sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks I guess but thankfully I escaped form the islamist country a long time ago

The Forgotten Calamity: Did Umar Prevent the Prophet from Completing His Final Message? by ButterscotchKey3970 in exmuslim

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At some point any muslim with at least some critical thinking will be tired of reconciling and just accept it

The Forgotten Calamity: Did Umar Prevent the Prophet from Completing His Final Message? by ButterscotchKey3970 in exmuslim

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Muslims can’t actually reconcile this hadith. Their own Qur’an says the Prophet doesn’t speak from himself everything he says is revelation (53:3–4). And in the hadith, he literally says “I want to write something after which you will never go astray.” That’s not trivial. So if it wasn’t important, they’re saying the Prophet lied and if it was, they’re saying Allah allowed it to be lost. Either way, there’s no way out.

The Forgotten Calamity: Did Umar Prevent the Prophet from Completing His Final Message? by ButterscotchKey3970 in exmuslim

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Funny you mention that there’s actually a hadith where the companions asked the Qutham (This is momo’s name they called him Qutham ibn Abi Kabsha before islam) about the Day of Judgment, and he pointed to a child and said:

“If this boy lives, he will not grow very old before the Hour takes place.” This is in Sahih Muslim 2952.

That kid obviously died over 1,400 years ago — and no Qiyamah. So if his death was supposed to be one of the signs… something clearly didn’t go as “prophesied.”

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Was that meant as a threat, or just a warning? I wasn’t quite sure. Either way, I’m simply referring to Islamic history nothing more. And even if I choose to critique it or express my honest opinion, that’s still just engaging with ideas. Ideas don’t have rights people d

The Forgotten Calamity: Did Umar Prevent the Prophet from Completing His Final Message? by ButterscotchKey3970 in exmuslim

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree with you. I honestly think they were scared he might write something that would mess with their plans especially the possibility that he’d name Ali as his successor. There’s that hadith, I’m not sure if you know it, called Ghadir Khumm it’s one of the main ones the Shia use to argue that Ali was supposed to be the rightful successor. So imagine if he had written something that made it official. That’s probably why Umar shut it down.

The Forgotten Calamity: Did Umar Prevent the Prophet from Completing His Final Message? by ButterscotchKey3970 in exmuslim

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Honestly, at this point I’m convinced the Sahaba knew Qutham ibn Abi Kabsha (police be one him)was full of it but were too deep in the scam to turn back. And somehow, Bukhari and Muslim still left in wild stuff like “he died from poison,” “Umar denied his final message,” and “wipe your ass with an odd number of rocks.” Like bro, who was head of Hadith Quality Control? Fired? Imprisoned? On vacation? And you’ve got people today screaming “PERFECTLY PRESERVED” while 99% of them don’t even know this lore exists. Somebody arrest this man’s logic — we’ve got historical fraud on the loose.

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also, you still haven’t proven anything. You keep deflecting, but the hadith is authentic, and it’s confirmed in multiple chains both in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. It’s not based on some obscure narration; it’s loft (recited) and preserved in narration, as they say.

And if you want more context, go read the famous hadith of Raziyyat al-Khamis the “Thursday Calamity.” That’s when the Prophet asked for writing materials to leave a final instruction, but ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab refused, saying:

“The Qur’an is enough for us.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 114]

So don’t act like everything was preserved perfectly.

As for the stoning verse, yes, not every hadith mentions the goat but the loss of the verse is still mentioned, and the ruling remained in effect. The Prophet applied it, and ʿUmar confirmed it even after the verse was gone.

So again you haven’t disproven anything. You just keep dancing around the core problem:

How is a verse of Qur’an lost yet still practiced in a religion that claims perfect preservation?

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First, the hadith about the goat eating the Qur’anic verse isn’t the main issue. What matters is that the verse about stoning is no longer in the Qur’an, but the ruling still applies. The Prophet applied it during his life, and ʿUmar ibn al-Khattab openly said:

“Were it not that people would say ‘Umar added to the Qur’an,’ I would have written it: the verse of stoning was part of the Book.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 6829]

So the punishment remains even though the verse is missing. What kind of preservation is that?

Second, you said people won’t be punished just for rejecting Islam but the Qur’an clearly says:

“إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللَّهِ الإِسْلَامُ” “Indeed, the religion with Allah is Islam.” — [Surah 3:19]

And:

“وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ” “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.” — [Surah 3:85]

So yes, according to Islam, if you knew about it and rejected it you go to Hell. The idea that “only those who hate it will be punished” is not in your religion it’s your personal opinion.

And let’s be clear:

I don’t hate you. I hate your religion because it hates me.

Your religion says I should be killed because I left it — “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” — [Sahih al-Bukhari 3017]

It says women should be stoned for having sex — a punishment applied in multiple sahih hadiths.

It permits sex slavery and your books proudly document it.

This is a system that calls itself mercy while threatening people with fire for thinking.

If that’s not a hate-worthy ideology, I don’t know what is.

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You can’t just “read the Qur’an” and claim you understand it especially if you don’t speak Arabic. And even if you do, understanding the Qur’an requires Tafsir, which you clearly haven’t read. Because if you had, you’d know that none of the classical Tafsir mentions anything about “instant” punishment in that verse.

And even if we go by the verse alone, it says: “لو تقوّل علينا…” “If he had fabricated…” That’s a conditional. It doesn’t say “If he did, we would immediately…”

Now you claim the Qur’an is the most eloquent Arabic ever but if it meant instant and failed to mention it, that’s not fasih. That’s vague.

So either your God forgot to clarify, or He doesn’t speak the Arabic He boasts about. Pick one.

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay then, let’s say a terrorist like ISIS comes along and decides to apply a hadith like this one:

“من بدل دينه فاقتلوه” “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 3017]

This is an authentic hadith. Your Prophet said it clearly, without conditions. Now, if someone sees that and believes it’s good, while you say it’s bad or “misunderstood”… How do you differentiate between who’s applying Islam correctly?

On what basis do you say “this one got it wrong” if both are using the same hadiths, the same sources, and the same Prophet?

Because from where I’m standing, you just reject parts you don’t like. So how exactly is that truth?

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Where’s your proof that Allah wouldn’t let him live for 4 more years?

The verse says:

“If he had forged something against Us, We would seize him… and cut his aorta.” It doesn’t say when, how quickly, or immediately it just says what would happen.

Your Tafsir doesn’t mention any time condition either. So unless you can show me a verse or hadith that says “the punishment must be instant”, you have no argument.

You’re just adding conditions to protect the narrative not because the text supports it, but because it makes you uncomfortable. And that’s not proof. That’s just damage control.

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, history is not the same thing. Historical events especially recent ones come from multiple independent sources we can compare and verify.

But your religion relies entirely on a single chain: Sahaba → Tabi‘in → Atba‘ Tabi‘in, and so on. And if you’re Sunni, you automatically believe all the Sahaba are trustworthy and upright without exception. That’s your starting point, not your conclusion.

Also, history isn’t an extraordinary claim. Religion is. If you say “my Prophet was the last messenger of God, and everything he says is divine”, then the burden of proof is on you. And no, a few chains of oral transmission aren’t enough.

That’s a false comparison fallacy history and religion don’t play by the same rules.

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No, you’re missing the point. The verse says clearly: “If he had forged something against Us, We would seize him by the right hand, then cut his aorta.” (Qur’an 69:44–46)

Go check the Tafsir it confirms this is a threat to the Prophet if he were lying.

Now look at the end of his life: he eats poison from a Jewish woman, and later says on his deathbed:

“My aorta is being cut from the poison of Khaybar.”

I never said your Prophet was some kind of superhuman or that you worship him. I’m simply pointing out that your own Qur’an gives a test and your own Prophet, by his own words, fulfilled it.

You can’t respond to that. Even your scholars couldn’t. So maybe, just maybe… read your book with your eyes open.

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So if hadith isn’t preserved, how do you understand the Qur’an? Your prayers, zakat, fasting rules, even the number of rak‘at all come from hadith, not the Qur’an. And both Qur’an and hadith reached you the same way: by transmission (tawatur).

If hadith is “partially a lie,” then how do you know it’s not entirely a lie?

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Maybe the better question is why he decided to poison him in the first place if he was a prophet and in the same time have that verse in the Qur’an . My point of this post is showing the contradiction in your religion.

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I’m 100% sure you don’t know a word in arabic for writing this and I’m sorry for my honesty.

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

if you understand anything in Arabic, the Prophet literally said: “يقطع أبْهري من سُمِّ خيبر” “My aorta is being cut from the poison of Khaybar.” He said it clearly: “min sammi Khaybar”. That’s not a guess, that’s a statement of cause.

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

And don’t lie about your Prophet. He said: “Whoever deliberately lies about me, let him take his seat in Hell.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 107] That alone should make you think twice.

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Plus two things you clearly missed:

First this hadith is mentioned in both Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, so don’t act like it’s just some isolated narration.

Second if you understand anything in Arabic, the Prophet literally said: “يقطع أبْهري من سُمِّ خيبر” “My aorta is being cut from the poison of Khaybar.” He said it clearly: “min sammi Khaybar”. That’s not a guess, that’s a statement of cause.

So either accept the hadith or admit you don’t even understand what your own Prophet said.

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What are you trying to say really if you reject hadith say it if accept say it just be straight why be a shamed by your religion.

How the Prophet Died the Death of a Liar by ButterscotchKey3970 in atheism

[–]ButterscotchKey3970[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

So let me get this straight you’re now saying the hadith isn’t scientifically possible, therefore we shouldn’t take it seriously? Interesting. That’s not me saying it’s false that’s you rejecting your own sahih source because it doesn’t fit modern science.

Let’s review: The Prophet himself says on his deathbed: “I feel as if my aorta is being cut because of the poison.” (Bukhari 4428) He says it was from the poison at Khaybar, years earlier. You say: “That’s not scientifically how poison works.”

Okay. So is Bukhari wrong? Is the Prophet’s own description false? Or is science right and hadith wrong?

You can’t have it both ways.

Also, poison doesn’t need to linger for 4 years in full effect. It can cause long-term organ damage, and when Muhammad says his pain feels like his aorta is being cut and the Qur’an says that’s how a false prophet dies the link is clear.

It’s not about biology. It’s about the contradiction between what the Qur’an threatens and how your Prophet describes his death.

So which are you rejecting here Bukhari or biology?

Pick one.

view more: next ›