This guy is really hilarious. See how shamelessly he lies through his teeth and does not even know how to construct a translation.
Quote:
debunker: Is the following sentence correct?
اتخذوا فتاة يتيمة ولدا
"They took an orphan girl for WALAD"?
Be careful. Choose your answer wisely. If you answer NO WAY then you'll be conceding that you were lying all along and I'll consider this as an apology and I'll accept it.
If, on the other hand, you answer YES, then you'll just be doing the usual, lying shamelessly yet again.
Look at his translation emboldened by me. lol! This is what the FFI freaks and goons do. The goon could have translated his own quote in Arabic, as: "They took an orphan girl as their child."
Salaams
BMZ
Posted:
Sun 31 May, 2009 2:21 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject: Re: The Impostor at FFI
BMZ wrote:
Hello, Ahmed
Thanks for thrashing the FFI's own created impostor Debunker. lol!
This guy is really hilarious. See how shamelessly he lies through his teeth and does not even know how to construct a translation.
Quote:
debunker: Is the following sentence correct?
اتخذوا فتاة يتيمة ولدا
"They took an orphan girl for WALAD"?
Be careful. Choose your answer wisely. If you answer NO WAY then you'll be conceding that you were lying all along and I'll consider this as an apology and I'll accept it.
If, on the other hand, you answer YES, then you'll just be doing the usual, lying shamelessly yet again.
Look at his translation emboldened by me. lol! This is what the FFI freaks and goons do. The goon could have translated his own quote in Arabic, as: "They took an orphan girl as their child."
Salaams
BMZ
Salam mate
Yeh man, a clear cut jerk of a traitor he is, I just told him what you exactly said, that WALAD means a child not a son nor a daughter
Status: Age: 36 Faith: Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Jun 07, 2008
Posts: 24
Post subject: Re: The Impostor at FFI
BMZ wrote:
Hello, Ahmed
Thanks for thrashing the FFI's own created impostor Debunker. lol!
Created by whom?
You do realize Debunker has been debating against FFI members for months?
His very appearance in that thread was to defend the Koranic version of Mary and the Trinity.
BMZ wrote:
Look at his translation emboldened by me. lol! This is what the FFI freaks and goons do. The goon could have translated his own quote in Arabic, as: "They took an orphan girl as their child."
Salaams
BMZ
I take it he left the word Walad ambiguous as they were discussing whether it should be rendered as "child" or "son" when used in the singular.
Now, what does this verse mean?
وقالوا اتخذ الرحمن ولدا
-Sura Maryam verse 88
Posted:
Sun 31 May, 2009 4:09 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject: Re: The Impostor at FFI
BMZ wrote:
Hello, Ahmed
Thanks for thrashing the FFI's own created impostor Debunker. lol!
Aksel_Ankersen wrote:
Created by whom?
He clearly said, by the imposter and fake Muslim, dee-punker of FFI
Aksel_Ankersen wrote:
You do realize Debunker has been debating against FFI members for months?
His very appearance in that thread was to defend the Koranic version of Mary and the Trinity.
What does it mean exactly?
that he cannot be wrong?
BMZ wrote:
Look at his translation emboldened by me. lol! This is what the FFI freaks and goons do. The goon could have translated his own quote in Arabic, as: "They took an orphan girl as their child."
Salaams
BMZ
Aksel_Ankersen wrote:
I take it he left the word Walad ambiguous as they were discussing whether it should be rendered as "child" or "son" when used in the singular.
Let me interfer in this as the subject was started all by myself. Well, if the Arabic word Walad is ambiguous then the English word Offspring (children) should be the same
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
It seems that my first slam dunk against the imposter dee-punker of FFI was not enough to convince him that he should shove himself in the nearest rubbish bin where he belongs, he is still arguing the meaning of the Arabic word WALD like any clear cut shameless biitch. Consequently I needed to mother slam dunk him, so let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s watch the next mother of all slams.
Here is what the imposter alleged on FFI:
debunker of FFI said:
the word is "walad". It can mean either boy, son or offspring depending on the context. If the word was "Ibn" then there's only one possible translation: son. But the word used was "walad".
----------------------------------
Now, I told such imposter, that he is wrong:
Ahmed said on FFI to the imposter:
the noun "walad", can only mean one thing, "Children", therefore the context has no effect and that was proven by the evidence provided by dee-pinky himself.
----------------------------------
Such evidence provided by the imposter even confirmed what I said, it was the first slam dunk he was hit with, let me bring it in here:
debunker of FFI said to Ahmed:
ok, wait you poor Arabic ignorant. I'll get you a few examples... time to search.
The imposter kept running like a biitch on FFI insulting me after I exposed his Arabic ignorance and lies as always, so let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s see how I slam dunked him, replying to his lies:
Ahmed slam dunked the imposter as follow:
See in the url he posted which is from an Arabic site, he posted the first sentence at the top:
سياقة النسب من ولد إسماعيل عليه السلام
The above means, sort of, searching the chain of relation from the CHILDREN of Ismael
However the freak dee-punker, wants it to mean, searching the chain of relation from the SONS of Ismael, and for him to con such job, he deliberately did not post the second line which clearly indicates that what they are about to discuss is ONLY THE SONS OF ISMAEL FROM AMONG ALL HIS CHILDREN , see the second line how they specified so:
أبناء إسماعيل عليه السلام , i.e. ABNAA Ismael peace be upon him, i.e. The SONS of Ismael peace be upon him
Then they started the story by saying:
ولد إسماعيل بن إبراهيم - عليهم السلام - اثني عشر رجلا, WALAD Ismael BIN Ibrahim (peace be upon them), 12 MEN, i.e. Isamel the SON of Ibrahim (peace be upon them), beget 12 MEN.
Here you have it, such article outline is as follow:
1) It is titled "chasing the chain of relation of the WALAD (CHILDREN) of Ismail
2) Then it specifically told us that, it will only chase the ABNAA (sons) out of those WALAD (Children)
3) Then it confirmed to us by telling us that Ismael begot 12 men, i.e. ABNAA, i.e. SONS
From the above evidence provided by dee-punky himself, we can conclude 100% that:
1) WALAD or AWLAD, means Children
2) IBN or BIN means SON
3) ABNAA or BANIN means SONS
What a slam:
----------------------------------
Now, let me put the final nail into his coffin and send dee-punker to the filthiest cemetery on the planet:
Remember what the imposter said regarding the word WALAD, sorry guys, let me bring it here again:
debunker of FFI said:
the word is "walad". It can mean either boy, son or offspring depending on the context. If the word was "Ibn" then there's only one possible translation: son. But the word used was "walad".
----------------------------------
I.e. for the imposter, the word WALAd can only mean any of the following:
1- Boy
2- Son
3- Offspring
As you can see, he totally missed the fact that the word WALAD can also refer to daughters, in fact the word WALAD is ambiguous i.e. it means it can mean a son or a daughter when used as singular, and it can mean both sons or a daughters if used as plural.
For example, if I want to refer to a boy in my children (explicitly) then I must use the word �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Son�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? in English, or the word �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Ibn�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? in Arabic, same with girls, if I want to refer to a girl in my children (explicitly) then I must use the word �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Daughter�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? in English, or the word �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Bint�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? in Arabic. Yet the imposter dee-punker claims that the word WALAD cannot be referring to daughters, so let me show you how the Arabic Quran exposes his ignorance fair and square:
Firstly, the Quran message in general is to warn anyone who alleges that Allah took a child, regardless the child being male or female:
And warn those who have said: Allah has taken a child. [The Quran ; 18:4]
وينذر الذين قالوا اتخذ الله ولدا
-> See how the Quran is a warning to all those people who allege that Allah took a child: وينذر الذين قالوا اتخذ الله ولدا, Wa Yunzir Al-lazin Qalu Itakhaza Allah WALADA, And warn those who have said: Allah has taken a child. See, the Quran message is for all those people who claim that Allah took a child, if the word WALAD means son, then it is ok for the people to claim that Allah took daughters for Himself, therefore the word WALAD must mean CHILD regardless being male of female for the message of verse 18:4 to be directed at anyone who allege that Allah took a son or a daughter REGARDLESS of specifics.
This general message by using the word WALAD is confirmed in another verse:
And it is not appropriate for the Compassionate that He should take a child. [The Quran ; 19:92]
وما ينبغي للرحمن ان يتخذ ولدا
-> See what is not appropriate for Allah: وما ينبغي للرحمن ان يتخذ ولدا, Wa Ma Yanbaghy Lil-Rahman An Yatakhiz WALADA, And it is not appropriate for the Compassionate that He should take a child. Again, if the word WALAD means son, then it is appropriate for Allah to take daughters for Himself, therefore the word WALAD must mean CHILD regardless being male of female for the message of verse 19:92 and 18:4 to be directed at anyone who allege that Allah took a son or a daughter REGARDLESS of specifics.
Secondly, Allah ordered Mohammed in one of his 100% true hadith to inform some people that Allah did not take a WALAD, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:
And say: Praise be to Allah, Who has not taken a child and there is not with Him a partner in the kingdom, and there is not to Him a guardian against disgrace; and magnify Him with (great) magnification. [The Quran ; 17:111]
وقل الحمد لله الذي لم يتخذ ولدا ولم يكن له شريك في الملك ولم يكن له ولي من الذل وكبره تكبيرا
-> See: وقل الحمد لله الذي لم يتخذ ولدا , Wa Qul Alhamdlilah Al-lazi Lam Yatkhiz WALADA, i.e. And say: Praise be to Allah, Who has not taken a child . Now, we know well that the Christians in their corrupt religion allege that Allah took a son, so some confused Muslims think that the verse above is directed at those Christians. The matter of the fact remains intact, that by using the word WALAD, the verse above must apply to those who claim that Allah took a child regardless of the child sex, this is because the message of the Quran is general (as we have seen in 18:4 & 19:92) to all people who allege that Allah took a child, being a girl or a boy, it makes no difference.
The fact about our God that He does not take children (WALAD) for Himself is stated in another verse:
The One, to whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and Who did not take a child, and there is not to Him a partner in the kingdom, and Who created everything, and measured it according to a measure. [The Quran ; 25:2]
الذي له ملك السماوات والارض ولم يتخذ ولدا ولم يكن له شريك في الملك وخلق كل شئ فقدره تقديرا
-> See: و لم يتخذ ولدا , Wa Lam Yatkhiz WALADA, i.e. And He has not taken a child . i.e. the sex of the child makes no difference, the sin of claiming that Allah took a son, is the same sin as claiming that Allah took a daughter
Thirdly, there was also other people who alleged that Allah took the angels as WALAD, while at the same time they alleged that the angels are females, i.e. they alleged that Allah took daughters, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:
26: And they said: The Compassionate has taken a child. Glory be to Him, rather they are honoured servants. [The Quran ; 21:26]
26: وقالوا اتخذ الرحمن ولدا سبحانه بل عباد مكرمون
-> See how everything is clear it started to be, verse 21:26 is directed at the people who claimed that Allah took the angels as daughters, وقالوا اتخذ الرحمن ولدا سبحانه بل عباد مكرمون , Wa Qalu Itakhaza Al-Rahman WALADA Subhanahu Bal Ibad Mukramoon, And they said: The Compassionate has taken a child. Glory be to Him, rather they are honoured servants. See how the same word WALAD is used to refer to the angels who suppose to be females as the liars allege, such alleged feminine sex of the angels is explained in another verse, letÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s have a look:
Then, has your Lord chosen for you sons, and taken from among the angels daughters? Indeed, you say a great saying. [The Quran ; 17:40]
افاصفاكم ربكم بالبنين واتخذ من الملائكة اناثا انكم لتقولون قولا عظيما
-> See how it is getting clearer and clearer regarding the word WALAD, that is how the Quran explains itself and its words. In the above verse, Allah is talking explicitly cornering the liars who claim that Allah took a child, by telling them: افاصفاكم ربكم بالبنين واتخذ من الملائكة اناثا , Aafaasfakum Rabukum Bil BANIN Wa Itakhaza Min Al-Malaika INATHA, Then, has your Lord chosen for you sons, and taken from among the angels daughters? , i.e. the word WALAD covers sons and daughters, REGARDLESS
The fact about the word WALAD that it covers both sons and daughters, is confirmed in another verse using explicit words regarding sons and daughters, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:
Or has He taken daughters to Himself of what He creates and chosen you to have sons? [The Quran ; 43:16]
ام اتخذ مما يخلق بنات واصفاكم بالبنين
-> See how clear it is: ام اتخذ مما يخلق بنات واصفاكم بالبنين, Am Itakhaza Mimma Yakhliq BANAT Wa Asfakum Bil BANIN, Or has He taken daughters to Himself of what He creates and chosen you to have sons?
Therefore, all the verses we read earlier regarding the message of the Quran of warning those who claim that Allah took a WALAD, must apply to those who allege that Allah took the angels as daughters.
Again and again, the fact about the word WALAD is confirmed in another lot of verses, in which we read the word WALAD as a verb along with the explicit words for SONS and DAUGHTERS:
151: Surely it is due to their lie that they say:
152: Allah has begotten. And indeed, they are liars.
153: Has He chosen daughters over sons? [The Quran ; 37:151-153]
151: الا انهم من افكهم ليقولون
152: ولد الله وانهم لكاذبون
153: اصطفي البنات علي البنين
, ,
-> See: Surely it is due to their lie that they say: . And here is what they say: ولد الله وانهم لكاذبون , WALAD Allah Wa Inahum La Kaziboon, i.e. Allah has begotten. And indeed, they are liars. then Allah used the same argument against those liars that He used in both 17:40 & 43:16 above: اصطفي البنات علي البنين , Istafa Al-BANAT Ala Al-BANIN, i.e. Has He chosen daughters over sons?
Here you have it, the Quran indeed said more about those who alleged that Allah took the angels as daughters for Himself, than what the Quran said about the Christians alleging that Allah took Jesus as a son, therefore the word WALAD applies to daughters equally as it does to sons
And that should send the imposter dee-punker to the rubbish bin where he will always belong.
Status: Age: 75 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 614
Post subject: Re: The Impostor at FFI
Aksel_Ankersen wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Hello, Ahmed
Thanks for thrashing the FFI's own created impostor Debunker. lol!
Created by whom?
You do realize Debunker has been debating against FFI members for months?
His very appearance in that thread was to defend the Koranic version of Mary and the Trinity.
BMZ wrote:
Look at his translation emboldened by me. lol! This is what the FFI freaks and goons do. The goon could have translated his own quote in Arabic, as: "They took an orphan girl as their child."
Salaams
BMZ
I take it he left the word Walad ambiguous as they were discussing whether it should be rendered as "child" or "son" when used in the singular.
Now, what does this verse mean?
وقالوا اتخذ الرحمن ولدا
-Sura Maryam verse 88
FFI is notoriously famous for creating posters pretending to be Muslims.
Each leading member has quite a few other nicks under which they write.
They do this when there is a dearth of genuine Muslim posters. Ali Sina does not do that but he is notoriously famous for writing and answering emails to himself.
That is what I meant by using the word created.
Ahmed has been kind enough to answer your post. I have endorsed his response to debunker, who keeps on debunking himself. The poster is a fake.
However, I would like to add the following in response to your question regarding the verse you quoted. Leaving aside the archaic "beget, begot/begat and begotten", it simply means "Has allah taken a son?"
Allah, the LORD God Almighty disdains that Christian claim. Naturally God did not give birth to a son like women did and still do.
Cheers
BMZ
Posted:
Sun 31 May, 2009 8:31 pm
BMZ Moderator
Status: Age: 75 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 614
Post subject: Re: The Impostor at FFI
AhmedBahgat wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Hello, Ahmed
Thanks for thrashing the FFI's own created impostor Debunker. lol!
Aksel_Ankersen wrote:
Created by whom?
He clearly said, by the imposter and fake Muslim, dee-punker of FFI
Aksel_Ankersen wrote:
You do realize Debunker has been debating against FFI members for months?
His very appearance in that thread was to defend the Koranic version of Mary and the Trinity.
What does it mean exactly?
that he cannot be wrong?
BMZ wrote:
Look at his translation emboldened by me. lol! This is what the FFI freaks and goons do. The goon could have translated his own quote in Arabic, as: "They took an orphan girl as their child."
Salaams
BMZ
Aksel_Ankersen wrote:
I take it he left the word Walad ambiguous as they were discussing whether it should be rendered as "child" or "son" when used in the singular.
Let me interfer in this as the subject was started all by myself. Well, if the Arabic word Walad is ambiguous then the English word Offspring (children) should be the same
Aksel_Ankersen wrote:
Now, what does this verse mean?
وقالوا اتخذ الرحمن ولدا
-Sura Maryam verse 88
And they said: Allah took a child
What is your point, sorry?
Thanks, mate for the excellent translation.
"And they said: Allah took a child"
Please quote the goon debunker, the claim made by the Jews and reported in Qur'aan "Nahno abnaa'ullahe" and let him translate without the help of any ولد . lol!
Salaams
BMZ
Posted:
Sun 31 May, 2009 8:37 pm
BMZ Moderator
Status: Age: 75 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 614
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Salam all
It seems that my first slam dunk against the imposter dee-punker of FFI was not enough to convince him that he should shove himself in the nearest rubbish bin where he belongs, he is still arguing the meaning of the Arabic word WALD like any clear cut shameless biitch. Consequently I needed to mother slam dunk him, so let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s watch the next mother of all slams.
Here is what the imposter alleged on FFI:
debunker of FFI said:
the word is "walad". It can mean either boy, son or offspring depending on the context. If the word was "Ibn" then there's only one possible translation: son. But the word used was "walad".
----------------------------------
Now, I told such imposter, that he is wrong:
Ahmed said on FFI to the imposter:
the noun "walad", can only mean one thing, "Children", therefore the context has no effect and that was proven by the evidence provided by dee-pinky himself.
----------------------------------
Such evidence provided by the imposter even confirmed what I said, it was the first slam dunk he was hit with, let me bring it in here:
debunker of FFI said to Ahmed:
ok, wait you poor Arabic ignorant. I'll get you a few examples... time to search.
The imposter kept running like a biitch on FFI insulting me after I exposed his Arabic ignorance and lies as always, so let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s see how I slam dunked him, replying to his lies:
Ahmed slam dunked the imposter as follow:
See in the url he posted which is from an Arabic site, he posted the first sentence at the top:
سياقة النسب من ولد إسماعيل عليه السلام
The above means, sort of, searching the chain of relation from the CHILDREN of Ismael
However the freak dee-punker, wants it to mean, searching the chain of relation from the SONS of Ismael, and for him to con such job, he deliberately did not post the second line which clearly indicates that what they are about to discuss is ONLY THE SONS OF ISMAEL FROM AMONG ALL HIS CHILDREN , see the second line how they specified so:
أبناء إسماعيل عليه السلام , i.e. ABNAA Ismael peace be upon him, i.e. The SONS of Ismael peace be upon him
Then they started the story by saying:
ولد إسماعيل بن إبراهيم - عليهم السلام - اثني عشر رجلا, WALAD Ismael BIN Ibrahim (peace be upon them), 12 MEN, i.e. Isamel the SON of Ibrahim (peace be upon them), beget 12 MEN.
Here you have it, such article outline is as follow:
1) It is titled "chasing the chain of relation of the WALAD (CHILDREN) of Ismail
2) Then it specifically told us that, it will only chase the ABNAA (sons) out of those WALAD (Children)
3) Then it confirmed to us by telling us that Ismael begot 12 men, i.e. ABNAA, i.e. SONS
From the above evidence provided by dee-punky himself, we can conclude 100% that:
1) WALAD or AWLAD, means Children
2) IBN or BIN means SON
3) ABNAA or BANIN means SONS
What a slam:
----------------------------------
Now, let me put the final nail into his coffin and send dee-punker to the filthiest cemetery on the planet:
Remember what the imposter said regarding the word WALAD, sorry guys, let me bring it here again:
debunker of FFI said:
the word is "walad". It can mean either boy, son or offspring depending on the context. If the word was "Ibn" then there's only one possible translation: son. But the word used was "walad".
----------------------------------
I.e. for the imposter, the word WALAd can only mean any of the following:
1- Boy
2- Son
3- Offspring
As you can see, he totally missed the fact that the word WALAD can also refer to daughters, in fact the word WALAD is ambiguous i.e. it means it can mean a son or a daughter when used as singular, and it can mean both sons or a daughters if used as plural.
For example, if I want to refer to a boy in my children (explicitly) then I must use the word �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Son�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? in English, or the word �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Ibn�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? in Arabic, same with girls, if I want to refer to a girl in my children (explicitly) then I must use the word �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Daughter�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? in English, or the word �?????�????�???�??�?�¢??Bint�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? in Arabic. Yet the imposter dee-punker claims that the word WALAD cannot be referring to daughters, so let me show you how the Arabic Quran exposes his ignorance fair and square:
Firstly, the Quran message in general is to warn anyone who alleges that Allah took a child, regardless the child being male or female:
And warn those who have said: Allah has taken a child. [The Quran ; 18:4]
وينذر الذين قالوا اتخذ الله ولدا
-> See how the Quran is a warning to all those people who allege that Allah took a child: وينذر الذين قالوا اتخذ الله ولدا, Wa Yunzir Al-lazin Qalu Itakhaza Allah WALADA, And warn those who have said: Allah has taken a child. See, the Quran message is for all those people who claim that Allah took a child, if the word WALAD means son, then it is ok for the people to claim that Allah took daughters for Himself, therefore the word WALAD must mean CHILD regardless being male of female for the message of verse 18:4 to be directed at anyone who allege that Allah took a son or a daughter REGARDLESS of specifics.
This general message by using the word WALAD is confirmed in another verse:
And it is not appropriate for the Compassionate that He should take a child. [The Quran ; 19:92]
وما ينبغي للرحمن ان يتخذ ولدا
-> See what is not appropriate for Allah: وما ينبغي للرحمن ان يتخذ ولدا, Wa Ma Yanbaghy Lil-Rahman An Yatakhiz WALADA, And it is not appropriate for the Compassionate that He should take a child. Again, if the word WALAD means son, then it is appropriate for Allah to take daughters for Himself, therefore the word WALAD must mean CHILD regardless being male of female for the message of verse 19:92 and 18:4 to be directed at anyone who allege that Allah took a son or a daughter REGARDLESS of specifics.
Secondly, Allah ordered Mohammed in one of his 100% true hadith to inform some people that Allah did not take a WALAD, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:
And say: Praise be to Allah, Who has not taken a child and there is not with Him a partner in the kingdom, and there is not to Him a guardian against disgrace; and magnify Him with (great) magnification. [The Quran ; 17:111]
وقل الحمد لله الذي لم يتخذ ولدا ولم يكن له شريك في الملك ولم يكن له ولي من الذل وكبره تكبيرا
-> See: وقل الحمد لله الذي لم يتخذ ولدا , Wa Qul Alhamdlilah Al-lazi Lam Yatkhiz WALADA, i.e. And say: Praise be to Allah, Who has not taken a child . Now, we know well that the Christians in their corrupt religion allege that Allah took a son, so some confused Muslims think that the verse above is directed at those Christians. The matter of the fact remains intact, that by using the word WALAD, the verse above must apply to those who claim that Allah took a child regardless of the child sex, this is because the message of the Quran is general (as we have seen in 18:4 & 19:92) to all people who allege that Allah took a child, being a girl or a boy, it makes no difference.
The fact about our God that He does not take children (WALAD) for Himself is stated in another verse:
The One, to whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and Who did not take a child, and there is not to Him a partner in the kingdom, and Who created everything, and measured it according to a measure. [The Quran ; 25:2]
الذي له ملك السماوات والارض ولم يتخذ ولدا ولم يكن له شريك في الملك وخلق كل شئ فقدره تقديرا
-> See: و لم يتخذ ولدا , Wa Lam Yatkhiz WALADA, i.e. And He has not taken a child . i.e. the sex of the child makes no difference, the sin of claiming that Allah took a son, is the same sin as claiming that Allah took a daughter
Thirdly, there was also other people who alleged that Allah took the angels as WALAD, while at the same time they alleged that the angels are females, i.e. they alleged that Allah took daughters, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:
26: And they said: The Compassionate has taken a child. Glory be to Him, rather they are honoured servants. [The Quran ; 21:26]
26: وقالوا اتخذ الرحمن ولدا سبحانه بل عباد مكرمون
-> See how everything is clear it started to be, verse 21:26 is directed at the people who claimed that Allah took the angels as daughters, وقالوا اتخذ الرحمن ولدا سبحانه بل عباد مكرمون , Wa Qalu Itakhaza Al-Rahman WALADA Subhanahu Bal Ibad Mukramoon, And they said: The Compassionate has taken a child. Glory be to Him, rather they are honoured servants. See how the same word WALAD is used to refer to the angels who suppose to be females as the liars allege, such alleged feminine sex of the angels is explained in another verse, letÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s have a look:
Then, has your Lord chosen for you sons, and taken from among the angels daughters? Indeed, you say a great saying. [The Quran ; 17:40]
افاصفاكم ربكم بالبنين واتخذ من الملائكة اناثا انكم لتقولون قولا عظيما
-> See how it is getting clearer and clearer regarding the word WALAD, that is how the Quran explains itself and its words. In the above verse, Allah is talking explicitly cornering the liars who claim that Allah took a child, by telling them: افاصفاكم ربكم بالبنين واتخذ من الملائكة اناثا , Aafaasfakum Rabukum Bil BANIN Wa Itakhaza Min Al-Malaika INATHA, Then, has your Lord chosen for you sons, and taken from among the angels daughters? , i.e. the word WALAD covers sons and daughters, REGARDLESS
The fact about the word WALAD that it covers both sons and daughters, is confirmed in another verse using explicit words regarding sons and daughters, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:
Or has He taken daughters to Himself of what He creates and chosen you to have sons? [The Quran ; 43:16]
ام اتخذ مما يخلق بنات واصفاكم بالبنين
-> See how clear it is: ام اتخذ مما يخلق بنات واصفاكم بالبنين, Am Itakhaza Mimma Yakhliq BANAT Wa Asfakum Bil BANIN, Or has He taken daughters to Himself of what He creates and chosen you to have sons?
Therefore, all the verses we read earlier regarding the message of the Quran of warning those who claim that Allah took a WALAD, must apply to those who allege that Allah took the angels as daughters.
Again and again, the fact about the word WALAD is confirmed in another lot of verses, in which we read the word WALAD as a verb along with the explicit words for SONS and DAUGHTERS:
151: Surely it is due to their lie that they say:
152: Allah has begotten. And indeed, they are liars.
153: Has He chosen daughters over sons? [The Quran ; 37:151-153]
151: الا انهم من افكهم ليقولون
152: ولد الله وانهم لكاذبون
153: اصطفي البنات علي البنين
, ,
-> See: Surely it is due to their lie that they say: . And here is what they say: ولد الله وانهم لكاذبون , WALAD Allah Wa Inahum La Kaziboon, i.e. Allah has begotten. And indeed, they are liars. then Allah used the same argument against those liars that He used in both 17:40 & 43:16 above: اصطفي البنات علي البنين , Istafa Al-BANAT Ala Al-BANIN, i.e. Has He chosen daughters over sons?
Here you have it, the Quran indeed said more about those who alleged that Allah took the angels as daughters for Himself, than what the Quran said about the Christians alleging that Allah took Jesus as a son, therefore the word WALAD applies to daughters equally as it does to sons
And that should send the imposter dee-punker to the rubbish bin where he will always belong.
Another mother of all slams:
Sorry, I had not read this mother of the ولد slams. Well done, mate.
Salaams
BMZ
Posted:
Sun 31 May, 2009 8:40 pm
BMZ Moderator
Status: Age: 75 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 614
Post subject:
Hello, Ahmed
An Appeal
I read this at FFI from debunker
Quote:
Re: Mary and the Trinity
Postby debunker �??????�?????�????�???�??�?�» Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:19 am
Bahgat said to MBL:
what an ugly filthy sharmoot of an arse licker kafir bound to hell you are
I have answered his stupid question you tard, stop deluding yourself or you will be life dismissed
When I first read this I didn't notice the underlined threat. But then when I read it again, my eyes widened and I rushed to check Bahgat's life dismissal list:
http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?n ... opic&t=772
And to my shock, I noticed that MBL was not one of Bahgat's virtual reality inmates!!!
Why, Bahgat?! Why?! Why do you think MBL doesn't deserve your punishment while I do?! I also noticed that you freed Sky! Oh, I beg you dear Bahgat, let me out, please, please!
Then I read this from the HinduArthi's response to fudgy:
Quote:
Re: Mary and the Trinity
Postby skynightblaze �??????�?????�????�???�??�?�» Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:47 am
fudgy wrote:The God in the OT has more or less the same tone, voice, characteristics, etc. I don't know about the NT.
skynightblaze wrote: You dumb answer my post if you can. I have exposed your so called holy book.It accuses other scriptures of corruption and yet itself supports them. Keep solving the fucked up errors made by your fake prophet.
If you have let out this warped Hindu scumbag from your Life Dismissal List of FFI goons and freaks, the arthi should be put back in, so that our silent international readers, which include FFI goons and freaks also, can know about this fucked up Hindu freak from India, who has nothing to do but keeps on pouring out his verbal diarrhoea at FFI.
I recommend that debunker be released on parole after tagging him. I think it is not fair to let out a monster and barbaric young immature freak.
Salaams, mate
BMZ
Posted:
Mon 01 Jun, 2009 3:43 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Hey bro BMZ
Here is gem of a comment that I just posted to the goons on FFI:
Hey arrogant goons bound to hell
I am currently translating the Quran, I reached the following verse, which clearly talks about the filthy kafirs like you, let's have a look, then give me the pleasure to walk you through it:
And those who argue concerning Allah after He has been answered to (by others), their argument is nullified with their Lord, and upon them is anger, and for them is a severe torture. [Al Quran ; 42:16]
وَالَّذِينَ يُحَاجُّونَ فِي اللَّهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا اسْتُجِيبَ لَهُ حُجَّتُهُمْ دَاحِضَةٌ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ وَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ (16)
-> See goons, I always wonder, why the filthy kafirs of FFI are so itchy about those who have believed, why fukin not, live and let others live?, well, as you know that I always describe such lowest of the lows on FFI as ITCHY, the verse above is actually telling us about such ITCH and it also tell us what will be the reward for those ITCHY kafirs, let me walk you through:
-> The verse starts by telling us about those lowest of the lows of the kafirs, like the many goons on FFI, for example, sky, mental, yeakee, ugly, trojan donkey, ygang, chicken and so many filthy retarded freaks, the list just goes on and on, see: And those who argue concerning Allah, i.e. unquestionably, 42:16 is talking about such freaks, now what we will read next is what I told you about, the ITCH syndrome from which those filthy kafirs suffer, see: after He has been answered to (by others), wow, what an accuracy, so those lowest of the lows of the freaks argue with those who responded to and answered the message of Allah, what you guys call that?, well I call it ITCH, you filthy and itchy punks and hos, now here is the good news for you, ITCHY freaks, your Tom, Jerry and Barbie arguments will be nullified on the JD, see: their argument is nullified with their Lord, sort of your argument will be Dismissed, hahah, can't wait for that day, any way, let's see your reward and your achievement THEN: and upon them is anger, and for them is a severe torture., what an achievement you bunch of itchy losers, it deserves that every one on Cyber world give you a round of applause but by using their dirty feet:
Status: Age: 75 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 614
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hey bro BMZ
Here is gem of a comment that I just posted to the goons on FFI:
Hey arrogant goons bound to hell
I am currently translating the Quran, I reached the following verse, which clearly talks about the filthy kafirs like you, let's have a look, then give me the pleasure to walk you through it:
And those who argue concerning Allah after He has been answered to (by others), their argument is nullified with their Lord, and upon them is anger, and for them is a severe torture. [Al Quran ; 42:16]
وَالَّذِينَ يُحَاجُّونَ فِي اللَّهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا اسْتُجِيبَ لَهُ حُجَّتُهُمْ دَاحِضَةٌ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ وَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ (16)
-> See goons, I always wonder, why the filthy kafirs of FFI are so itchy about those who have believed, why fukin not, live and let others live?, well, as you know that I always describe such lowest of the lows on FFI as ITCHY, the verse above is actually telling us about such ITCH and it also tell us what will be the reward for those ITCHY kafirs, let me walk you through:
-> The verse starts by telling us about those lowest of the lows of the kafirs, like the many goons on FFI, for example, sky, mental, yeakee, ugly, trojan donkey, ygang, chicken and so many filthy retarded freaks, the list just goes on and on, see: And those who argue concerning Allah, i.e. unquestionably, 42:16 is talking about such freaks, now what we will read next is what I told you about, the ITCH syndrome from which those filthy kafirs suffer, see: after He has been answered to (by others), wow, what an accuracy, so those lowest of the lows of the freaks argue with those who responded to and answered the message of Allah, what you guys call that?, well I call it ITCH, you filthy and itchy punks and hos, now here is the good news for you, ITCHY freaks, your Tom, Jerry and Barbie arguments will be nullified on the JD, see: their argument is nullified with their Lord, sort of your argument will be Dismissed, hahah, can't wait for that day, any way, let's see your reward and your achievement THEN: and upon them is anger, and for them is a severe torture., what an achievement you bunch of itchy losers, it deserves that every one on Cyber world give you a round of applause but by using their dirty feet:
FLAP FLAP FLAP FLAP FLAP
Cheers
Hello, Ahmed
You hit right on the button, mate. That verse also condemns and damns not only the Kafir freaks but also the ex-Muslims too. You qualified well within caps.
The freaks would pretend not to understand but the message is clear. lol!
The email message system is working well.
Salaams
BMZ
Posted:
Wed 03 Jun, 2009 1:37 am
BMZ Moderator
Status: Age: 75 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 614
Post subject:
Hello, Ahmed
Man, it is so good to have you there at the freaks' site FFI. I just read this from you and I am glad you blasted the goon who writes a translation of the verses and calls it written in Arabic.
Quote:
Re: The "Sura Like It" Challenge (just for fun)
Postby AhmedBahgat �??????�?????�????�???�??�?�» Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:40 am
Natassia wrote:[Pickthal 2:23] And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful.
Ahmed wrote:Idiot, the above suras you forged, are not in Arabic
are you that dumb or somethin?
stop deluding yourself you fool, you need to meet all the criteria before you claim your crap, yet you met not even a single one, obvioulsy you know that you are full of shit, by admiting that what you brought is nothing but fun, i.e. you are not serious, rather a confused kafir who is in the process of securing your grave in hell
I count such freaks among asfalaa-saafileen, mate.
Salaams
BMZ
Posted:
Wed 03 Jun, 2009 1:46 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 58 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
BMZ wrote:
I count such freaks among asfalaa-saafileen, mate.
Salaams
BMZ
Exactly mate, that is why I call them 'the Lowest of the Lows', which is the exact translation to the above Arabic words you wrote using English letters _________________ http://free-islam.com
Posted:
Wed 03 Jun, 2009 1:51 am
BMZ Moderator
Status: Age: 75 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 614
Post subject:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
BMZ wrote:
I count such freaks among asfalaa-saafileen, mate.
Salaams
BMZ
Exactly mate, that is why I call them 'the Lowest of the Lows', which is the exact translation to the above Arabic words you wrote using English letters
Yes, you are right. And you will be surprised to know that in the ancient Hebrew text, the word serpent was actually similar to asfalaa saafileen, the lowest of the low and that is how it was translated to serpent in a silly way for Satan, despised as the lowest of the low and how low could he go . lol!
Take care, mate
Salaams & good night
BMZ
Posted:
Wed 03 Jun, 2009 2:52 am
BMZ Moderator
Status: Age: 75 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Jun 12, 2007
Posts: 614
Post subject:
Hello, Ahmed
It is quite common to see FFI goons quoting a verse or a one-liner. We have repeatedly clarified and told the goons and freaks to try to read and understand the sections and topics.
Anyway, I read this from an FFI goon, known as expozIslam, in the Qur'aan & Hadith topics:
Quote:
Re: who said this? Sura 002.163
Postby expozIslam �??????�?????�????�???�??�?�» Fri May 22, 2009 9:03 am
Where are the Quran only muslims? Can someone QOM tell me who is speaking in this verse? Allah or Mohammad or doesn't matter because both represent the same person.
Could you please tell the goon that Muhammad is not the one who speaks in Qur'aan. Instead he is told by Allah through Gabriel, what to say. Could you at the same time, tell all the FFI goons that for the first few hundred years, Muslims have been only QO Muslims and still are.
Prophet, his companions and all others were Qur'aan only Muslims.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 10 Hours Ported for PHP-Nuke by nukemods.com
