Answering Christianity Research Center

I dont even think the english makes sense....

Although I have some disagreements with hardcore salafis, I will NEVER, I repeat NEVER, go as far as to call them Kafirs, if we do that, we are no better than bin laden.
if some truly worship God, and only him, and the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is his messager, then he is a muslim, even if they could be misguided in some ways.
Misguided =/= Disbeliever
The ayatoallah should say something like "you are our brothers in the religion of God, but i have a few dissagreements with you such as...", these debates will lessen the gap between brothers and make us find the complete truth.
peace

I agree. Calling them kaafirs is way too far.

A bit off topic but i heard that salafis are literalists which means they actually believe that allah literally has hands and feet because in the quran he uses such figurative language. Am i correct?

Wonderful. You have made up with each other. I was face palming alot.

on the other hand the sunni scholars also lie about shias.the first time i met a sunni was a girl who said your quran has forty chapters and luckily i had a quran with me and i showed her then she realized she was wrong
and she was telling me other lies that sunni scholars have programmed her

I thought all muslims used the same Quran? Ive never heard of a quran with forty chapters.

Hardly anything comes up on google on these topics so i personally cant help im afraid I did notice however that your opponent said the benben stone was 'presumably' layed at damacus. I personally would throw this argument away because the person doesnt know 100%. I would do the same for the argument that the 5 daily prayers 'might' be related to the moon. As for the rest, maybe someone else can help.

Someone keeps telling me that Muhammed pbuh's followers in Mecca were not persecuted and he wrote this:

"Actually, the Muslim faith itself provides evidence that this wasn't the case, and that Muslims were not persecuted in Mecca, only Mohammed was, as he was attempting to wage war against them. (That's a really bad habit, he should have grown out of it...) Here are just two examples.

"The story of Fatima's sister, Muhammad's oldest daughter, is of acute embarrassment to those who insist Muslims were suffering in Mecca. Zaynab was married to Abu al-Aas ibn al-Rabee, one of Muhammad's arch enemies, and had no desire to leave. When Muhammad took her husband prisoner at the Battle of Badr, Zaynab tried to ransom him, but the prophet of Islam would not free the man until she promised to leave Mecca and live in Medina with him instead. She was actually forced to trade her marriage for her husband's life. It was not until Abu al-Aas agreed to "embrace" Islam (after being taken hostage again six years later following a Muslim caravan raid) that Muhammad allowed the two to live together."

I feel so compassionate to the poor Moslems....
She was suffering so much in Mecca...
And the Qu'ran teaches there is no compulsion in religion...

yea, right!

"The historical account also flatly contradicts the popular view that all Muslims had to flee Mecca following Muhammad’s declaration of war. In fact, it was only Muhammad himself whom the Meccans were interested in seizing. This is proven by the episode recounted in Ibn Ishaq/Hisham (326-328) in which Muhammad's own son-in-law, Ali, sleeps in his bed to trick his enemies into thinking that they had cornered him on the night they came to seize him.

Not only did the Meccans do no harm to Ali, even after finding out that he had fooled them, but he remained in the city for several days thereafter with Muhammad’s daughter Fatima in order to arrange the transfer of the family business to Medina.""



Is there a rebuttal for this brother?

Mendacium, is this debate by any chance on thestudentroom on the subject of "Muhammad (pbuh) letters to the monks of St catherin monastery"? If

And also, Ibn Ishaq was a good guy apparently and according to this article (http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/ethics-and-values/muslim-character/450839-is-ibn-ishaqs-work-reliable.html) he puts za'ama or za'amu: he, they alleged in front of every statement which means he was skeptical of them.

Answering Christian claims also made an article titled "The problems with Ibn Ishaq".
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The-Problems-With-Ibn-Ishaq.html

Ask them to back up their claims with quotes from proper scholars and not people who are controversial characters. And also tell them not to pretty much copy and paste something from a hate site The religion of peace which is known to use decpetive tecniques like that laughable X number of terrorist attacks since 9/11 counter.

And just for good measure here's another article.
http://islamiat101.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/how-authentic-is-work-of-ibn-ishaq.html

I agree. My deepest condolences to the victims. Also, if anybody is interested, Loonwatch.com has made some good articles on the bombings.