Muslim delusions

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Oct 14, 2010 at 07:18

Our dear Clyde is back for more

>I have presented my proof -

Really? Where? Oh the pathetic "golden arches" argument?

>YOU, on the other hand, have presented NOTHING -

Because i do not have to and for the Nth time it is you and not us kuffar that has to provide us with the proof

>you are so embarrassed of your ethnic heritage,

What does this have to do with the fact that you will not find the name of Jerusalem in the Qur'an but let me introduce myself: I'm a kafir ibn kafir!

>yo have NOT spoken of it. You are so forgetful ,

Oh the word is out I'm a kafir ibn kafir

>you keep rambling over and over - ...

Then prove me wrong

>- quit dwelling on the past. ...

Hello: the study of history is a study of the past or did you forget mr Einstein?

>You have been reading to many fairy tales - you are beginning to believe them.

Here we go again: It is you that have to provide the evidence mr Einstein all we can do kuffar is to poke holes in your bogus arguments as I did and you claims indeed fell apart so here we go again and these are the holes in your bogus argument

1. If you read Q17:1 in Arabic you will not find the following

You will not find the name of Jerusalem

You will not find the name of the subject of such aya or Muhammad

You will not find anything about what is really al-masjad al-aqsa or al-masjad al-haram

And here is your bonus and you will not find anything about this bogus al-buraq that your Allah used to transport your so called prophet

So we are left with a Quranic allusion that means nothing and leads to no where

2. So we have to turn to the builder of this so called Mosque and he is Abd al-Malik from the Umayyads clan. And surprise surprise we have EXTANT inscriptions but you will not find the following

hadha al-masjad inahu al-masjad al-aqsa fi ayat al-israa or this is the aqsa mosque that you will find in the Israa verse

So how come Abd al-Malik that built such so called mosque some 72 years (692CE) after the death of Muhammad and when the memories were still fresh had no clue that this is the Quranic al-masjad al-aqsa any guesses?

And here is your bonus for today the so called al-Masjad al-aqsa is really a Byzantine church as the Umayyads were really Christian Arabs who followed the old pre-Nicene Syrian Christianity and did not follow the Nicaea's Trinity and only believed that Jesus was a prophet but he was also

MHMD ABD ALLH or Muhammadan 3abd Allah or the blessed (read this as Jesus) the servant of Allah

And you find such inscription in that so called mosque

For the readers: In pre-Nicene Arab-Syrian Chrsitanity (see Luexenberg) the temple mount was the place where Jesus was crucified and was buried and then resurected and this is why Abd al-malik selected such site and it seems that it was his cultic site and he hoped that it would be the destination of al-hajj

3. If we turn to non Muslim sources about such fable we will find a similar story in the Zoroastrian literature called "Arta Viraf" Buraq and all and do you know what this means? It means that the authors of the Qur'an plagiarized such story like they did with the story of Iskanadr dhul Qaranain and qissat ahl al-kahf! So much for plagiarism

4. Now if we turn to al-tafseer from the likes of al-Tabari and Muqatil and Ibn Abbas the so called cousin of your so called prophet and this is as ealry as we can get they had no clue that is really al-masjad al-aqsa or al-masjad al-haram and none of them say that al-masjad al-aqsa is to be found in Jerusalem so how do you explain that? and the link was made in the 11th century CE or some 500 long years after the death of your so called prophet so what took them so long any guesses?

5. Oh the "golden arches" argument? you must pardon me but it is a stupid argument

Now prove me wrong!

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".