), we get:

OBEY THE QURAN and the Messenger -- (3)

Now, as per your statement, obeying the Messenger = obeying the Message, i.e, the Quran -- (4)

Substituting (4) into (3), we get:

OBEY THE QURAN AND THE QURAN

Now, this opens up two possibilities:

(i) This interpretation is correct, and Allah is given to redundancy in what is deemed to be the most sublime literature. (astagfirullah!!)

(ii) This interpretation is wrong, and the Quran does indeed exhort followers to obey the Man. (Of course, this would lead to an internal inconsistency, as you point out, unwttingly, leading to a call to idolatory)

I suppose which interpretion you fidn more plausible comes down to what it is you want or need to believe to maintain some psychological equliibrium.

There are some other possibilities that we will not conisder because we believe your mind is not ready for them.

``Finally don`t try to teach me what Islam or the Quran is, I have a decent understanding of it.``

Oh, I wouldn`t begin to teach you what Islam or the Qur`an is, mullah sahib. I know very little of either. What I do know, however, is how to recognize BS in logical arguments when i see it, from wherever quarters they might come. If that helps you better understand Islam and the Qur`an, how can that be a bad thing for you?