I renounced my faith in the divinity of the Qur'an today
-
You @Maha just remind me of this
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3pfF_rjVQs&feature=player_embeddedACTUALLY YOU POSTED THAT VIDEO IN A THREAD YOU OPENED WITH rotfl
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603272.msg289837#msg289837Was that your model you wanted to emulate to communicate with others? ???
I don't really care about who I remind you of and I don't have time to check your silly videos. I would advice you to stick to the topic.
Peace
-
Normally, I don't take part in such disscussions, because it's frankly not my damn business if Faithful-Jinn believes in the divinity of the Quran or not. But when I read something like that, I feel that I am obliged to butt in and have a say. I feel that I have to defend the Quran from the slanderous and demonic interpretations that have been fed to our generations by the godless criminals called "The Salaf". (By that, I mean the Judeo-Persian filth like Bukhari , Tirmizhi, and Co. who forced there "interpretations" of the Quran on us).
The term "ma malakat aymanukum" does NOT mean female sex slaves, nor does it mean "what your right HAND possesses" . It means "Those whom you have taken under OATH".
The word "aymanukum" is the plural of "yameen", which means OATH.
Here are some examples
{And do not make God the subject of your casual oaths (aymanukum)}...
{The ones who purchase with the pledge of God and their oaths (aymanuhum) a cheap price, those will have no portion in the Hereafter}...
{And they swore by God using their strongest oaths; (aymanuhum) that if a sign came to them they would believe in it.}...
{And fulfill your pledge to God when you pledge so, and do not break your oath (al-ayman) after making it}...
There's plenty more where those came from.
Also, in case you didn't know, "ma malakat aymanukum" can be MALES as well. Care to read?
{And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put forth their shawls over their cleavage. And let them not reveal their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or ...... those maintained by their oaths (aymanuhunna)}... (note the feminin aymanuhunna - referring to those women who own male "slaves" as you put it).
So does the above verse mean that believing women are also allowed to keep male sex slaves?
I guess the Judeo-Persian scumbags who wrote "Islamic History" and served it to our generations on a golden platter must have covered that part with their thumbs when they "interpreted" the Quran.
The Quran is not talking about sex slaves or war captives, as the criminal Salaf, who spread Islam by the sword later on, would have you believe. It is talking about those unfortunate males and females who are financially dependant on others, and have no-one to spend on them. As a result, the believing man (or woman) takes those unfortunate people under their wing, and into their household, and SWEARS an OATH (yameen) to support them and take care of them.
Now if a believing man should happen to want to marry one of those women under his oath, then the Quran says he must PAY THE DOWRY and HAVE THE PERMISSION OF HER PARENTS, if she is not yet an adult
Care to read?
{And whoever of you cannot afford to marry the independent female believers, then from those maintained by your oaths (aymanukum) of the believing young women. And God is more aware of your faith, some of you to each other. You shall marry them with the permission of their parents and give them their dowries in kindness; to be independent, not for illicit sex or taking lovers}...
Does this sound to you like they are slaves to be bedded unconditionally?
Finally, during Muhammad's time (I mean the REAL Muhammad, not the Judeo-Persian abomination that the Muslims have idolized), certain non-believing women who were married to like men who were idol-worshippers or rejecters, eventually embraced the faith, and became believing women. As a reslut, they were no longer lawful for their husbands. Some could not even live with their husbands anymore, and went to seek assylum in Muhammad's commnity. As a result, those women became financially dependant. The Quran gave a solution to this, and instructed believing men to test those women to make sure they were truly faithful, then to take them under their OATH. So they became "malakat aymanukum".
Care to read?
{O you who believe, if the believing women come emigrating to you, then you shall test them. God is fully aware of their belief. Thus, if you establish that they are believers, then you shall not return them to the rejecters. They are no longer lawful for one another. And return the dowries that were paid. And there is no sin upon you to marry them, if you have paid their dowries to them. And do not keep disbelieving wives, and ask back what dowries you paid. And let them ask back what dowries they had paid. Such is the judgment of God; He judges between you. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.}...
As you can see, that is only case where a believing man can marry an already married woman, in order to bring them under OATH of support and protection.
So when you read, in , about permitting the Muslim man to marry the "already married women" who are now under OATH, you know that its talking about those same women mentioned in 6010. It all becomes crystal clear when you use the Quran to interpret the Quran. But if you insist on resorting to the Judeo-Persian bullshit that has been peddled as the tru Islamic history, and reach absurd conclusions as a result, then you have no-one to blame but your self.
The history of Muhamad?? rotfl That's a howler. Do you even know who Muhammad was? Do the so-called "Muslims" know? There is no such thing as "Islamic History" . There is only Islamic GARBAGE. Our so-called "history" has been written by a league of Jews and Persians who conspired together to hijack it. The Muhammad you know and hear about is a MYTH. The Muhammad who was born in 570 A.D, in the rotten and lifeless Hijaz Desert, who circumbulated a black cube covered with a filthy black rag, and kissed a volcanic stone placed inside a vulva-shaped container, then rode a winged horse to Palestine is a MYTH. And teh people who made up that Muhammad, are teh SAME ONES who interpreted "Ma Malakat Aymanukum" as "female sex slaves". Until you realize that, you are not qualified to "interpret" the Quran. The alleged "Sahaba" (Companions) Omar, Abu Bakr, Othman, Ali....the whole lot, did not live during Muhammad's time, nor did they have any relationship to him whatsoever. Can you prove the existance of Aisha? Before you debate if "Muhammad the Pedofile" - a mythical figure created by the Judeo-Persian dogs whose descendants are reading these very posts and laughing at us this very moment - married Aisha when she was 6, 9, 13, or whatever, prove to me that Aisha even existed.. If you can prove Robin Hood of English folklore existed, then you can do the same for figures like "Aisha" and "Hafsa".
Here is the truth Anything about "Islamic History" not mentioned in the Quran or confirmed by archeology or solid physical evidence is worth no more than a pile of horse excrement. The ENTIRE CORPUS of hadith, tradition, and history books, from cover to cover, are not worth the paper they were printed on.
Thank you for your analyze. It really make sense . It laughable to see how that fool tried to justify sexual slavery and rape by the Quran . Let him sell himself as a sex slave first, then he can talk.
Peace
-
Peace Pazuzu,
I notice that there are many nonsensical posts in this forum as well,
debating their misunderstandings and corruptions of God's revelations.
This post is one of them!Say, "O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion beyond the truth, and do not follow the opinions of people who have gone astray, and have misled multitudes of people; they are far astray from the right path."
Peace O0
bravo
-
I don't really care about who I remind you of and I don't have time to check your silly videos. I would advice you to stick to the topic.
Peace
But you are the one who posted that silly video in the first place hypocrite! hahaha bravo rotfl yay
jedi
And how did you stick to the topic? By insulting some and praising other? What a contribution lol!May God be merciful on you and guide you to the right path, and heal you spiritually! sun
-
Okay I'm not going to get into a long analysis of everything you said about the term "ma malakat aymanukum" just yet. I simply use the established translations and 8 different ones all gave me the same translation.
Why in the world would I believe that your interpretation of the Qur'an is how it was actually practices 1400 years ago?
I appreciate the interpretation of the Qur'an from Quranist viewpoint because it turns a savage and primitive bronze age faith into a beautiful and profound and universal religion.
On the other hand I must also take into consideration historical facts and realities of the time as well as acknowledge that the Qur'an alone Islam of today could possibly be a far different interpretation than how Muhammad and the Sahaba practiced it.
In essence though, I believe most people on this website are no different than the Sunnis, Shias, and every other religious sect that existed in every other religion. You want to interpret your scripture in a way that suits your needs, desires, or beliefs.
Albert Einstein said "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
I believe many Quranists are changing facts to rationalize their own viewpoints. All of a sudden every single interpretation besides theirs becomes incorrect and every single verse that doesn't agree with their own human reasoning or morality has discovered a new meaning. You people would change the meaning of the word "Allah" if you had to! Actually there is a sect of "Quranist" Muslims who have done exactly that (God is not God nonsense)!
This is the very same thing you accuse Sunnis and traditionalists of doing. You say their interpretation is worthless or illegitimate. What makes your interpretations or opinions any more legitimate than Yusuf Ali, Muhsin Khan, or Pickthall?
In my opinion all you're doing is calling their opinion horse shit and then creating your own horse shit to match it.
What makes your interpretation in ANY WAY more credible or legitimate than others?
Here is the truth Anything about "Islamic History" not mentioned in the Quran or confirmed by archeology or solid physical evidence is worth no more than a pile of horse excrement. The ENTIRE CORPUS of hadith, tradition, and history books, from cover to cover, are not worth the paper they were printed on.
This is laughable. Denying history in order to rationalize your own viewpoint of the 1400 year old book? Your opinion is also worth no more than a pile of horse excrement. Basically you're saying that anything that doesn't coincide with your own preconceived notions of what Islam is, is worthless and you will ignore it in favor of your own more worthless opinion.
Hadith and tradition and even history may not be completely accurate but they are based on real evidence and credible information can be gleaned from them. History books at least with sources and based on facts are often times offering credible facts.
Here I have someone telling me that history books are nonsense and that only he and those who agree with him know the true meaning of God's supposed word. Just as crazy as the Salafis.
Now I acknowledge that there is very little we can know about the true life of Muhammad. There was no contemporary material written about him that was critical of him and most of the stuff we have was probably written by his followers and was very likely heavily edited and redacted. In that way it is a pile of horse crap. We can however understand the environment of the area of the world he lived in during the 7th century and when combining that with the "historical" accounts of his life we can try to piece together a reasonable picture of the lifestyle of that time period and region and make educated guesses about things.
But if you're saying nobody has credibility then why should I take your word?
Why would I accept your horse excrement over the horse excrement of another? They're both crap.
-
Peace FJ
In essence though, I believe most people on this website are no different than the Sunnis, Shias, and every other religious sect that existed in every other religion. You want to interpret your scripture in a way that suits your needs, desires, or beliefs.
This does happen sometimes. But this does not take anything away from the book itself. The failure of some to stick to the text or perhaps wrongly interpret it is not a lack of truthfulness in the book.
I believe many Quranists are changing facts to rationalize their own viewpoints.
Where?
You cannot hold assumptions about the accuracy of a people's approach to a book without assessing their methods. I don't think you've done this. I think that this is being said based on just there being different views. If this is the case, then your statement is neither accurate nor fair. If this is not the case, then what corrupt method of approach have you seen to make you think this?What makes your interpretation in ANY WAY more credible or legitimate than others?
Good methodology and objectivity (as in no bias)
This is the very same thing you accuse Sunnis and traditionalists of doing. You say their interpretation is worthless or illegitimate. What makes your interpretations or opinions any more legitimate than Yusuf Ali, Muhsin Khan, or Pickthall?
I certainly don't recall saying their interpretation is worthless. I think it has issues at verses and I can back that via evidence. Evidence being actual meanings of the word, cross-referecing with the rest of the Quran something that at times (sometimes crucial) is taken for granted amongst some sunnis and shiites.
Denying history in order to rationalize your own viewpoint of the 1400 year old book?
This is new to me with regards to that which is classified as authentic history. Thus I must ask, are you talking with info from credible history? Can I have the source please?
-
But you are the one who posted that silly video in the first place hypocrite! hahaha bravo rotfl yay
jedi
And how did you stick to the topic? By insulting some and praising other? What a contribution lol!May God be merciful on you and guide you to the right path, and heal you spiritually! sun
Seems like its impossible to get rid of you. You are such a lonely poor soul. For god sake stop stalking me, stalker. STOP STALKING ME OR I WILL CONTACT THE ADMIN!
-
Peace FJ
This does happen sometimes. But this does not take anything away from the book itself. The failure of some to stick to the text or perhaps wrongly interpret it is not a lack of truthfulness in the book.
To me it does take away something from the book. It's a vague and unclear book that can be interpreted in many ways and if the Islamic God did create this book then the Islamic God is an extremely ineffective communicator.
Where? an interpretation to support your beliefs. It may not be deliberate but it may be an inherent bias and this you cannot deny exists.
You cannot hold assumptions about the accuracy of a people's approach to a book without assessing their methods. I don't think you've done this. I think that this is being said based on just there being different views. If this is the case, then your statement is neither accurate nor fair. If this is not the case, then what corrupt method of approach have you seen to make you think this?
Good methodology and objectivity (as in no bias)And the other traditional interpretations lack good methodology? As for the objectivity I HIGHLY doubt that. If you're a Qur'an alone Muslim you are just as biased as the traditionalists in looking for an interpretation that supports your own beliefs.
For example, a word has two possible meanings. One meaning is the traditional one and there is another meaning that is not as primitive or hateful or sexist. The Qur'anist will always lean toward the non-traditional meaning whether it is deliberate or not.
I certainly don't recall saying their interpretation is worthless. I think it has issues at verses and I can back that via evidence. Evidence being actual meanings of the word, cross-referecing with the rest of the Quran something that at times (sometimes crucial) is taken for granted amongst some sunnis and shiites.
Strange how different sects have different meanings of words isn't it? Do you believe the Quranist perspective is more legitimate than the perspectives of other sects?
This is new to me with regards to that which is classified as authentic history. Thus I must ask, are you talking with info from credible history? Can I have the source please?
I haven't offered any historical information yet so I have no source to offer. Is there a place in my previous post where I offered any specific historical information contrary to the Qur'an?
Typically though, to offer credible history one must take the approach of citing multiple independent sources or cite a book that does so.
Singular sources can be accepted as historical but not necessarily as credible. For example the Bible is obviously a book containing history but the credibility of that history is questionable.
In addition to pure facts though, historians are also analysts who attempt to present claims based on few pieces of information to make educated guesses on things. For example Biblical historians take the Biblical text to make guesses about who wrote these texts by the language of the text, inherent bias of the text, writing style, opinions probably held by the writer of the text, region of where the writer was located, beliefs of the writer, etc.
This is how Biblical historians put together the current and widely accepted theory of who wrote the Bible. This is just an example I'm offering as to how we could possibly speculate history of the Qur'an and Muhammad.
-
So I guess this chapter could be considered closed and concluded.
FJ has decided to not believe in Allah/God/... and the Quran, but retain some belief in hadith in its history teaching.
Others have decided to believe in all sorts of things, including Allah/God/... and the quran.
Seems from here on it will just be a social activity of replying back and forth.Well, this is just my opinion, for what it is worth, and I guess it is worth exactly as much as anyone else's opinion.
Peace to FJ and all other folks here.
-
So I guess this chapter could be considered closed and concluded.
FJ has decided to not believe in Allah/God/... and the Quran, but retain some belief in hadith in its history teaching.
Others have decided to believe in all sorts of things, including Allah/God/... and the quran.
Seems from here on it will just be a social activity of replying back and forth.Well, this is just my opinion, for what it is worth, and I guess it is worth exactly as much as anyone else's opinion.
Peace to FJ and all other folks here.
You do understand that hadith is not the only source of history correct?
Don't straw man my position.
-
"I renounced my faith in the divinity of the Qur'an today"
Peace -- when you had faith, what was it like?
What was the main thing that made you turn? -
"I renounced my faith in the divinity of the Qur'an today"
Peace -- when you had faith, what was it like?
What was the main thing that made you turn?I believed in God for months and became certain of God because of certain situations and life experiences. I thought that at certain times I was "experiencing God" and that the evil in my life came from sin and that if I sought refuge in God I would be free from sin and evil and escape my negative lifestyle.
So I researched Christianity and Islam because those are my parents faiths. I knew nothing about either one however because my dad is non-practicing and never speaks of Islam or prayed in 30 years. I had been to church before but never really thought about Christ.
Christianity felt like nonsense with the whole sacrifice thing and Islam made sense and the ideas of justice, afterlife, and being in God's favor appealed to me. I thought it was a divine truth so I converted.
-
failtfuljinn
As for the other guy who said he knows what is a good deed from the Qur'an that proves my point that the crux of most religious peoples faiths is their holy book. They look to their holy book for answers and think it is from God. I no longer accept the idea that this book is from God.
There are billions of books that exist on earth. All of them were written by men. Why should the Qur'an be any different?
The most lame argument I ever heared for Quran being man made.
"Since their are billions of books written by men Why should be Quran so different"It is very similar to when one says
"Since billions of people make hajj piligrimage in this particular way so how could there be another method"To me mentally you are at very intial stage of analysing any thing. The people who consider Quran as man made have come up with much better argument than yours 1st or 2nd grader argument.
What I understood is that you never have studied or analysed Quran in any depth, other than few basic confusing concepts which are being discussed by masses all over the internet.
Zulf
Seems from here on it will just be a social activity of replying back and forth
So long with your Independence.
Be happy because one thing I know is what ever you believe in, research about throughly and then be sinciere.Regarding good deeds from Quran, you have to first prove that it is man made, I will be first to not look into the book for good deeds and follow your sets of good deeds, but you miserably failed to do so.
-
failtfuljinn
The most lame argument I ever heared for Quran being man made.
"Since their are billions of books written by men Why should be Quran so different"It is very similar to when one says
"Since billions of people make hajj piligrimage in this particular way so how could there be another method"To me mentally you are at very intial stage of analysing any thing. The people who consider Quran as man made have come up with much better argument than yours 1st or 2nd grader argument.
Correct. There are sure many better scholarly and philosophical arguments to deny divinity of Qur'an. I can only name my own reasons in this topic because I think for myself. I don't let others think for me nor do I claim the arguments of others as my own if that is not truly my argument.
I honestly can't think of any reason to believe the Qur'an IS from God. Did God himself publish the copy of the Qur'an you read? Did your book get beamed down from heaven?
I mean if you want someone to believe the Qur'an is from God you should offer some type of evidence or I'll lump it in with all other books that were ever written and conclude it is written and created by men.
What I understood is that you never have studied or analysed Quran in any depth, other than few basic confusing concepts which are being discussed by masses all over the internet.
Wrong. Not only did I practice Islam for 3 years but I studied it very enthusiastically.
Zulf
So long with your Independence.
Be happy because one thing I know is what ever you believe in, research about throughly and then be sinciere.Regarding good deeds from Quran, you have to first prove that it is man made, I will be first to not look into the book for good deeds and follow your sets of good deeds, but you miserably failed to do so.
Actually the burden of proof is not on me. The burden of proof is on someone making the claim that the Qur'an is divine word of God. I'm simply saying I have no evidence to believe this age old claim.
-
You do understand that hadith is not the only source of history correct?
Don't straw man my position.
-
Yes I do. But I don't consider hadith as being a very accurate source of history. I, e.g., don't believe in rocks stealing clothes and running away, or moons falling down in people's back yards, and so many other things... so the credibility of hadith as an account of actual historic events is not very strong.
-
Are there other sources claiming e.g. prophets marriages with 9 year old girls?
-
I was under the impression you take hadith, or some of it, as a reasonable historic account. Was this a misunderstanding from my side?
-
History is largely what the people who have the power to put it in writing and means to convey it to the masses, have decided is the history. You can find all sorts of angles on many historic event and times, if you dig deep enough, but only one will be mainstream, open for all who makes no extra effort to think freely, to suck up. Does this make it accurate? Why would it? That would be naive to believe. This world is not a very truthful one. If people don't mind killing each other, why would they mind lying?
Peace
-
-
To me it does take away something from the book. It's a vague and unclear book that can be interpreted in many ways and if the Islamic God did create this book then the Islamic God is an extremely ineffective communicator.
Depends on the purpose of the Book. It does at times make deliberate use of verses open to interpretation. This could be accounted by many reasons.
And the other traditional interpretations lack good methodology? As for the objectivity I HIGHLY doubt that. If you're a Qur'an alone Muslim you are just as biased as the traditionalists in looking for an interpretation that supports your own beliefs.
For example, a word has two possible meanings. One meaning is the traditional one and there is another meaning that is not as primitive or hateful or sexist. The Qur'anist will always lean toward the non-traditional meaning whether it is deliberate or not.
Well the difference is that some traditionalists when interpreting/translating fail to recognise the inconsistencies that their translation creates with the rest of the Quran. Thus they may take/interpret in favour of the sexist or hateful terms but this is with utter disregard for the many verses that explicitly state the equality between man and woman and so on. Thus your defence IMO is inaccurate.
Strange how different sects have different meanings of words isn't it? Do you believe the Quranist perspective is more legitimate than the perspectives of other sects?
Yes because it is more likely that a Quranist will have less bias from external sources taint their efforts/methodology of the intended message. For example some sects will heavily rely on the hadith, a seperate book, to render their translations EVEN THOUGH their translations would be incoherent and inconsistent with the rest of the Quran. Those without such influence and bias will focus on the scripture alone, assess root options and cross-reference more objectively thus greater odds of more accurate interpretation.
I haven't offered any historical information yet so I have no source to offer. Is there a place in my previous post where I offered any specific historical information contrary to the Qur'an
I think there was one part where you mentioned Muhammad's marriage to Aisha in a negative light, implying that he married her at 9 and also implying you belief in certain historical sources. This seemed like it needed to be back with sources IMO.
-
- Yes I do. But I don't consider hadith as being a very accurate source of history. I, e.g., don't believe in rocks stealing clothes and running away, or moons falling down in people's back yards, and so many other things... so the credibility of hadith as an account of actual historic events is not very strong.
Agreed. Many hadith are not strong evidence of actual historic events.
- Are there other sources claiming e.g. prophets marriages with 9 year old girls?
I'm not positive on this one but I would haphazardly say you're correct.
- I was under the impression you take hadith, or some of it, as a reasonable historic account. Was this a misunderstanding from my side?
Yes. I would say that you're impression is correct but not in the blanket way you seem to claim that I accept all hadith as reasonable historical accounts.
Is a hadith reasonably historical in the claim that the moon landed in Ali's backyard when Muhammad split it? Of course not. This is an outlandish claim with zero evidence.
Is a hadith reasonably historical in a claim describing the Prophet and his followers doing battle with an enemy tribe and taking their war booty? I would say this is reasonably historical given the context of the realities of that time period and region and how it fits in with not only the historical narrative but also the Qur'an (which can also be considered a historical narrative much in the same way as the Bible)
- History is largely what the people who have the power to put it in writing and means to convey it to the masses, have decided is the history. You can find all sorts of angles on many historic event and times, if you dig deep enough, but only one will be mainstream, open for all who makes no extra effort to think freely, to suck up. Does this make it accurate? Why would it? That would be naive to believe. This world is not a very truthful one. If people don't mind killing each other, why would they mind lying?
Peace
Look at what I posted to nimnimak about the Bible and how Biblical historians analyze the Bible. Just because something is not taken at face value as a 100% truthful and purely historical document does not mean it does not have historical value.
There is much to be gleamed from a text besides its own personal claims. These historians don't accept the Bible as absolutely factual yet they can still make historical claims and analyses about the book. Which is how we get Biblical scholars who come to a general consensus on who wrote the Bible and when each book was written as well as the opinions, beliefs, identities, practices, biases, and whatnot of the Biblical writers. This same method can be applied to the Qur'an and the hadith. Historians have done so and have come up with plausible Islamic historical claims.
If you have such a shallow viewpoint on history that you think there's only one way to analyze historical information from a document which is to read that document and accept everything it says, then I don't know what to say to you.
-
I honestly can't think of any reason to believe the Qur'an IS from God. Did God himself publish the copy of the Qur'an you read? Did your book get beamed down from heaven?
No he did not, these are just signs and guidance from time to time as per different situations that Prophet and Muslims encountered in early days. You have very wrong concept of Quran. I guess ZULF is saying the truth your most of the knowledge is based on Hadith.
Moreover the burden of proof lies on you because you are making a claim here that Quran is man made, and I am defending it, defendant is innocent till proven guilty.
when the Claim was made some 1500 years about Quraic Ayats that they are Divine, many people like you doubted it, and Quran has answered them and today still after so many years it exists and this is biggest proof.
Now today you are making the claim so burden of proof lies with you.
-
No he did not, these are just signs and guidance from time to time as per different situations that Prophet and Muslims encountered in early days. You have very wrong concept of Quran. I guess ZULF is saying the truth your most of the knowledge is based on Hadith.
Moreover the burden of proof lies on you because you are making a claim here that Quran is man made, and I am defending it, defendant is innocent till proven guilty.
when the Claim was made some 1500 years about Quraic Ayats that they are Divine, many people like you doubted it, and Quran has answered them and today still after so many years it exists and this is biggest proof.
Now today you are making the claim so burden of proof lies with you.
For something to be from your god you would first have to prove that your god exists.
Why would I believe the Qur'an is from your god if I don't believe the Islamic God exists?
As for you nimnimak I must say that you take an unfalsifiable position in regards to Islamic history. The only detailed recorded sources of Islamic history come from Muhammad's followers and the early hadith recorders. If you claim to deny any single claim that has a basis in these sources then your position is unfalsifiable.
In response to that though, why even believe a man named Muhammad existed in the first place? Do you accept claims about when and where he was born, what clan and tribe he comes from, his family members, how he died etc?
Do you accept claims about his wives or his marriages or any of his customs?
-
For something to be from your god you would first have to prove that your god exists.
Why would I believe the Qur'an is from your god if I don't believe the Islamic God exists?
So the best way is to prove the source wrong which makes such claims, Which you cannot.
In response to that though, why even believe a man named Muhammad existed in the first place? Do you accept claims about when and where he was born, what clan and tribe he comes from, his family members, how he died etc?
Do you accept claims about his wives or his marriages or any of his customs?
You are so impressed by psuedo intellectuals. Muhammad Peace be upon him existed and there is abundant proof regarding this, just to mention one
The Inscription Of Zuhayr - The Earliest Dated Hijz Inscription, 24 AH / 644 CE.
This is the earliest dated hijz inscription. It was written by Zuhayr "at the time of Umar's death" in 24 AH, thus mentioning the name of the second caliph. This inscription, it appears, is destined to be the most famous of all the Arabic inscriptions as the UNESCO has added it to the Memory of the World Register of Documentary Collections. The Discovery Channel also mentioned the importance of this inscription in the news.