Muzzies are pedos

[absolutely not dino]

That's what I'm wondering on the google doc too, I don't find it to be credible because the doc sounds like it was made by a hadith rejector

hes non sectarian not sunni, but hes not a quranist either so im pretty sure he just rejects any hadith he doesnt like

 

[Klitty]

That's what I'm wondering on the google doc too, I don't find it to be credible because the doc sounds like it was made by a hadith rejector

Marge what google doc

 

[absolutely not dino]

Marge what google doc

warrior z has a whole cope doc explaining how aisha was 18
mind you he adds blatant lies across it multiple times and relies on weak narrations for example
"bukhari relied on personal assumptions" false
"author of mishkat al masabih is the author of a book called kamal and says aisha is 18" false
"tabari says she was born before islam" relies on weak isnad and tabari states multiple times she was 6-7

 

[Klitty]

warrior z has a whole cope doc explaining how aisha was 18
mind you he adds blatant lies across it multiple times and relies on weak narrations for example
"bukhari relied on personal assumptions" false
"author of mishkat al masabih is the author of a book called kamal and says aisha is 18" false
"tabari says she was born before islam" relies on weak isnad and tabari states multiple times she was 6-7

geg what did he post it on /pol/ or something

 

[absolutely not dino]

kek what did he post it on /pol/ or something

he made it a long time ago and posts it whenever somebody calls out the fact that muhammed consummated the marriage with aisha when she was 9

 

[SNCAposter]

stop stealing my /pol/ posts you fucking bigot

You made the /pol/ thread?

 

[Warrior-Z]

warrior z has a whole cope doc explaining how aisha was 18
mind you he adds blatant lies across it multiple times and relies on weak narrations for example
"bukhari relied on personal assumptions" false
"author of mishkat al masabih is the author of a book called kamal and says aisha is 18" false
"tabari says she was born before islam" relies on weak isnad and tabari states multiple times she was 6-7

Notice how he ducked last time I asked him for the full argument?
Dino post the full arg and stop ducking dummy.

 

[absolutely not dino]

Notice how he ducked last time I asked him for the full argument?
Dino post the full arg and stop ducking dummy.

im going to evade your question for 30 days just like you did lol

 

[worldatwar]

water

 

[Warrior-Z]

im going to evade your question for 30 days just like you did lol

Sure, son. I'll wait patiently.
You waited for me to be done with Champion-X, now I will wait for you to stop ducking.

 

[modderola]

Notice how he ducked last time I asked him for the full argument?
Dino post the full arg and stop ducking dummy.

Didn't he post the full argument here?

 

[absolutely not dino]

Didn't he post the full argument here?

not the full argument just pointing out stupid raisin thats on the doc

 

[modderola]

not the full argument just pointing out stupid shit thats on the doc

Dew it then

 

[absolutely not dino]

Dew it then

For starters, warrior zs doc has a pretty big lack of sources so i had to look every single claim up and find where it came from.
At the beginning of the doc he starts saying that "bukhari is not the word of God", which is irrelevant, because the fact that something isn’t stated in the Quran, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, or that the statement is unreliable, the Quran is meant to be a book of divine guidance, not a biography or the prophets sayings and doings, that’s what the Hadith is for.
There are dozens of things not stated in the Quran, that are stated in the Hadith, Biographies and History Books, in fact 90% of his arguments are not from statements in the Quran.
He compares Bukhari, a book that is deemed as highly reliable and even second to the Quran by 85-90% of the Muslim population, to the ‘Gospel of Barnabas’, a 16th century forgery.
He misinterprets Bukharis methodology
"Imam Bukhari rejected 99 % of what he collected and called it pure lies and fabrication and accepted only 1 %."
Which just goes to show how strict and careful he was with the narrations that were included on his book, in addition, Bukhari did not call everything he rejected a "fabrication", certainly there must have been several lies amongst the hadith he rejected, but many of the ones he rejected simply did not hold up to his standards
He claims that "his criterion of assuming a hadith right or wrong were personal assumptions"
Ignoring that Bukhari had very rigorous methods of Isnad verification, why would he think that the book is deemed as second to the Quran by 85% of Muslims? Because bukhari would just “assume” who/what was trustworthy, and what/who wasn't?
if he did the most basic research he would find out that Bukhari's work was, in fact, not based off “Personal Assumptions” and this applies to all of the collections of Hadith in and outside of the six books, some might not be as reliable as others as their methods of verification may vary on strictness, but the authors definitely did not simply “assume” what was a lie and what wasn’t, they would often rely on early biographies of narrators at the time
While no human work is without its limits, Bukhari’s careful approach set a standard of reliability that few hadith compilers have ever matched
On top of that, this whole section is solely dedicated to Bukhari, but he doesnt criticise the other books which state Aishas age, such as Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan An Nasai, Sunan Ibn Majah and many others

 

[Victorio]

I honestly don't even think Muhammad was a pedophile. By this I mean I don't think he was specifically attracted to children. He really would just fuck anything that moves

 

[Warrior-Z]

For starters, warrior zs doc has a pretty big lack of sources so i had to look every single claim up and find where it came from.
At the beginning of the doc he starts saying that "bukhari is not the word of God", which is irrelevant, because the fact that something isn’t stated in the Quran, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, or that the statement is unreliable, the Quran is meant to be a book of divine guidance, not a biography or the prophets sayings and doings, that’s what the Hadith is for.
There are dozens of things not stated in the Quran, that are stated in the Hadith, Biographies and History Books, in fact 90% of his arguments are not from statements in the Quran.
He compares Bukhari, a book that is deemed as highly reliable and even second to the Quran by 85-90% of the Muslim population, to the ‘Gospel of Barnabas’, a 16th century forgery.
He misinterprets Bukharis methodology
"Imam Bukhari rejected 99 % of what he collected and called it pure lies and fabrication and accepted only 1 %."
Which just goes to show how strict and careful he was with the narrations that were included on his book, in addition, Bukhari did not call everything he rejected a "fabrication", certainly there must have been several lies amongst the hadith he rejected, but many of the ones he rejected simply did not hold up to his standards
He claims that "his criterion of assuming a hadith right or wrong were personal assumptions"
Ignoring that Bukhari had very rigorous methods of Isnad verification, why would he think that the book is deemed as second to the Quran by 85% of Muslims? Because bukhari would just “assume” who/what was trustworthy, and what/who wasn't?
if he did the most basic research he would find out that Bukhari's work was, in fact, not based off “Personal Assumptions” and this applies to all of the collections of Hadith in and outside of the six books, some might not be as reliable as others as their methods of verification may vary on strictness, but the authors definitely did not simply “assume” what was a lie and what wasn’t, they would often rely on early biographies of narrators at the time
While no human work is without its limits, Bukhari’s careful approach set a standard of reliability that few hadith compilers have ever matched
On top of that, this whole section is solely dedicated to Bukhari, but he doesnt criticise the other books which state Aishas age, such as Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan An Nasai, Sunan Ibn Majah and many others

Is this the full argument? That's pretty funny.

 

[Garf]

Is this the full argument? That's pretty funny.
View attachment 40731

brap^

 

[LesothoSoldier1488]

For starters, warrior zs doc has a pretty big lack of sources so i had to look every single claim up and find where it came from.
At the beginning of the doc he starts saying that "bukhari is not the word of God", which is irrelevant, because the fact that something isn’t stated in the Quran, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, or that the statement is unreliable, the Quran is meant to be a book of divine guidance, not a biography or the prophets sayings and doings, that’s what the Hadith is for.
There are dozens of things not stated in the Quran, that are stated in the Hadith, Biographies and History Books, in fact 90% of his arguments are not from statements in the Quran.
He compares Bukhari, a book that is deemed as highly reliable and even second to the Quran by 85-90% of the Muslim population, to the ‘Gospel of Barnabas’, a 16th century forgery.
He misinterprets Bukharis methodology
"Imam Bukhari rejected 99 % of what he collected and called it pure lies and fabrication and accepted only 1 %."
Which just goes to show how strict and careful he was with the narrations that were included on his book, in addition, Bukhari did not call everything he rejected a "fabrication", certainly there must have been several lies amongst the hadith he rejected, but many of the ones he rejected simply did not hold up to his standards
He claims that "his criterion of assuming a hadith right or wrong were personal assumptions"
Ignoring that Bukhari had very rigorous methods of Isnad verification, why would he think that the book is deemed as second to the Quran by 85% of Muslims? Because bukhari would just “assume” who/what was trustworthy, and what/who wasn't?
if he did the most basic research he would find out that Bukhari's work was, in fact, not based off “Personal Assumptions” and this applies to all of the collections of Hadith in and outside of the six books, some might not be as reliable as others as their methods of verification may vary on strictness, but the authors definitely did not simply “assume” what was a lie and what wasn’t, they would often rely on early biographies of narrators at the time
While no human work is without its limits, Bukhari’s careful approach set a standard of reliability that few hadith compilers have ever matched
On top of that, this whole section is solely dedicated to Bukhari, but he doesnt criticise the other books which state Aishas age, such as Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan An Nasai, Sunan Ibn Majah and many others

Is this that 8 hour research you made?

 

[Sloppyjakky`]

 

[LesothoSoldier1488]

View attachment 40733