Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
Today at 12:24 PM

The essence of the facts
by akay
Today at 05:11 AM

Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 09:42 PM

Another Word Game
Yesterday at 04:08 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
December 05, 2021, 04:29 PM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
December 05, 2021, 03:21 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 04, 2021, 11:59 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
December 04, 2021, 11:08 PM

France Muslims were in d...
December 01, 2021, 06:14 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 25, 2021, 01:57 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 24, 2021, 12:57 PM

Muhammad's illiteracy, po...
November 23, 2021, 03:09 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Bmz vs Skynightblaze

 (Read 13865 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     OP - March 31, 2009, 07:59 AM

    Hello All,
               Before I start the debate I would like to summarize the terms and conditions that me and BMZ have agreed upon.

    1.Use of other scriptures is not allowed. If he brings any scripture other than quran I am  going to simply ignore it because I am an atheist.

    2. Secondly there will no use of hadiths.

    3. I will not attack him or use any derogatory term for his prophet.

    4. IF he brings in Arabic I will be allowed to consult a person with the knowledge of arabic .I also request people knowledgeable in arabic to post their own translations in arabic in case the need arises as I dont know A of arabic.



    These are the main things that we have agreed upon. Now I would just like to brief about my presentation.I am going to present 2 topics one after the other . The second topic will be brought after we decide mutually to move ahead.


    My 2 topics will be of the following nature:

    1) One showing an error in the quran

    2) The other showing an internal contradiction within the quran.


    My next post will  actually start with the debate . That's it for the introduction part from my side. I hope people here enjoy the debate.

  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #1 - March 31, 2009, 08:04 AM

    ANGELS AROUND THE THRONE OF ALLAH

    039:075
    And you shall see the angels going round about the throne glorifying the praise of their Lord; and judgment shall be given between them with justice, and it shall be said: All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.



    2.255.

    Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).



    In the verse 39:75 we are told that the believers  WOULD SEE THE ANGELS GOING  ROUND ABOUT THE THRONE OF ALLAH.In  verse 2.255  we are told  that throne of Allah extends over the earth and heavens so one can imagine how big the throne must be. Let us see the problem that arises by a combination  of these 2 verses.

    IF the angels are  going ROUND ABOUT THE THRONE then irrespective of the position of the believers they would not be able to see the angels moving around the throne because the verse 2.255 tells us that throne is equal to extent of heavens and earth.With angels at such a large distance  no human would be able to see the angel moving around the throne unless BMZ here  can prove  me that when we die we are able to see that far.


    So the question is how can the believers see the angels going round about/surrounding the throne which is equal in extent of the earth and the heavens? There is no way one can see them.This shows that Muhhamad didnt think thoroughly before authoring these verses and thereby proves that quran is not from any GOD but a mortal human unless BMZ proves otherwise.
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #2 - March 31, 2009, 10:38 AM

    Hello All,
               Before I start the debate I would like to summarize the terms and conditions that me and BMZ have agreed upon.

    1.Use of other scriptures is not allowed. If he brings any scripture other than quran I am  going to simply ignore it because I am an atheist.

    2. Secondly there will no use of hadiths.

    3. I will not attack him or use any derogatory term for his prophet.

    4. IF he brings in Arabic I will be allowed to consult a person with the knowledge of arabic .I also request people knowledgeable in arabic to post their own translations in arabic in case the need arises as I dont know A of arabic.



    These are the main things that we have agreed upon. Now I would just like to brief about my presentation.I am going to present 2 topics one after the other . The second topic will be brought after we decide mutually to move ahead.


    My 2 topics will be of the following nature:

    1) One showing an error in the quran

    2) The other showing an internal contradiction within the quran.


    My next post will  actually start with the debate . That's it for the introduction part from my side. I hope people here enjoy the debate.




    Thanks, SNB

    I write to confirm my acceptance of above.

    Just came back from work. Will respond later to your 1st topic. We will discuss and once we have finished a topic, you can present the next and so on.

    BMZ
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #3 - March 31, 2009, 03:00 PM

    ANGELS AROUND THE THRONE OF ALLAH

    039:075
    And you shall see the angels going round about the throne glorifying the praise of their Lord; and judgment shall be given between them with justice, and it shall be said: All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.



    2.255.

    Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).



    In the verse 39:75 we are told that the believers  WOULD SEE THE ANGELS GOING  ROUND ABOUT THE THRONE OF ALLAH.In  verse 2.255  we are told  that throne of Allah extends over the earth and heavens so one can imagine how big the throne must be. Let us see the problem that arises by a combination  of these 2 verses.

    IF the angels are  going ROUND ABOUT THE THRONE then irrespective of the position of the believers they would not be able to see the angels moving around the throne because the verse 2.255 tells us that throne is equal to extent of heavens and earth.With angels at such a large distance  no human would be able to see the angel moving around the throne unless BMZ here  can prove  me that when we die we are able to see that far.


    So the question is how can the believers see the angels going round about/surrounding the throne which is equal in extent of the earth and the heavens? There is no way one can see them.This shows that Muhammad didnt think thoroughly before authoring these verses and thereby proves that quran is not from any GOD but a mortal human unless BMZ proves otherwise.


    Thank you for your 1st post, SNB

    First, one should know how Muslims read and understand Qur'aan. They read and study it in the order it has been compiled. We don't have any jump study in Qur'aan.

    In the mind of any Muslim, there is no confusion when a Muslim reads Qur'aan. Once we have understood 2:255, we know what it means. When we reach 39:75, we know what the Surah is about, what is the message given and find it very easy to understand it.

    Actually, those who are confused should read and understand 2:255 first. Once that is done, 39:75 will be clear. Let me explain
    2:255 first.

    I believe you have quoted from Yusuf Ali's translation. He has kept the translation close to the Arabic of Qur'aan. You will find him, Pickthall, Arberry, George Sale and some others mentioning the word "Throne". The word Throne does not mean a chair in the verse. although the word Kursi does mean a chair. That is the choice of some translators, not all, in English.

    The verse is not talking about any throne. Kursee-yehee (His chair or His Throne) in the verse means His power, dominion, reach, control and government. 

    You would get a clear picture from some other translations and I have emboldened the relevant part. This was the reason that I had asked you not to limit the translation to one.

    Take a look at Muhammad Asad's translation of the same verse:

    Quote
    GOD - there is no deity save Him, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsistent Fount of All Being. Neither slumber overtakes Him, nor sleep. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth. Who is there that could intercede with Him, unless it be by His leave? He knows all that lies open before men and all that is hidden from them, whereas they cannot attain to aught of His knowledge save that which He wills [them to attain]. His eternal power overspreads the heavens and the earth, and their upholding wearies Him not. And he alone is truly exalted, tremendous.


    Take a look at this from Maulana Muhammad Ali:

    Quote
    Allah -- there is no god but He, the Ever-living, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist. Slumber overtakes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them. And they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Great.


    Look at this modern translation by Sarwar:

    Quote
    God exists. There is no God but He, the Everlasting and the Guardian of life. Drowsiness or sleep do not seize him. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. No one can intercede with Him for others except by His permission. He knows about people's present and past. No one can grasp anything from His knowledge besides what He has permitted them to grasp. The heavens and the earth are under His dominion. He does not experience fatigue in preserving them both. He is the Highest and the Greatest.


    Thus every Muslim is taught and knows well, that it is not a throne that the verse is talking about.

    For example, if I tried to show HM Queen Victoria's vast Empire using Arabic language, it would not mean that her chair was spanning all over half the globe and she was such a huge and massive blob, covering millions of square miles, sitting over it. Neither is Allah doing that.

    So, it is clear that there is no throne spanning over a distance of thousands of light-years and one does not have to imagine at all how big the throne must be.

    Having made it clear, you can now clearly see that according to 39:75, the believers in Allah will see the angels surrounding the Throne of Allah.

    I do not see any confusion or contradiction here. Hope this helped.

    Cheers
    BMZ









  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #4 - April 01, 2009, 10:51 AM

       
    Quote from: Bmz
    :Thank you for your 1st post, SNB
        First, one should know how Muslims read and understand Qur'aan. They read and study it in the order it has been compiled. We don't have any jump study in Qur'aan.



    There is no need for me to understand how muslims read and understand quran.Its rather more important for me to understand the truth because what muslims believe and understand could be faulty and hence I am going to evaluate quran using my own logic.I would accept the muslim claim only if its logical but not otherwise.

    Since you have brought  the issue of compilation of quran I would like to know where it is said in Quran it has been compiled in the present order and by whom. Allah did not explicate such things in Quran, let alone specified the numbers of chapters or verses.

    Next, to understand of a certain topic in Quran a critic has to jump to various parts of quran  because of the poorly edited nature of your book. For example, if Allah?s throne ?Arsh? in Arabic was mentioned in a single place in Quran, I would not have gone to many places when discussing of it. Unfortunately for you Muslim, your book is not styled in that mode. We see verses scattered all over the places in it. IF I am going for an in-depth study of the throne of Allah, I can not stop at a verse since there are more verses in more places of Quran. I will certainly jump on them because all of those have one in common. That is Allah?s throne.


    Quote from: Bmz
    In the mind of any Muslim, there is no confusion when a Muslim reads Qur'aan. Once we have understood 2:255, we know what it means. When we reach 39:75, we know what the Surah is about, what is the message given and find it very easy to understand it.Actually, those who are confused should read and understand 2:255 first. Once that is done, 39:75 will be clear. Let me explain 2:255 first




    You need to study the entire quran to understand a particular topic for e.g to know of Jesus, you can not rely on some verses of a particular Surah as Jesus has been mentioned in many places in Quran. Sometimes in the first chapters sometimes in the middle or even last small
    chapters containing Jesus and his disciples . So, do not bring such silly arguments again without knowing what this debate is about.



    Quote from: Bmz

    I believe you have quoted from Yusuf Ali's translation. He has kept the translation close to the Arabic of Qur'aan. You will find him, Pickthall, Arberry, George Sale and some others mentioning the word "Throne". The word Throne does not mean a chair in the verse. although the word Kursi does mean a chair. That is the choice of some translators, not all, in English.The verse is not talking about any throne. Kursee-yehee (His chair or His Throne) in the verse means His power, dominion, reach, control and government.


    All right let me remind your own words there is no exact translation of the quran. If that is the case then I have every right to raise objections against the translations that you brought. Since ARabic Is not my domain . I will use logic to prove that these translators made an error.All I have to do is quote various verses from quran and put them here and see whether knowledge./power/dominionfit logically in these verses.




     23:86
    Say: Who is Lord of the seven heavens, and Lord of the Tremendous Throne?


    In the above verse Allah is supposedly prompting Muhammad to ask himself or to those surrounded him ?Who is the Lord  of the Seven heavens AND the Lord of ?Arsh ? ( throne as translated by Picktal)

    I would like to have my opponent made it clear for us if ?Arsh? means Allah?s reach, dominion, governance, power... what makes Allah mention he is the Lord of seven heavens AND of an exalted throne? Does not Allah?s dominion consist these seven heavens? Let us put your meaning of Arsh in the following verse and see whether it makes sense or not.

    ?Say who is the Lord of seven Heavens and the Lord of exalted dominion aka reach aka governance aka power??

     If Arsh denotes to Allah?s dominion or power or governance, just saying he is the  (Lord) of Arsh is enough and there is no need to mention seven heavens again.Why would Allah call himself the Lord of seven heavens again when Lord of Arsh(dominion,power etc) already includes it?

    IT is clear from the context of the verse that throne is indeed physical.


    LEt us see more verses

    39:75
    And thou wilt see the angels surrounding the Throne (Divine) on all sides, singing Glory and Praise to their Lord. The Decision between them (at Judgment) will be in (perfect) justice, and the cry (on all sides) will be, "Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds!"


     ARe we supposed to assume that angels will be surrounding a non physical entity like power,dominion, control etc and believers are to see it?? Does it make sense? 


    Let me present one more verse proving that the throne is indeed a literal one.


    [069:017]
    And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, that Day, bear the Throne of thy Lord above them.

    Now again If Arsh here meant power, dominionetc etc how can it have any sides ? I hope you agree with me that a physical object has sides and not a non physical entity. Do you want me to believe that these non physical entities like power,dominionetc etc have sides??? Secondly How can the angels bear/uphold these  non physical entities? The conclusion is that it has to be physical throne otherwise you and those who opposed me in the comments thread should please answer these questions for me.


























  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #5 - April 01, 2009, 02:48 PM

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    There is no need for me to understand how muslims read and understand quran.


    Sure. I have no problem with that.

    Quote
    Its rather more important for me to understand the truth because what muslims believe and understand could be faulty and hence I am going to evaluate quran using my own logic.I would accept the muslim claim only if its logical but not otherwise.


    For the first part, which I have emobldened in your quote, I am with you on that. For the next part, which I have left untouched, I would say you cannot because you are just relying on various translations of your choice, without even understanding a word of Arabic. You can try your logic but you will be corrected if your logic does not make sense. I am okay with the third part, which I have highlighted in blue.

    You have already been given explanation in response to your first post, which you have not been able to refute or deny.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Since you have brought  the issue of compilation of quran I would like to know where it is said in Quran it has been compiled in the present order and by whom. Allah did not explicate such things in Quran, let alone specified the numbers of chapters or verses.


    I never said that Qur'aan talks about compilation and the order, etc. Did I? If I did, please show me where did I say so? 

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Next, to understand of a certain topic in Quran a critic has to jump to various parts of quran  because of the poorly edited nature of your book.


    I would not mind if you keep jumping. The point was that we, the Muslims do not jump. You can keep jumping and I will explain. 

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    For example, if Allah's throne? Arsh? in Arabic was mentioned in a single place in Quran, I would not have gone to many places when discussing of it. Unfortunately for you Muslim, your book is not styled in that mode. We see verses scattered all over the places in it. IF I am going for an in-depth study of the throne of Allah, I can not stop at a verse since there are more verses in more places of Quran. I will certainly jump on them because all of those have one in common. That is Allah's throne.


    Sorry for some minor edit in your above quote. I am not discussing the style of the book. As I see, you have not even done an in-depth study of Qur'aan. You may carry on with your in-depth study of Arsh.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    You need to study the entire quran to understand a particular topic for e.g to know of Jesus, you can not rely on some verses of a particular Surah as Jesus has been mentioned in many places in Quran. Sometimes in the first chapters sometimes in the middle or even last small chapters containing Jesus and his disciples . So, do not bring such silly arguments again without knowing what this debate is about.


    No! There are only a few Surahs, where Jesus is mentioned. Naturally when a Surah was recited about his mother, his name would spring up. Likewise mentioning that he was not the son of God, his name sprang up in that topic. Where his case was discussed, his name again sprang up to show that he was not killed. 

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    All right let me remind your own words there is no exact translation of the quran. If that is the case then I have every right to raise objections against the translations that you brought. Since ARabic Is not my domain . I will use logic to prove that these translators made an error. All I have to do is quote various verses from quran and put them here and see whether knowledge./power/dominance fit logically in these verses.


    Go ahead. I am here to help you and correct you when necessary.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    23:86
    Say: Who is Lord of the seven heavens, and Lord of the Tremendous Throne?


    In the above verse Allah is supposedly prompting Muhammad to ask himself or to those surrounded him ? Who is the Lord  of the Seven heavens AND the Lord of ?Arsh ? ( throne as translated by Picktal)


    This is exactly where you need my help and I have to explain to make you understand, as you have not even been able to  understand the verse but just quoted it. By quoting just a verse, you missed a lot. You could not make out what was going on there in the Surah 23 because you looked at one verse, made your own conclusion, without knowing and understanding what was the topic in that part of the Surah.

    I have to elaborate a little here to educate you and it is imperative, since you do not appear to have understood at all. If you had, you would not have asked me, "In the above verse Allah is supposedly prompting Muhammad to ask himself or to those surrounded him ?"

    You can see the word "Qul" meaning "Say or Tell them", "Qalu" meaning "They said", and "Qala" meaning "He said" in Arabic at many places in Qur'aan.

    So, Muhammad is being told by Allah to tell people and then you have to see what is their response. You did not understand because you did not read the entire exchange which went on like this:

    Quote
    23:84

    Say: "Unto whom belongs the earth and all that lives thereon?48 [Tell me this] if you happen to know [the answer]!" (23:85) [And] they will reply: "Unto God." Say: "Will you not, then, bethink yourselves [of Him]?"

    23:86

    Say: "Who is it that sustains the seven heavens and is enthroned in His awesome almightiness?"49 (23:87) [And] they will reply: "[All this power belongs] to God." Say: "Will you not, then, remain conscious of Him?"

    23:88

    Say: "In whose hand rests the mighty dominion over all things, and who is it that protects, the while there is no protection against Him? [Tell me this] if you happen to know [the answer]!" (23:89) [And] they will reply: "[All this power belongs) to God." Say: "How, then, can you be so deluded?"


    If you had read above, you would have known in a jiffy that Allah told Muhammad to follow that line of questioning or reasoning with the people.

    So, Allah is prompting Muhammad to ask people. There you are and that is the answer.

    By the way, 7 and 70 do not mean an exact figure. It means simply "A lot" or "Far", etc. For example, If I say that I have travelled seven seas, It does not mean I really travelled across seven seas, counting each of them. It means I travelled a lot. This is just a bonus info.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    I would like to have my opponent made it clear for us if ?Arsh? means Allah?s reach, dominion, governance, power... what makes Allah mention he is the Lord of seven heavens AND of an exalted throne? Does not Allah?s dominion consist these seven heavens? Let us put your meaning of Arsh in the following verse and see whether it makes sense or not.


    Say: "In whose hand rests the mighty dominion over all things, and who is it that protects, the while there is no protection against Him? [Tell me this] if you happen to know [the answer]!" (23:89) [And] they will reply: "[All this power belongs) to God." Say: "How, then, can you be so deluded?"50 I would like to have my opponent made it clear for us if ?Arsh? means Allah?s reach, dominion, governance, power... what makes Allah mention he is the Lord of seven heavens AND of an exalted throne? Does not Allah?s dominion consist these seven heavens? Let us put your meaning of Arsh in the following verse and see whether it makes sense or not.

    ?Say who is the Lord of seven Heavens and the Lord of exalted dominion aka reach aka governance aka power??

     If Arsh denotes to Allah?s dominion or power or governance, just saying he is the  (Lord) of Arsh is enough and there is no need to mention seven heavens again.Why would Allah call himself the Lord of seven heavens again when Lord of Arsh(dominion,power etc) already includes it?

    IT is clear from the context of the verse that throne is indeed physical.


    The word Arsh when mentioned alone would mean the Throne, the Seat of His Power. It need not be a sofa or a seat or a stool or a chair or a stage or dice, as we do not believe that Allah is a huge man sitting on some furniture piece. Allah can call Himself anything he likes as He is the Master.

    The word Arsh does not mean dominion or power, reach, etc.

    If Arsh is written as Arshahu, literally meaning His Throne, in a specific verse, it would mean exactly as Kurseeyehee, i.e., power, reach, dominion, government or control, etc., as I explained in my first response to your debate post.

    For example: "Wa kana arshahu alal Ma'a", literally meaning, "His Power was over the waters", which in fact means "He was controlling the waters during the formation of earth" or simply "watching the creation". So, you cannot tell me that Allah's huge Arsh was floating over the water, while Allah was sitting or lying down on it.

     
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    LEt us see more verses

    39:75
    And thou wilt see the angels surrounding the Throne (Divine) on all sides, singing Glory and Praise to their Lord. The Decision between them (at Judgment) will be in (perfect) justice, and the cry (on all sides) will be, "Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds!"

     

    Yes, the believers will see. That is what Qur'aan says. How does the Arsh look like, we do not know. No one knows.


    Quote from: skynightblaze
    ARe we supposed to assume that angels will be surrounding a non physical entity like power,dominance, control etc and believers are to see it?? Does it make sense? 


    I think by now it should make sense after I have explained to you that Allah is an Entity and a reality. Again, I have to take you to her Majesty the Queen Victoria. She was on the throne and exercised her powers, dominance, control, reach, command over her Empire. 


    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Let me present one more verse proving that the throne is indeed a literal one.


    [069:017]
    And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, that Day, bear the Throne of thy Lord above them.

    Now again If Arsh here meant power, dominance etc etc how can it have any sides ? I hope you agree with me that a physical object has sides and not a non physical entity. Do you want me to believe that these non physical entities like power,dominance etc etc have sides??? Secondly How can the angels bear/uphold these  non physical entities? The conclusion is that it has to be physical throne otherwise you and those who opposed me in the comments thread should please answer these questions for me.


    By now, it should be clear to you that Arsh does not mean power or dominion, etc. Arsh simply is Allah's area from where Allah operates. This is as simple as I can put. I do not know how it looks like. No one does, haven't been there yet.

    I cannot post in the comment threads. You will have to deal with the posters there yourself. By now, you should know the difference between a Sovereign and his powers.

    Nobody will be seeing eight angels carrying God around.  Cheesy

    Cheers
    BMZ



























  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #6 - April 03, 2009, 05:25 AM

    Quote from: BMZ

    Quote from: skynightblaze

    Its rather more important for me to understand the truth because what muslims believe and understand could be faulty and hence I am going to evaluate quran using my own logic.I would accept the muslim claim only if its logical but not otherwise.



    1)For the first part, which I have emobldened in your quote, I am with you on that. 2)For the next part, which I have left untouched, I would say you cannot because you are just relying on various translations of your choice, without even understanding a word of Arabic. 3)You can try your logic but you will be corrected if your logic does not make sense. I am okay with the third part, which I have highlighted in blue.
    You have already been given explanation in response to your first post, which you have not been able to refute or deny.


    Your comment on my second part (nos in blue) isnt appropriate. I can understand what quran is telling from someone who is knowledgeable at arabic who can explain me what quran tells .I need not understand arabic for that matter.I already told you that if quran can be understood only by learning arabic then you are shooting yourself in foot because then quran cannot be a clear and easy to understand book as it claims in that case.This would mean quran is in error. Finally about correcting me you are always welcome.I have proved that Arsh is literal and now I need to prove khursi is literal.


    Quote from: BMZ

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Since you have brought  the issue of compilation of quran I would like to know where it is said in Quran it has been compiled in the present order and by whom. Allah did not explicate such things in Quran, let alone specified the numbers of chapters
    or verses.


    I never said that Qur'aan talks about compilation and the order, etc. Did I? If I did, please show me where did I say so?



    Your post is still there for you to see. If quran never said anything about compilation then which order were you talking of for me to follow to understand the book?


    Quote from: BMZ

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Next, to understand of a certain topic in Quran a critic has to jump to various parts of quran  because of the poorly edited nature of your book.


    I would not mind if you keep jumping. The point was that we, the Muslims do not jump. You can keep jumping and I will explain.



    Which Muslims are you talking for? I can show you prominent Mufassirs of Quran jumping from one to many while interpreting a verse or verses in Quran. Do you mean all of them are idiots who do not understand your book properly While at the same time there are millions of Muslims who accord to traditional interpreters of Quran?? How can you talk  on behalf of all Muslims?

    Besides, what makes it hard for you to understand if someone wants to research a topic within a book, he will be going through all parts of it that relate to the topic?Dont you think its stupidity to draw conclusions on just a single verse ?


    Quote from: Bmz

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    For example, if Allah's throne? Arsh? in Arabic was mentioned in a single place in Quran, I would not have gone to many places when discussing of it. Unfortunately for you Muslim, your book is not styled in that mode. We see verses scattered all
    over the places in it. IF I am going for an in-depth study of the throne of Allah, I can not stop at a verse since there are more verses in more places of Quran. I will certainly jump on them because all of those have one in common. That is Allah's
    throne.



    Sorry for some minor edit in your above quote. I am not discussing the style of the book. As I see, you have not even done an in-depth study of Qur'aan. You may carry on with your in-depth study of Arsh.


    My point is clear . To study an issue in quran you need to run through the entire book to find verses relating to it . You cant just draw  any conclusion depending on just a single verse and I am aware that we arent discussing style of quran .I just wanted to say that the way in which your book is authored makes one to research all the way till the end.




    Quote from: Bmz
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    You need to study the entire quran to understand a particular topic for e.g to know of Jesus, you can not rely on some verses of a particular Surah as Jesus has been mentioned in many places in Quran. Sometimes in the first chapters sometimes in the
    middle or even last small chapters containing Jesus and his disciples . So, do not bring such silly arguments again without knowing what this debate is about.



    No! There are only a few Surahs, where Jesus is mentioned. Naturally when a Surah was recited about his mother, his name would spring up. Likewise mentioning that he was not the son of God, his name sprang up in that topic. Where his case was
    discussed, his name again sprang up to show that he was not killed.



    So now tell me Would you know whether jesus was killed or not if you just stop at reading that he was not GOD? If you want to study about Jesus from quran you need to study in entirety. Mate I think we should not be wasting our time on such trivial
    issues.



    Quote from: Bmz
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    All right let me remind your own words there is no exact translation of the quran. If that is the case then I have every right to raise objections against the translations that you brought. Since ARabic Is not my domain . I will use logic to prove that these translators made an error. All I have to do is quote various verses from quran and put them here and see whether knowledge./power/dominance fit logically in these verses.



    23:86
    Say: Who is Lord of the seven heavens, and Lord of the Tremendous Throne?


    In the above verse Allah is supposedly prompting Muhammad to ask himself or to those surrounded him ? Who is the Lord  of the Seven heavens AND the Lord of ?Arsh ? ( throne as translated by Picktal)



    This is exactly where you need my help and I have to explain to make you understand, as you have not even been able to  understand the verse but just quoted it. By quoting just a verse, you missed a lot. You could not make out what was going on there in the Surah 23 because you looked at one verse, made your own conclusion, without knowing and understanding what was the topic in that part of the Surah.

    I have to elaborate a little here to educate you and it is imperative, since you do not appear to have understood at all. If you had, you would not have asked me, "In the above verse Allah is supposedly prompting Muhammad to ask himself or to those surrounded him ?"

    You can see the word "Qul" meaning "Say or Tell them", "Qalu" meaning "They said", and "Qala" meaning "He said" in Arabic at many places in Qur'aan.

    So, Muhammad is being told by Allah to tell people and then you have to see what is their response. You did not understand because you did not read the entire exchange which went on like this:

    23:84

    Say: "Unto whom belongs the earth and all that lives thereon?48 [Tell me this] if you happen to know [the answer]!" (23:85)

    [And] they will reply: "Unto God." Say: "Will you not, then, bethink yourselves [of Him]?"

    23:86

    Say: "Who is it that sustains the seven heavens and is enthroned in His awesome almightiness?"49 (23:87) [And] they will

    reply: "[All this power belongs] to God." Say: "Will you not, then, remain conscious of Him?"

    23:88

    Say: "In whose hand rests the mighty dominion over all things, and who is it that protects, the while there is no protection

    against Him? [Tell me this] if you happen to know [the answer]!" (23:89) [And] they will reply: "[All this power belongs) to

    God." Say: "How, then, can you be so deluded?"


    If you had read above, you would have known in a jiffy that Allah told Muhammad to follow that line of questioning or reasoning with the people.

    So, Allah is prompting Muhammad to ask people. There you are and that is the answer.By the way, 7 and 70 do not mean an exact figure. It means simply "A lot" or "Far", etc. For example, If I say that I have travelled seven seas, It does not mean I really travelled across seven seas, counting each of them. It means I travelled a
    lot. This is just a bonus info.



    Bmz may i ask you where is the refutation to my claim? I didnt ask you who told whom these verses.Please re read my claim.Anyway this was to prove that ARsh (throne ) is literal. You may skip this argument since you have already accepted
    ARsh as literal . One more thing you say here eight is not eight i.e its metaphorical  . What is the criteria to decide such a thing? Did Allah classify clear and allegorical verses in quran? I am sure you musnt be inventing and only telling what quran told you so kindly produce 2 seperate lists  mentioning clear and allegorical verses which Allah told you . I am sure Allah must have told you believers in the quran since you always claim to know the best about the verses.


    Quote from: Bmz

    Quote from: Skynightblaze
    I would like to have my opponent made it clear for us if ?Arsh? means Allah?s reach, dominion, governance, power... what makes Allah mention he is the Lord of seven heavens AND of an exalted throne? Does not Allah?s dominion consist these seven
    heavens? Let us put your meaning of Arsh in the following verse and see whether it makes sense or not.

    Say: "In whose hand rests the mighty dominion over all things, and who is it that protects, the while there is no protection against Him? [Tell me this] if you happen to know [the answer]!" (23:89) [And] they will reply: "[All this power belongs) to
    God." Say: "How, then, can you be so deluded?"50 I would like to have my opponent made it clear for us if ?Arsh? means Allah?s reach, dominion, governance, power... what makes Allah mention he is the Lord of seven heavens AND of an exalted throne? Does not Allah?s dominion consist these seven heavens? Let us put your meaning of Arsh in the following verse and see whether it makes sense or not.
    ?Say who is the Lord of seven Heavens and the Lord of exalted dominion aka reach aka governance aka power??

     If Arsh denotes to Allah?s dominion or power or governance, just saying he is the  (Lord) of Arsh is enough and there is no need to mention seven heavens again.Why would Allah call himself the Lord of seven heavens again when Lord of Arsh(dominion,power etc) already includes it?IT is clear from the context of the verse that throne is indeed physical.



    The word Arsh when mentioned alone would mean the Throne, the Seat of His Power. It need not be a sofa or a seat or a stool or a chair or a stage or dice, as we do not believe that Allah is a huge man sitting on some furniture piece. Allah can call
    Himself anything he likes as He is the Master.


    Again are you going to make claims depending on what you believe? Just because you dont believe does it mean that you are by default on the right path? How do you know Allah isnt a huge man sitting on the throne ? Did quran ever say that? My point is stop making baseless assumptions.


    Quote from: Bmz
    The word Arsh does not mean dominion or power, reach, etc.

    If Arsh is written as Arshahu, literally meaning His Throne, in a specific verse, it would mean exactly as Kurseeyehee, i.e., power, reach, dominion, government or control, etc., as I explained in my first response to your debate post.
    For example: "Wa kana arshahu alal Ma'a", literally meaning, "His Power was over the waters", which in fact means "He was controlling the waters during the formation of earth" or simply "watching the creation". So, you cannot
    tell me that Allah's huge Arsh was floating over the water, while Allah was sitting or lying down on it.


    You need to see what Emerald posted in the comments thread. You are in error here in arabic. DOnt blame me for this.I would like to add  one more comment here .You say you have studied the book in depth and understood it but still Why am i seeing comments like "It can be this... OR" that ...." . YOu should be sure because Allah said in quran that is easy to understand and you also claimed that  you have understood everything in depth unlike me.I hope you agree with me truth is only one and not many.


    Quote from: Bmz

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    LEt us see more verses

    39:75
    And thou wilt see the angels surrounding the Throne (Divine) on all sides, singing Glory and Praise to their Lord. The Decision between them (at Judgment) will be in (perfect) justice, and the cry (on all sides) will be, "Praise be to God, the
    Lord of the Worlds!"

     

    Yes, the believers will see. That is what Qur'aan says. How does the Arsh look like, we do not know. No one knows.



    Ok so you accept that ARsh is real and literal . Fine lets proceed.


    Quote from: Bmz

     
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    ARe we supposed to assume that angels will be surrounding a non physical entity like power,dominance, control etc and believers are to see it?? Does it make sense?


    I think by now it should make sense after I have explained to you that Allah is an Entity and a reality. Again, I have to take you to her Majesty the Queen Victoria. She was on the throne and exercised her powers, dominance, control, reach, command over her Empire.



    I never denied Allah being an entity .

    Quote from: Bmz

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Let me present one more verse proving that the throne is indeed a literal one.


    [069:017]
    And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, that Day, bear the Throne of thy Lord above them.

    Now again If Arsh here meant power, dominance etc etc how can it have any sides ? I hope you agree with me that a physical object has sides and not a non physical entity. Do you want me to believe that these non physical entities like power,dominance etc etc have sides??? Secondly How can the angels bear/uphold these  non physical entities? The conclusion is that it has to be physical throne otherwise you and those who opposed me in the comments thread should please answer these questions for me.


    By now, it should be clear to you that Arsh does not mean power or dominion, etc. Arsh simply is Allah's area from where Allah operates. This is as simple as I can put. I do not know how it looks like. No one does, haven't been there yet.I cannot post in the comment threads. You will have to deal with the posters there yourself. By now, you should know the difference between a Sovereign and his powers.Nobody will be seeing eight angels carrying God around.  Cheesy



    So finally you agree that Arsh is a literal throne but you do not know how it looks . SO let me tell you that i know how it looks and that will be proved after I prove that Khursi means a physical chair.All right Now All that I have do is prove Kursi also is literal . So let me proceed to the heart of the debate.
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #7 - April 03, 2009, 05:26 AM

          REFUTING THE CLAIM THAT KURSI IS NOT LITERAL


    First of all let me frankly admit that to refute this part of kursi being a chair I could not do it without the help of Emerald as it needed arabic .As decided in the terms and conditions of the debate I was allowed to seek for help in arabic.The following that I have written is something that I learned from Emerald.


    The message conveyed by arabic quran when it used the word Khursi  is chair and nothing else. Arabic quran doesnt allow any connotative interpretation of kursi (like power etc)  however BMz is committing the fallacy of  translating it into english language and then using rules of english language to give chair/throne a connotative meaning of "power" that is something which only english language allows but not the arabic language as arabic language prevents khursi to be translated something as power etc etc . Now since quran was revealed in arabic we must be focusing on the message that arabic language conveys and not the english because that is what Allah meant.Bmz would have been right if the quran was in english.

    One might wonder now why the some translators translated Khursi as dominion ,power etc .The reason some translators translated it Khursi as dominion or power was because they were inspired from tafsirs and because of original arabic. Now Since BMZ doesnt believe in tafsir there is no reason why he should take their translation.Morever there are more tafsirs which  affirm my contention that throne is literal than the  tafsirs which say it otherwise. SO I can use this argument of khursi being literal even against those who accept tafsirs.


    Here is more proof refuting Bmz's claim.



    Infact It's Kursi that can't be considered intangible.

    http://lexicons.sakhr.com/openme.aspx?fileurl=/html/1082635.html

    http://lexicons.sakhr.com/openme.aspx?fileurl=/html/3074905.html

    In the above, it even says (kursi) could mean (arsh).Bmz can have a read since its in arabic.(Links were provided to me by Emerald) Now let us see one of the verses in quran regarding Khursi .


    38:34
    And We did try Sulaiman: We placed on his throne a body (without life): but he did turn (to Us in true devotion).


    Here again the same term  "Khursi yehee" is used. Now Let us put the meanings proposed by Bmz in the following verse and see whether they make sense or not.


    Was the body being placed over the "power" of suleman?

    The answer is NO


    Was the body being placed over the "dominion" of suleman?

    The answer is No


    Was the body being placed over the "knowledge" of suleman?

    The answer is again no.




    Was the body being placed over the control of suleman?

    The answer is yet again no


    This should be sufficient to prove that Khursi is indeed physical.


    If this is not sufficient let us listen to what his friend Ahmed Baghat a native arabic speaker wrote 4-5 months ago on Old forum of FFI.

    Quote from: Ahmed Bahgat

    See you dumb:   Wasaa Kursayahu Alsamawat Wa Alard, i.e.  His chair extends over the heavens and the earth , i.e. His chair alone is bigger than the heavens and earth, imagine the throne where the chair is part of it, now how come Nasa will find something in the heavens (assuming that they can see it all despite the fact of the matter that they can only see 13 billion light years NO MORE) while that thing is BIGGER that the heavens itself


    http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1162292#1162292

    If Ahmed choses to edit his posts now it will immediately be seen and also khalil Fariel had quoted his post .
    I guess this should be sufficient to make a case that Khursi is indeed a chair.Many thanks to Ahmed too though he helped me unknowingly.You may refer to other posts of Ahmed too in that thread where he clearly accepts that khursi means literally a chair and nothing else.


    Now Previously I had proved that Arsh is physical . Bmz even Accepted it. So now if chair(khursi) is that big then the throne should be even bigger than that. SO the problem for BMz is more intensified as to how normal humans will see the angels moving around the throne(arsh as in 39:75).


    Bmz claims to here know of arabic but 2 native arabic speakers deny the meaning of Kursi assumed by BMz. That should be sufficient to prove my case of chair be a physical entity.Having said that let me ask BMz another question.





    21:22.

    If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!



    Doesnt this mean that Allah too is present in the heavens and the earth? IF yes then Allahs throne should also be in the heavens and the earth . That being the case Bmz is requested to show me where in the heavens and earth is the throne of Allah  that is equal or more in extent of heavens and earth? If it was we should certainly be seeing it.



  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #8 - April 03, 2009, 06:49 AM

    SNB,

    Before I respond to your both posts, I need to know how good is Emerald at Qur'aan's Arabic. You cannot refer to any Tom, Dick and Harry and quote me his opinion here.

    Hold your horses here and please ask Emerald to explain this first, if he truly understands:

     ويسام، هو من أهلل كرسي

    What have I just written above and how would he describe and explain to you? A tip to you and Emerald. Is Emerald carrying a chair?  Cheesy

    Before I proceed any further, get it clarified. If he can explain well, I will recommend that you can continue using him as your helper. lol!

    This is imperative, so get me the answer and I will proceed with my response to your two posts, later.

    Thanks

    BMZ


  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #9 - April 03, 2009, 07:18 AM

    SNB,

    Before I respond to your both posts, I need to know how good is Emerald at Qur'aan's Arabic. You cannot refer to any Tom, Dick and Harry and quote me his opinion here.

    Hold your horses here and please ask Emerald to explain this first, if he truly understands:

     ويسام، هو من أهلل كرسي

    What have I just written above and how would he describe and explain to you? A tip to you and Emerald. Is Emerald carrying a chair?  Cheesy

    Before I proceed any further, get it clarified. If he can explain well, I will recommend that you can continue using him as your helper. lol!

    This is imperative, so get me the answer and I will proceed with my response to your two posts, later.

    Thanks

    BMZ






    I think you didnt read my post properly . I have quoted Ahmed bahgat too another native arabic speaker. Why dont you just invite Ahmed here and ask him to give his honest opinion?
    Here is what kursi means from the dictionary of arabic.

    http://www.arabiclookup.com/default.aspx?ar=%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%8A

    Now I guess Those dictionaries must be Tom ,Dick and Harry according to you. Emerald is a native speaker and so is Ahmed Bahgat.
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #10 - April 03, 2009, 08:51 AM

    SNB,

    Before I respond to your both posts, I need to know how good is Emerald at Qur'aan's Arabic. You cannot refer to any Tom, Dick and Harry and quote me his opinion here.

    Hold your horses here and please ask Emerald to explain this first, if he truly understands:

     ويسام، هو من أهلل كرسي

    What have I just written above and how would he describe and explain to you? A tip to you and Emerald. Is Emerald carrying a chair?  Cheesy

    Before I proceed any further, get it clarified. If he can explain well, I will recommend that you can continue using him as your helper. lol!

    This is imperative, so get me the answer and I will proceed with my response to your two posts, later.

    Thanks

    BMZ






    I think you didnt read my post properly . I have quoted Ahmed bahgat too another native arabic speaker. Why dont you just invite Ahmed here and ask him to give his honest opinion?
    Here is what kursi means from the dictionary of arabic.

    http://www.arabiclookup.com/default.aspx?ar=%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%8A

    Now I guess Those dictionaries must be Tom ,Dick and Harry according to you. Emerald is a native speaker and so is Ahmed Bahgat.


    I am the lone ranger here debating with you, unassisted and unaided by anyone.  I have asked you to check with Emerald. You can also check with Ahmed Bahgat on your own, if you like and let me know.

    Since you brought up Emerald's name, the onus is on you to show me Emerald's knowledge!

    Till then, I will also hold my horses. By the way, I did not write a verse. It is a little note to test your colleague.

    BMZ
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #11 - April 03, 2009, 09:05 AM

    SNB,

    Before I respond to your both posts, I need to know how good is Emerald at Qur'aan's Arabic. You cannot refer to any Tom, Dick and Harry and quote me his opinion here.

    Hold your horses here and please ask Emerald to explain this first, if he truly understands:

     ويسام، هو من أهلل كرسي

    What have I just written above and how would he describe and explain to you? A tip to you and Emerald. Is Emerald carrying a chair?  Cheesy

    Before I proceed any further, get it clarified. If he can explain well, I will recommend that you can continue using him as your helper. lol!

    This is imperative, so get me the answer and I will proceed with my response to your two posts, later.

    Thanks

    BMZ






    I think you didnt read my post properly . I have quoted Ahmed bahgat too another native arabic speaker. Why dont you just invite Ahmed here and ask him to give his honest opinion?
    Here is what kursi means from the dictionary of arabic.

    http://www.arabiclookup.com/default.aspx?ar=%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%8A

    Now I guess Those dictionaries must be Tom ,Dick and Harry according to you. Emerald is a native speaker and so is Ahmed Bahgat.


    I am the lone ranger here debating with you, unassisted and unaided by anyone.  I have asked you to check with Emerald. You can also check with Ahmed Bahgat on your own, if you like and let me know.

    Since you brought up Emerald's name, the onus is on you to show me Emerald's knowledge!

    Till then, I will also hold my horses. By the way, I did not write a verse. It is a little note to test your colleague.

    BMZ



    SNB,

    Before I respond to your both posts, I need to know how good is Emerald at Qur'aan's Arabic. You cannot refer to any Tom, Dick and Harry and quote me his opinion here.

    Hold your horses here and please ask Emerald to explain this first, if he truly understands:

     ويسام، هو من أهلل كرسي

    What have I just written above and how would he describe and explain to you? A tip to you and Emerald. Is Emerald carrying a chair?  Cheesy

    Before I proceed any further, get it clarified. If he can explain well, I will recommend that you can continue using him as your helper. lol!

    This is imperative, so get me the answer and I will proceed with my response to your two posts, later.

    Thanks

    BMZ






    I think you didnt read my post properly . I have quoted Ahmed bahgat too another native arabic speaker. Why dont you just invite Ahmed here and ask him to give his honest opinion?
    Here is what kursi means from the dictionary of arabic.

    http://www.arabiclookup.com/default.aspx?ar=%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%8A

    Now I guess Those dictionaries must be Tom ,Dick and Harry according to you. Emerald is a native speaker and so is Ahmed Bahgat.


    I am the lone ranger here debating with you, unassisted and unaided by anyone.  I have asked you to check with Emerald. You can also check with Ahmed Bahgat on your own, if you like and let me know.

    Since you brought up Emerald's name, the onus is on you to show me Emerald's knowledge!

    Till then, I will also hold my horses. By the way, I did not write a verse. It is a little note to test your colleague.

    BMZ


    Ahmed Bahgat cannot back out now. His posts are there on FFI for everyone to read and hence there is no need for me to again check with him.Ahmed Bahgat has clearly confirmed  there that Kursi means chair . His post tell us that.I have quoted him.

    Ahmed says that the throne of Allah is even bigger than the chair of Allah.
    Btw Emerald has made his case clearly . He has quoted arabic dictionaries too. What else do you want Emerald to do for you? Anyway I am more than sure that he will ans wer your question.
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #12 - April 03, 2009, 09:20 AM


    Ahmed Bahgat cannot back out now. His posts are there on FFI for everyone to read and hence there is no need for me to again check with him.Ahmed Bahgat has clearly confirmed  there that Kursi means chair . His post tell us that.I have quoted him.

    Ahmed says that the throne of Allah is even bigger than the chair of Allah.
    Btw Emerald has made his case clearly . He has quoted arabic dictionaries too. What else do you want Emerald to do for you? Anyway I am more than sure that he will answer your question.


    Over here, the debate is between you and me only, SNB. We are not going to discuss what Ahmed said and what Emerald said.
    All I want is Emerald's answer to my question, since you are relying on his knowledge of Arabic.

    I made a typo-error in the Arabic. I do not have Arabic software, so hope this comes better. I am trying to use another online Arabic writer.

    It should be read:

    وسام، هو من اهل الكُرسى

    Just get this clarified and I will move on to prepare my response.

    Thanks
    BMZ

     
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #13 - April 03, 2009, 09:58 AM

    Hello, SNB

    You can post your colleague's response in my thread A Question to Ex-Muslims Only. I can comment there later.

    In order to keep our exchanges to the point, please do not write about Emerald, Ahmed or anybody in this topic and wait for my replies.

    Thanks
    BMZ
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #14 - April 03, 2009, 10:27 AM

    Hello, SNB

    You can post your colleague's response in my thread A Question to Ex-Muslims Only. I can comment there later.

    In order to keep our exchanges to the point, please do not write about Emerald, Ahmed or anybody in this topic and wait for my replies.

    Thanks
    BMZ


    As per the terms of the debate I am allowed to quote Arabic speakers. I havent quoted anyone where logic is concerned. Anyway lets Wait for Emerald to answer you..
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #15 - April 03, 2009, 10:58 AM

    Hello, SNB

    You can post your colleague's response in my thread A Question to Ex-Muslims Only. I can comment there later.

    In order to keep our exchanges to the point, please do not write about Emerald, Ahmed or anybody in this topic and wait for my replies.

    Thanks
    BMZ


    As per the terms of the debate I am allowed to quote Arabic speakers. I havent quoted anyone where logic is concerned. Anyway lets Wait for Emerald to answer you..


    Ok. Fair. You can quote here.
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #16 - April 03, 2009, 04:27 PM

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Your comment on my second part (nos in blue) isnt appropriate. I can understand what quran is telling from someone who is knowledgeable at arabic who can explain me what quran tells .I need not understand arabic for that matter.I already told you that if quran can be understood only by learning arabic then you are shooting yourself in foot because then quran cannot be a clear and easy to understand book as it claims in that case.This would mean quran is in error. Finally about correcting me you are always welcome.I have proved that Arsh is literal and now I need to prove khursi is literal.


    Actually, you just shot yourself in the foot. You have acknowledged that you can understand Qur'aan from someone who is knowledgeable at Arabic and yours truly is exactly doing the same. Not all on various sites know Arabic and yet they learn from those who know.

    So, if you get someone who does not really understand the context, intent, idioms, language, the linguistic usage and comprehension, etc., then you cannot say that Qur'aan has errors.

    Even the person, whom you engaged for help, could not translate it properly, what I had asked, well and did not explain. All he did was, this and this is hilarious:

    Quote
    Emerald, he's from the people of the chair.

     

    Forget about the rest of his comments, which are of no real significance. Just looking at above translation, I can say that the person does not have any knowledge of Qur'aan's Arabic, it's grammar, construction and intent. Yes, he may be an Arab but you will not be able to learn anything from such an speaker of Arabic. Not every Englishman can explain classical prose, poetry and literature.

    So, who are the people of the chair, according to your colleague? How many people were there and how many chairs were there? Or was he the only person among the people who were occupying a chair?

    That is not what it means.


    Now, a learned and knowledgeable person, who knows the language of Qur'aan, will tell you that it means, "He is from people, who have knowledge" or "He is a knowledgeable person." One cannot say that Emerald comes from people who have a chair.  Cheesy

    So, please do not provide references from not-so-qualified men to me. You have to get someone who knows more. I am not discussing market or street language.

    Even if one tries to go for literal meanings, one has to think if it makes sense. Let us go back to your 1st post and my response.
    You were content with the translation from Yusuf Ali but you never realised, or conveniently chose to ignore  that although Yusuf Ali used the word Throne, he did clarify in the Commentary. Many people have translated Qur'aan but some scholars have added commentries to make the readers understand. Some did not.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Since you have brought  the issue of compilation of quran I would like to know where it is said in Quran it has been compiled in the present order and by whom. Allah did not explicate such things in Quran, let alone specified the numbers of chapters
    or verses.

    Your post is still there for you to see. If quran never said anything about compilation then which order were you talking of for me to follow to understand the book?


    Yes, go and read again. I did not discuss about the actual compilation of Qur'aan. Perhaps you did not understand my point. You opened up your first post by quoting 39:75 first, followed by 2:255 and I brought up the point to show that your were confused because you read in the wrong order. Naturally you would be confused, remain confused and would confuse all others. 

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Which Muslims are you talking for? I can show you prominent Mufassirs of Quran jumping from one to many while interpreting a verse or verses in Quran. Do you mean all of them are idiots who do not understand your book properly While at the same time there are millions of Muslims who accord to traditional interpreters of Quran?? How can you talk on behalf of all Muslims?

    Besides, what makes it hard for you to understand if someone wants to research a topic within a book, he will be going through all parts of it that relate to the topic? Dont you think its stupidity to draw conclusions on just a single verse?


    Bold emphasis in your quote is mine.

    All. Mufassareen do not jump from verse to verse to verse. In fact, they do link up a verse discussed with another one. That is NOT jumping. Basically, most mufassareen do not differ on the core message. A commentary by a Shia mufassir on some certain verses may differ from that of a Sunni mufassir. I can talk on behalf of all Muslims, even if they agree or not. That is exactly what the mufassareen are also subject to. For example, any Muslim reader, reading here, if displeased, would certainly comment but so far no Muslim has objected to what I write and what I explain.

    No! There is no stupidity in that. I will show you, your own stupidity, pardon me for using your own words, later.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    My point is clear . To study an issue in quran you need to run through the entire book to find verses relating to it. You cant just draw  any conclusion depending on just a single verse and I am aware that we arent discussing style of quran. I just wanted to say that the way in which your book is authored makes one to research all the way till the end.


    I understand your problem but it is only because of a lack of knowledge shown by a reader. Yes! You can draw a conclusion by reading just a verse. For example, "Do not murder!", "Do not devour orphans' property!", "Be good to your parents!", etc., etc.
    You do not have to do research on that. Just read and understand. How difficult is that to undertsand?

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    So now tell me Would you know whether jesus was killed or not if you just stop at reading that he was not GOD? If you want to study about Jesus from quran you need to study in entirety. Mate I think we should not be wasting our time on such trivial
    issues.


    Your comment is irrelevant. You brought up Jesus in the discussion. There is not much Jesus in Qur'aan and you can find him mentioned, where necessary. There is not much on Jesus because Jesus did not bring anything new. Let us strike him out from this topic.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Bmz may i ask you where is the refutation to my claim? I didnt ask you who told whom these verses.Please re read my claim.Anyway this was to prove that ARsh (throne ) is literal. You may skip this argument since you have already accepted ARsh as literal . One more thing you say here eight is not eight i.e its metaphorical  . What is the criteria to decide such a thing? Did Allah classify clear and allegorical verses in quran? I am sure you musnt be inventing and only telling what quran told you so kindly produce 2 seperate lists  mentioning clear and allegorical verses which Allah told you . I am sure Allah must have told you believers in the quran since you always claim to know the best about the verses.


    Please refer to your post and you did ask me
    Quote
    In the above verse Allah is supposedly prompting Muhammad to ask himself or to those surrounded him?

     and I had explained to you that Allah was asking Muhammd to tell the people.

    You brought up the verse
    Quote
    69:17And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, that Day, bear the Throne of thy Lord above them.


    I consider the above verse purely as one of the Mutashabihaat (Allegorical). And that is why I did not comment on it. Again, if you look at various translations, it does not show that God would be sitting on a cot and paraded by eight angels. To me, it means, there will be angels around the throne, or if you like, eight angels will be surrounding His Throne or standing like guards.

    You may have seen Muslims clinging to the door and walls of Ka'aba, as if they are holding it or carrying it.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Again are you going to make claims depending on what you believe? Just because you dont believe does it mean that you are by default on the right path? How do you know Allah isnt a huge man sitting on the throne ? Did quran ever say that? My point is stop making baseless assumptions.


    Bold emphasis is mine, again. You shot your own foot again! Allah created man. A big man did not create man. Please allow me to  Cheesy and did any Scripture ever say that?

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    You need to see what Emerald posted in the comments thread. You are in error here in arabic. DOnt blame me for this.I would like to add  one more comment here .You say you have studied the book in depth and understood it but still Why am i seeing comments like "It can be this... OR" that ...." . YOu should be sure because Allah said in quran that is easy to understand and you also claimed that  you have understood everything in depth unlike me.I hope you agree with me truth is only one and not many.


    Ringside commentary, specially from Ali Sina's Faith Freedom International (FFI) is mostly laughable, excluding a few other sensible posters, not from FFI, who are not Muslims and yet can understand my explanation and reasoning. Anyone who is interested in having a debate with me can open a new debate topic.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    So finally you agree that Arsh is a literal throne but you do not know how it looks . SO let me tell you that i know how it looks and that will be proved after I prove that Khursi means a physical chair. All right Now All that I have do is prove Kursi also is literal . So let me proceed to the heart of the debate.


    Either my written English is very bad or you do not understand or choose not to understand.  Cheesy

    Look the word Arsh in 69:17 is clearly God's Throne. How does it look like, I do not know and neither anyone does.

    Will dissect your next post tomorrow but I must say in advance that you have already shot yourself in the foot, many times. lol!

    Please do not reply, until I have posted my response on your next post. Both of us need rest. Thanks.

    Good night from Singapore
    BMZ
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #17 - April 04, 2009, 03:52 PM

          REFUTING THE CLAIM THAT KURSI IS NOT LITERAL


    First of all let me frankly admit that to refute this part of kursi being a chair I could not do it without the help of Emerald as it needed arabic .As decided in the terms and conditions of the debate I was allowed to seek for help in arabic.The following that I have written is something that I learned from Emerald.


    No problem. You are allowed as many helpers as you can get.


    Quote from: skynightblaze
    The message conveyed by arabic quran when it used the word Khursi  is chair and nothing else. Arabic quran doesnt allow any connotative interpretation of kursi (like power etc)  however BMz is committing the fallacy of  translating it into english language and then using rules of english language to give chair/throne a connotative meaning of "power" that is something which only english language allows but not the arabic language as arabic language prevents khursi to be translated something as power etc etc . Now since quran was revealed in arabic we must be focusing on the message that arabic language conveys and not the english because that is what Allah meant.Bmz would have been right if the quran was in english.


    Read some tafsirs in Arabic, Urdu and Persian, if you like and most of them would have what BMZ is writing in English. Qur'aan is the only Scripture available in it's original language. You are debating and discussing Qur'aan with me in English.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    One might wonder now why the some translators translated Khursi as dominion ,power etc .The reason some translators translated it Khursi as dominion or power was because they were inspired from tafsirs and because of original arabic. Now Since BMZ doesnt believe in tafsir there is no reason why he should take their translation.Morever there are more tafsirs which  affirm my contention that throne is literal than the  tafsirs which say it otherwise. SO I can use this argument of khursi being literal even against those who accept tafsirs.


    Nobody is denying that Allah has a throne but one's vision may comprehend it not. I will write more on what you are doing when I address and explain the verses you quoted courtesy FFI tips.  Wink


    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Here is more proof refuting Bmz's claim.

    Infact It's Kursi that can't be considered intangible.

    http://lexicons.sakhr.com/openme.aspx?fileurl=/html/1082635.html

    http://lexicons.sakhr.com/openme.aspx?fileurl=/html/3074905.html


    I do not need links and tafsirs. I can do a tafsir myself. And if you have read all my posts carefully, I am doing a tafsir along with translation.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    In the above, it even says (kursi) could mean (arsh).Bmz can have a read since its in arabic.(Links were provided to me by Emerald) Now let us see one of the verses in quran regarding Khursi .


    Now I am going to tackle the verses, you quoted and I have added the verse in Arabic.


    38:34 وَلَقَدْ فَتَنَّا سُلَيْمَانَ وَأَلْقَيْنَا عَلَى كُرْسِيِّهِ جَسَدًا ثُمَّ أَنَابَ
    And We did try Sulaiman: We placed on his throne a body (without life): but he did turn (to Us in true devotion).

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Here again the same term  "Kuhursi yehee" is used. Now Let us put the meanings proposed by Bmz in the following verse and see whether they make sense or not.


    Was the body being placed over the "power" of suleman?

    The answer is NO

    Was the body being placed over the "dominion" of suleman?

    The answer is No

    Was the body being placed over the "knowledge" of suleman?

    The answer is again no.

    Was the body being placed over the control of suleman?

    The answer is yet again no


    This should be sufficient to prove that Kursi is indeed physical.


    In this case, Kursi-yehee is the chair or the throne or the seat Solomon sat upon, as the verse is talking about his chair or throne or whatever you call it. But there was no other body placed on that. It was to show him that he would have been like Theoden of the Lord of the Rings, under the spell, Cheesy  if he had not been faithful and devout to Allah.

    You can mention my dear friend Ahmed Bahagat ONLY, if all of the FFI members, including you, apologise to him, accept him as 100% correct and extend him all the respect that he deserves. If you can do that, you can mention. Otherwise you are not allowed.

    I will address such issues only after the conclusion of the debate. FFI forum is famous and notorious for distorting the facts, twisting and turning Muslim's post and topic, creating discord, misinforming and misreporting. Right now, you are accusing and I am defending. So stick to the format we agreed.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Now Previously I had proved that Arsh is physical . Bmz even Accepted it. So now if chair(khursi) is that big then the throne should be even bigger than that. SO the problem for BMz is more intensified as to how normal humans will see the angels moving around the throne(arsh as in 39:75).


    A king's chair or throne usually is made to fit the one who is going to sit in it. I am sure, you have never heard of two kings sitting in one chair.  Cheesy So Arsh and Kursi on their own have to be the same size. Thus Solomon's chair or throne was made to fit him. Thus if God will be sitting in His chair or arsh, one would see HIM. 

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Bmz claims to here know of arabic but 2 native arabic speakers deny the meaning of Kursi assumed by BMz.


    I have no problem with any speaker on the meaning of the words Kursi and Arsh, if they are written on their own. For example, on the chair of Solomon, we have no dispute or disagreement at all on 38:34.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    That should be sufficient to prove my case of chair be a physical entity.Having said that let me ask BMz another question.

    21:22 لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَا فَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَرْشِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ

    If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!


    Leaving the translation aside, the word Arsh is Allah's throne. No problem here.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Doesnt this mean that Allah too is present in the heavens and the earth? IF yes then Allahs throne should also be in the heavens and the earth . That being the case Bmz is requested to show me where in the heavens and earth is the throne of Allah that is equal or more in extent of heavens and earth? If it was we should certainly be seeing it.


    No!

    So, I do not have to show you anything. All your arguments come to naught now!
    I have already told you that Allah is not a huge blob. QED.

    This is the problem with all Ex-Muhammadans  Cheesy, I mean Ex-Muslims, non-Muslims and Muslims too. 

    If you read and understand Qur'aan, Allah says that He knows, He is aware, He sees, He hears, etc. 

    Concluding Remark: You are after two words, namely Arsh and Kursi and you are just  parrot ing out.
    You mentioned "kursi-yehee" for Solomon in your comment and you took it from my comments and there was nothing wrong in that.

    But when you come to 2:255, neither you not your Arabic ansaar have registered what the word WASAY-AA KURSI-YEHEE or KURSI-YEHU وَسِعَ كُرْسِيُّهُ means.

    وَسِعَ does not define dimensions of a chair or object. It defines the vastness or the limitless reach.

    You have thus not been able to refute my explanations and instead you are stuck up with Arsh and Kursi.

    If you wish to carry on, please go ahead. If you wish to bring up something else, please do so.

    BMZ
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #18 - April 05, 2009, 02:34 PM

    Quote from: Bmz
    Quote from: Skynightblaze
    Your comment on my second part (nos in blue) isnt appropriate. I can understand what quran is telling from someone who is knowledgeable at arabic who can explain me what quran tells .I need not understand arabic for that matter.I already told you that if quran can be understood only by learning arabic then you are shooting yourself in foot because then quran cannot be a clear and easy to understand book as it claims in that case.This would mean quran is in error. Finally about correcting me you are always welcome.I have proved that Arsh is literal and now I need to prove khursi is literal.


    Actually, you just shot yourself in the foot. You have acknowledged that you can understand Qur'aan from someone who is knowledgeable at Arabic and yours truly is exactly doing the same. Not all on various sites know Arabic and yet they learn from those who know.So, if you get someone who does not really understand the context, intent, idioms, language, the linguistic usage and comprehension, etc., then you cannot say that Qur'aan has errors.





    BMz is my argument so hard to understand for you?  How many more times should i repeat the same thing again and again?So according to you one must understand quran first to know or find  the errors. Now how can this understanding come without the help of those  features that are highlighted in red in your post?

      YOu never answered my basic question.So the point is one cannot understand quran without those features. In such a case your book cannot be for entire mankind as it claims . SO you must accept then quran lied to us that it is for entire mankind as entire mankind is unaware of all those features. I have already said this many times and I hope that this will be the last time I say this.




    Quote from: Bmz

    Even the person, whom you engaged for help, could not translate it properly, what I had asked, well and did not explain. All he did was, this and this is hilarious:
    Quote
    Emerald, he's from the people of the chair.
    Forget about the rest of his comments, which are of no real significance. Just looking at above translation, I can say that the person does not have any knowledge of Qur'aan's Arabic, it's grammar, construction and intent. Yes, he may be an Arab but you will not be able to learn anything from such an speaker of Arabic. Not every Englishman can explain classical prose,
    poetry and literature.

    So, who are the people of the chair, according to your colleague? How many people were there and how many chairs were there? Or was he the only person among the people who were occupying a chair?That is not what it means.
    Now, a learned and knowledgeable person, who knows the language of Qur'aan, will tell you that it means, "He is from people, who have knowledge" or "He is a knowledgeable person." One cannot say that Emerald comes from people who have a chair.  Cheesy

    So, please do not provide references from not-so-qualified men to me. You have to get someone who knows more. I am not discussing market or street language.Even if one tries to go for literal meanings, one has to think if it makes sense. Let us go back to your 1st post and my

    You were content with the translation from Yusuf Ali but you never realised, or conveniently chose to ignore  that although Yusuf Ali used the word Throne, he did clarify in the Commentary. Many people have translated Qur'aan but some scholars have added commentries to make the readers understand. Some did not.


    What a load of nonsense was this quote.!!!

    Let me expose your first stupidity here.



    YOu are comparing quran with a sentence that is outside it. In other words you are comparing 2 styles of two different authors .These two styles need not be necessarily same. YOur second stupidity is you are ignoring the style of your own book and ignoring  the way in which it used Khursi and Arsh.


    Your 3rd stupidity  is that you are again referring to a source outside quran that is commentary of yusuf ali.There is a difference between translation and commentary. COmmentary is Yusuf Alis view while his translation is qurans view and not his.As explained earlier most of the translators derive the explanation of the word "Khursi" as power from tafsirs and not actual arabic.

    Btw coming to the example in hand that you brought I think I need not worry whether Emeralds explanation makes sense or not because I have proved in my next post that 2:255 indeed meant Khursi to be literal. If you cant wait to see my argument you may read this post of mine later.

    Quote from: Bmz

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Since you have brought  the issue of compilation of quran I would like to know where it is said in Quran it has been compiled in the present order and by whom. Allah did not explicate such things in Quran, let alone specified the numbers of chapters
    or verses.Your post is still there for you to see. If quran never said anything about compilation then which order were you talking of for me to follow to understand the book?



    Yes, go and read again. I did not discuss about the actual compilation of Qur'aan. Perhaps you did not understand my point. You opened up your first post by quoting 39:75 first, followed by 2:255 and I brought up the point to show that your were confused because you read in the wrong order. Naturally you would be confused, remain confused and would
    confuse all others.



    Again the same thing!! I am asking again, who compiled your book to be verses in order and for you to dictate to read 2:255 first and 39:75 after it? You havent been able to answer this question and I am going to keep following you until you answer it.


    Quote from: Bmz

    Quote from: Skynightblaze

    Which Muslims are you talking for? I can show you prominent Mufassirs of Quran jumping from one to many while interpreting a verse or verses in Quran. Do you mean all of them are idiots who do not understand your book properly While at the same time there are millions of Muslims who accord to traditional interpreters of Quran?? How can you talk on behalf of all Muslims?

    Besides, what makes it hard for you to understand if someone wants to research a topic within a book, he will be going through all parts of it that relate to the topic? Dont you think its stupidity to draw conclusions on just a single verse?



    Bold emphasis in your quote is mine.

    All. Mufassareen do not jump from verse to verse to verse. In fact, they do link up a verse discussed with another one. That is NOT jumping. Basically, most mufassareen do not differ on the core message. A commentary by a Shia mufassir on some certain verses may differ from that of a Sunni mufassir. I can talk on behalf of all Muslims, even if they agree or not. That
    is exactly what the mufassareen are also subject to. For example, any Muslim reader, reading here, if displeased, would certainly comment but so far no Muslim has objected to what I write and what I explain.No! There is no stupidity in that. I will show you, your own stupidity, pardon me for using your own words, later.



    Mufassareen do jump from one verse to the other for e.g , while interpreting Qur?an chapter 5:111 the most prominent Mufassir Ibn Kathir jumped to two other verses for the purpose of getting the exact message what does it mean ?Jesus? disciples are being inspired by Allah?.
    It is the kind of jumping that I mentioned. I am doing the same method  Ibn Kathir used in the case of 5:111. He merged it to 28:7 at first then 16:68-69.

    Btw if some muslims  disagree with you how can you say that you are talking on their  behalf. Did you realize that you have just cracked a joke? Cheesy


    Quote from: Bmz

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    My point is clear . To study an issue in quran you need to run through the entire book to find verses relating to it. You cant just draw  any conclusion depending on just a single verse and I am aware that we arent discussing style of quran. I just wanted to say that the way in which your book is authored makes one to research all the way till the end.



    I understand your problem but it is only because of a lack of knowledge shown by a reader. Yes! You can draw a conclusion by reading just a verse. For example, "Do not murder!", "Do not devour orphans' property!", "Be good to your parents!", etc., etc.
    You do not have to do research on that. Just read and understand. How difficult is that to undertsand?



    You have a problem with logic . Dont you? What you presented is a single case which may or may not be true everytime . Not always you understand by reading a single verse.Here is one another instance


    33:51.

    Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and Allah knows (all) that is in your hearts: and Allah is All- Knowing, Most Forbearing.


    I am damn sure that you can make a concrete conclusion out of this verse. Please go ahead and without referring to previous verses please state your conclusion reading this verse alone.



    Quote from: Bmz

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    So now tell me Would you know whether jesus was killed or not if you just stop at reading that he was not GOD? If you want to study about Jesus from quran you need to study in entirety. Mate I think we should not be wasting our time on such trivialissues.



    Your comment is irrelevant. You brought up Jesus in the discussion. There is not much Jesus in Qur'aan and you can find him mentioned, where necessary. There is not much on Jesus because Jesus did not bring anything new. Let us strike him out from this topic.


    Ok fine.We will discuss this some other day . For the time being lets keep Jesus out of this discussion.



    Quote from: Bmz
    Please refer to your post and you did ask me
    Quote
    In the above verse Allah is supposedly prompting Muhammad to ask himself or to those surrounded him? and I had explained to you that Allah was asking Muhammd to tell the people.You brought up the verse
    Quote
    69:17And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, that Day, bear the Throne of thy Lord above them.

    I consider the above verse purely as one of the Mutashabihaat (Allegorical). And that is why I did not comment on it. Again, if you look at various translations, it does not show that God would be sitting on a cot and paraded by eight angels. To me, it means, there will be angels around the throne, or if you like, eight angels will be surrounding His Throne or standing
    like guards.

    You may have seen Muslims clinging to the door and walls of Ka'aba, as if they are holding it or carrying it.


    Again you didnt quote me entirely . You say you consider this verse as allegorical. What is the basis for that? Did quran ever tell you that this verse was allegorical? My friend we are debating here. To make any claim you need to back it up. Your opinions are junk as long as they arent proved.I am not going to accept any wild claims unless you prove it to us. A literal interpretation is by default and a natural one so I dont have to prove anything here but it is you who is supposed to prove here why these verses are to be taken metaphorical.




    Quote from: Bmz

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Again are you going to make claims depending on what you believe? Just because you dont believe does it mean that you are by default on the right path? How do you know Allah isnt a huge man sitting on the throne ? Did quran ever say that? My point is stop making baseless assumptions.



    Bold emphasis is mine, again. You shot your own foot again! Allah created man. A big man did not create man. Please allow me to  Cheesy and did any Scripture ever say that?



    You had said we believe that Allah is not that big and doesnt sit on a chair.  Quran didnt tell you that Allah is not big. I might have used the word man for allah but my point isnt invalid. The question is still unanswered how are you sure Allah isnt big?  All i want to tell you is stop making assumptions.



    Quote from: bmz
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    You need to see what Emerald posted in the comments thread. You are in error here in arabic. DOnt blame me for this.I would like to add  one more comment here .You say you have studied the book in depth and understood it but still Why am i seeing comments like "It can be this... OR" that ...." . YOu should be sure because Allah said in quran that is easy to understand and you also claimed that  you have understood everything in depth unlike me.I hope you agree with me truth is only one and not many.



    Ringside commentary, specially from Ali Sina's Faith Freedom International (FFI) is mostly laughable, excluding a few other sensible posters, not from FFI, who are not Muslims and yet can understand my explanation and reasoning. Anyone who is interested in having a debate with me can open a new debate topic.




    Says who ? Only you!!!Its high time that you realize that what you think is not necessarily true. You should ask anyone here on Coem whether what you wrote above is true or not. Let people judge you .


    Quote from: Bmz
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    So finally you agree that Arsh is a literal throne but you do not know how it looks . SO let me tell you that i know how it looks and that will be proved after I prove that Khursi means a physical chair. All right Now All that I have do is prove Kursi also is literal . So let me proceed to the heart of the debate.



    Either my written English is very bad or you do not understand or choose not to understand.  CheesyLook the word Arsh in 69:17 is clearly God's Throne. How does it look like, I do not know and neither anyone does.Will dissect your next post tomorrow but I must say in advance that you have already shot yourself in the foot, many times. lol!
    Please do not reply, until I have posted my response on your next post. Both of us need rest. Thanks.


    Fine.
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #19 - April 05, 2009, 02:43 PM

    Quote from: Bmz

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    The message conveyed by arabic quran when it used the word Khursi  is chair and nothing else. Arabic quran doesnt allow any connotative interpretation of kursi (like power etc)  however BMz is committing the fallacy of  translating it into english
    language and then using rules of english language to give chair/throne a connotative meaning of "power" that is something which only english language allows but not the arabic language as arabic language prevents khursi to be translated something
    as power etc etc . Now since quran was revealed in arabic we must be focusing on the message that arabic language conveys and not the english because that is what Allah meant.Bmz would have been right if the quran was in english.




    Read some tafsirs in Arabic, Urdu and Persian, if you like and most of them would have what BMZ is writing in English. Qur'aan is the only Scripture available in it's original language. You are debating and discussing Qur'aan with me in English.


    AS per the terms of debate we are not supposed to bring tafsirs here. SO now when you dont have evidence to back up your claim you are resorting to tafsirs. Majority of tafsirs agree with my interpretation and not yours. Anyway lets keep tafsirs outside this otherwise we would be violating the terms of debate and you yourself do not accept tafsirs . I hope you remember this.

    Quote from: Bmz
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    One might wonder now why the some translators translated Khursi as dominion ,power etc .The reason some translators translated it Khursi as dominion or power was because they were inspired from tafsirs and because of original arabic. Now Since BMZ doesnt believe in tafsir there is no reason why he should take their translation.Morever there are more tafsirs which  affirm my contention that throne is literal than the  tafsirs which say it otherwise. SO I can use this argument of
    khursi being literal even against those who accept tafsirs.


    Nobody is denying that Allah has a throne but one's vision may comprehend it not. I will write more on what you are doing when I address and explain the verses you quoted courtesy FFI tips.  Wink



    You are conveniently denying it when it exposes your book .Thats my point. I will yet again prove it. Lets move ahead.



    Quote from: Bmz
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Here is more proof refuting Bmz's claim.
    Infact It's Kursi that can't be considered intangible.
    http://lexicons.sakhr.com/openme.aspx?fileurl=/html/1082635.html

    http://lexicons.sakhr.com/openme.aspx?fileurl=/html/3074905.html


    I do not need links and tafsirs. I can do a tafsir myself. And if you have read all my posts carefully, I am doing a tafsir along with translation.



    Its high time that you understand the difference between a tafsir and a arabic dictionary. Would anyone think here that you understand arabic when you dont know the basic difference? Those arabic dictionaries clearly refuting your claim that Kursi
    can mean power etc etc . They simply say khursi is chair and nothing else.


    Quote from: Bmz
    Quote from: skynightblaze


    38:34
    And We did try Sulaiman: We placed on his throne a body (without life): but he did turn (to Us in true devotion).
    Here again the same term  "Kuhursi yehee" is used. Now Let us put the meanings proposed by Bmz in the following verse and see whether they make sense or not.

    Was the body being placed over the "power" of suleman?

    The answer is NO

    Was the body being placed over the "dominion" of suleman?

    The answer is No

    Was the body being placed over the "knowledge" of suleman?

    The answer is again no.

    Was the body being placed over the control of suleman?

    The answer is yet again no


    This should be sufficient to prove that Kursi is indeed physical.




    In this case, Kursi-yehee is the chair or the throne or the seat Solomon sat upon, as the verse is talking about his chair or throne or whatever you call it. But there was no other body placed on that. It was to show him that he would have been like
    Theoden of the Lord of the Rings, under the spell, Cheesy  if he had not been faithful and devout to Allah.



    I guess we need to move on further as you accept that Kursi here is literal chair.My intention of bringing such a verse was to prove that khursi is indeed literal and it seems we have no disagreement on it.




    Quote from: Bmz
    You can mention my dear friend Ahmed Bahagat ONLY, if all of the FFI members, including you, apologise to him, accept him as 100% correct and extend him all the respect that he deserves. If you can do that, you can mention. Otherwise you are not
    allowed.I will address such issues only after the conclusion of the debate. FFI forum is famous and notorious for distorting the facts, twisting and turning Muslim's post and topic, creating discord, misinforming and misreporting. Right now, you are accusing and I am defending. So stick to the format we agreed.



    First of all you are none to decide what FFI should do with Ahmed. ITs between FFI and Ahmed and secondly what sort of pathetic logic are you applying here? If ahmed is right then I would agree with him but not otherwise. Here in this case he
    is right because he is sticking to the arabic dictionaries unlike you who is twisting the meaning even when no source backs you up. Let us apply your own logic to yourself. I hope you consider Ahmed  good in arabic . Now you must agree with ahmed
    100% in what he says or say he is bad in arabic. Is that acceptable? DO you see the shallowness of your logic?Btw please dont make any accusations against FFI here. YOu can do that outside the thread .




    Quote from: Bmz
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Now Previously I had proved that Arsh is physical . Bmz even Accepted it. So now if chair(khursi) is that big then the throne should be even bigger than that. SO the problem for BMz is more intensified as to how normal humans will see the angels
    moving around the throne(arsh as in 39:75).


    A king's chair or throne usually is made to fit the one who is going to sit in it. I am sure, you have never heard of two kings sitting in one chair.  Cheesy So Arsh and Kursi on their own have to be the same size. Thus Solomon's chair or throne
    was made to fit him. Thus if God will be sitting in His chair or arsh, one would see HIM.


    ITs not my fault that your quran told us that Allahs chair extends over the heavens and earth. Now its upto you to decide whether Allahs butt is that big or not but it is you who is dishonestly denying it . Let us see move ahead anyway.


    Quote from: Bmz
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Bmz claims to here know of arabic but 2 native arabic speakers deny the meaning of Kursi assumed by BMz.

    I have no problem with any speaker on the meaning of the words Kursi and Arsh, if they are written on their own. For example, on the chair of Solomon, we have no dispute or disagreement at all on 38:34.


    FIne so we agree that khursi here means chair.


    Quote from: Bmz
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    That should be sufficient to prove my case of chair be a physical entity.Having said that let me ask BMz another question.

    21:22
    If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!


    Doesnt this mean that Allah too is present in the heavens and the earth? IF yes then Allahs throne should also be in the heavens and the earth . That being the case Bmz is requested to show me where in the heavens and earth is the throne of Allah
    that is equal or more in extent of heavens and earth? If it was we should certainly be seeing it.



    Leaving the translation aside, the word Arsh is Allah's throne. No problem here.
    No!So, I do not have to show you anything. All your arguments come to naught now!
    I have already told you that Allah is not a huge blob. QED.This is the problem with all Ex-Muhammadans  Cheesy, I mean Ex-Muslims, non-Muslims and Muslims too.
    If you read and understand Qur'aan, Allah says that He knows, He is aware, He sees, He hears, etc.

    Concluding Remark: You are after two words, namely Arsh and Kursi and you are just  parrot ing out.You mentioned "kursi-yehee" for Solomon in your comment and you took it from my comments and there was nothing wrong in that.But when you
    come to 2:255, neither you not your Arabic ansaar have registered what the word WASAY-AA KURSI-YEHEE or KURSI-YEHU  means.
    وَسِعَ does not define dimensions of a chair or object. It defines the vastness or the limitless reach.You have thus not been able to refute my explanations and instead you are stuck up with Arsh and Kursi.If you wish to carry on, please go ahead. If
    you wish to bring up something else, please do so.






     I would like to summarize what has happened during this course of debate. This is heart of the debate and hence I feel the need to repeat it in short. I have proved in previous posts that  ARsh(throne ) is literal . Bmz accepted that. Now I have
    also quoted quran  to show him that khursi -yehee also is literal as seen in 38:34 to which BMz has agreed .Now to indicate throne Of Joseph the word used was "Arsh" which BMz agrees is throne.Similarly the word Khursi yehee is used to indicate throne of suleman to which again BMZ agrees. SO in the light of this we can see that there is no  no difference between the words Arsh and khursi so we see both are literal and are used to address the same thing i.e throne so ideally proving ARsh is literal is sufficient to prove Kursi too is literal.


    So now it is clearly established that Arsh and khursi are synonymous . I have proved that using quran itself and BMz too has to agree with it and stating otherwise would mean quran was wrong.I have already proved  in my previous post that ARsh is
    literal(Bmz has accepted that too) so Khursi too has to be literal since its synonymous


    Morever throughout the quran we see these words synonymously and literally and now suddenly Bmz wants me to interpret Khursi in 2:255 as metaphorical instead of literal when throughout the quran its meaning is literal. Readers should note that its
    only the problematic verse where BMZ is asking me to interpret it as metaphorical. DOes anyone smell a rat here?


      Btw Bmz you brought some arabic phrase in the end to say that it can mean vastness or limitless reach. Just to comment on that Vastness does have dimensions so the verse can be referring to the throne  but I guess now the debate is independent of even arabic language as i have successfully proved that Arsh and Kursi are synonymous using your own quran.SO in the case of your translation it has to mean vastness which again has dimensions.So clearly 2:255 indeed meant "Throne" is clear now for all to see!!

    So BMz please start preparing answer to my 2 questions based on logic now. I am waiting for your next response.

  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #20 - April 05, 2009, 04:32 PM

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    BMZ is my argument so hard to understand for you?  How many more times should i repeat the same thing again and again?So according to you one must understand quran first to know or find  the errors. Now how can this understanding come without the help of those  features that are highlighted in red in your post?

      YOu never answered my basic question.So the point is one cannot understand quran without those features. In such a case your book cannot be for entire mankind as it claims . SO you must accept then quran lied to us that it is for entire mankind as entire mankind is unaware of all those features. I have already said this many times and I hope that this will be the last time I say this.


    Hello, SNB

    My comment, which you quoted, "So, if you get someone who does not really understand the context, intent, idioms, language, the linguistic usage and comprehension, etc., then you cannot say that Qur'aan has errors." was meant for one whose help you secured, for the purpose of this debate. Just for the sake of my eyes, please write my nick as BMZ. I have edited my nick within your post.

    All your questions have been answered. If you do not and cannot understand, it is not my problem. Read the posts again. You are actually writing almost the same drivel, and are trying to introduce more.

    I have written lots of sense but the load of nonsense continues to come from you, SNB.  Cheesy

    Quote from: BMZ
    You were content with the translation from Yusuf Ali but you never realised, or conveniently chose to ignore  that although Yusuf Ali used the word Throne, he did clarify in the Commentary. Many people have translated Qur'aan but some scholars have added commentaries to make the readers understand. Some did not.


    Quote from: skynightblaze
    What a load of nonsense was this quote.!!!


    Anything that you wish to avoid answering, becomes a 'nonsense' in your eyes. What did you make out from my above quote?
    Explain how much you understood! Did you read the translation? Of course, you will say, "Yes!" and I will accept that you did. But did you bother to read commentary right there by the same translator? You did not! That is why you are unable to understand what I write. Read again, check and let me know what did you find in the commentary? I would appreciate if you would read my post before writing a nonsense and useless remark!

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Let me expose your first stupidity here.

    YOu are comparing quran with a sentence that is outside it. In other words you are comparing 2 styles of two different authors .These two styles need not be necessarily same. YOur second stupidity is you are ignoring the style of your own book and ignoring  the way in which it used Khursi and Arsh.

    Your 3rd stupidity  is that you are again referring to a source outside quran that is commentary of yusuf ali.There is a difference between translation and commentary. COmmentary is Yusuf Alis view while his translation is qurans view and not his.As explained earlier most of the translators derive the explanation of the word "Khursi" as power from tafsirs and not actual arabic.

    Btw coming to the example in hand that you brought I think I need not worry whether Emeralds explanation makes sense or not because I have proved in my next post that 2:255 indeed meant Khursi to be literal. If you cant wait to see my argument you may read this post of mine later.


    I have to ignore all your stupid and silly statements above. Forget Yusuf Ali. I mentioned him because you are the one who wanted to use only his translation and I had stopped you from using only one.

    I have already explained, where Kursi would mean a Kursi and where Arsh would mean Arsh. Your comments show that you are not paying any attention to my posts and you are simply skipping the most important points explained.

    Next time instead of avoiding, respond to every comment that I make. This would save me from your intellectual masturbation.  Cheesy Please take the debate seriously.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Again the same thing!! I am asking again, who compiled your book to be verses in order and for you to dictate to read 2:255 first and 39:75 after it? You havent been able to answer this question and I am going to keep following you until you answer it.


    I never discussed the topic of compilation of Qur'aan with you. When you opened up your first topic, it looked plain silly to me that you started with 39:75 and followed with 2:255 later. A sensible debater would quote the verses in order. You did not.

    Compilation of Qur'aan is not the topic here. I don't want to see you drifting and going off-topic. However, I would like to say that Qur'aan, as we see now, was compiled under Uthman by the Sahabas, various scribes, Ali, Hasan, Hussain and many  others.

    Quote from: Skynightblaze

    Mufassareen do jump from one verse to the other for e.g , while interpreting Qur'an chapter 5:111 the most prominent Mufassir Ibn Kathir jumped to two other verses for the purpose of getting the exact message what does it mean ?Jesus? disciples are being inspired by Allah?.

    It is the kind of jumping that I mentioned. I am doing the same method  Ibn Kathir used in the case of 5:111. He merged it to 28:7 at first then 16:68-69.

    Btw if some muslims  disagree with you how can you say that you are talking on their  behalf. Did you realize that you have just cracked a joke? Cheesy


    If that is the way you want to jump. I have no problem, as long as you jump sensibly.  No. Was it really a joke?  Cheesy

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    My point is clear . To study an issue in quran you need to run through the entire book to find verses relating to it. You cant just draw  any conclusion depending on just a single verse and I am aware that we arent discussing style of quran. I just wanted to say that the way in which your book is authored makes one to research all the way till the end.


    I told you already:
    Quote from: BMZ
    I understand your problem but it is only because of a lack of knowledge shown by a reader. Yes! You can draw a conclusion by reading just a verse. For example, "Do not murder!", "Do not devour orphans' property!", "Be good to your parents!", etc., etc. You do not have to do research on that. Just read and understand. How difficult is that to undertsand?


    and you wrote:

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    You have a problem with logic . Dont you? What you presented is a single case which may or may not be true everytime . Not always you understand by reading a single verse.Here is one another instance


    Cop Out! I have logic in abundance. It is you, I am afraid, who neither uses logic  nor understands when crystal clear examples and explanations are given.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    33:51.

    Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and Allah knows (all) that is in your hearts: and Allah is All- Knowing, Most Forbearing.

    I am damn sure that you can make a concrete conclusion out of this verse. Please go ahead and without referring to previous verses please state your conclusion reading this verse alone.


    Oh! Yes, I can.

    You see you have really no logic. If you had, you would not have quoted that verse in this topic. I can easily explain to you here but I would not. Simply because the verse is so simple that the ignorant Arabs, in the 7th Century, understood it so easily without the help of any mufassir and here you are still unable to understand even with the help of so many translators and mufassareen.  You are off-topic. Discuss such verses in your next series.

    I dislike diversionary tactics FFI style and I will not allow that here. 

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Ok fine.We will discuss this some other day . For the time being lets keep Jesus out of this discussion.


    Thanks. Yes, keep Jesus away from our topic, because I do not wish to be accused of bashing Christianity in this topic.  Cheesy

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Again you didnt quote me entirely . You say you consider this verse as allegorical. What is the basis for that? Did quran ever tell you that this verse was allegorical? My friend we are debating here. To make any claim you need to back it up. Your opinions are junk as long as they arent proved.I am not going to accept any wild claims unless you prove it to us. A literal interpretation is by default and a natural one so I dont have to prove anything here but it is you who is supposed to prove here why these verses are to be taken metaphorical.


    I did give you a note telling you of my view. Now the onus is on you to show me that it is not allegorical. I did give you a note on the simple meanings of the verse. Also told you that eight angels were not going to parade God around carrying him on a cot.
    Didn't you read that?

    There is one chap, who delved into the number 19 and went crazy. I think you know him. I do not wish to delve in what is allegorical to me. I will not step into that.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Again are you going to make claims depending on what you believe? Just because you dont believe does it mean that you are by default on the right path? How do you know Allah isnt a huge man sitting on the throne ? Did quran ever say that? My point is stop making baseless assumptions.


    I gave you the following answer:
    Quote from: BMZ
    Bold emphasis is mine, again. You shot your own foot again! Allah created man. A big man did not create man. Please allow me to  Cheesy and did any Scripture ever say that?



    Quote from: skynightblaze
    You had said we believe that Allah is not that big and doesnt sit on a chair.  Quran didnt tell you that Allah is not big. I might have used the word man for allah but my point isnt invalid. The question is still unanswered how are you sure Allah isnt big?  All i want to tell you is stop making assumptions.


    This is laughable, SNB.  Cheesy You are the one who is making so many assumptions. What makes you so certain that Allah is a huge blob in size, spanning thousands of light years? 

    Quote from: BMZ
    Ringside commentary, specially from Ali Sina's Faith Freedom International (FFI) is mostly laughable, excluding a few other sensible posters, not from FFI, who are not Muslims and yet can understand my explanation and reasoning. Anyone who is interested in having a debate with me can open a new debate topic.



    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Says who ?


    Says, BMZ.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Only you!!!Its high time that you realize that what you think is not necessarily true. You should ask anyone here on Coem whether what you wrote above is true or not. Let people judge you .


    That is exactly the idea of this debate. I am more interested in the silent international readers and some other sensible readers, here.

    Can you please go into some serious rebuttals, instead of  making unnecessary comments? I will respond to your next post tomorrow as it is too late here.

    Good night from Singapore
    BMZ


  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #21 - April 06, 2009, 05:15 AM

    Hello, SNB

    I have already replied to your gibberish post #18 and here is my response to your next gibberish post. I would like to request you to write the word "Khursi" as Kursi or kursi. By the way, do you come from the Deccan Plateau in India? 

    Quote from: BMZ
    Read some tafsirs in Arabic, Urdu and Persian, if you like and most of them would have what BMZ is writing in English. Qur'aan is the only Scripture available in it's original language. You are debating and discussing Qur'aan with me in English.


    and you wrote:
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    AS per the terms of debate we are not supposed to bring tafsirs here. SO now when you dont have evidence to back up your claim you are resorting to tafsirs. Majority of tafsirs agree with my interpretation and not yours. Anyway lets keep tafsirs outside this otherwise we would be violating the terms of debate and you yourself do not accept tafsirs . I hope you remember this.


    That was a suggestion to you. I am not discussing via tafsirs. You were referring earlier to tafsirs, so I encouraged you and others to read in some other languages. Keep in mind that I am only discussing and debating with you via Qur'aan.

    You wrote and I quote:
    Quote
    "skynightblaze"] "Majority of tafsirs agree with my interpretation and not yours."


    What interpretation? You cannot even understand and comprehend translations, what can you understand and interpret from tafsirs?  Cheesy In the next response, which will be very 'painful' for you and your "ansaars", I will take you to task on a number of verses, which neither you nor your 'ansaars' have a clue.  Cheesy Let me finish this first. 

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    You are conveniently denying it when it exposes your book .Thats my point. I will yet again prove it. Lets move ahead.


    You have not proved anything. What have you exposed so far? I see nothing! Nada! Zilsch!

    All you are trying to show is that there is a kursi, which has four legs and is thousands of light-years long, thousands of light-years wide and thousands of light-years high. Yes, move on.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Its high time that you understand the difference between a tafsir and a arabic dictionary.


    Actually, I wanted to ignore this gibberish. Do you think I do not?  Cheesy

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Would anyone think here that you understand arabic when you dont know the basic difference? Those arabic dictionaries clearly refuting your claim that Kursi can mean power etc etc . They simply say khursi is chair and nothing else.


    Bold emphasis within your quote is mine and please show me where do the Arabic dictionaries make that statement? Where did you read that Kursi is chair and nothing else?

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    This should be sufficient to prove that Kursi is indeed physical.


    For Solomon or the queen, it is understood that he/she had a chair to sit on. No problem here. You need a chair to sit.
    If I say, "Skynightblaze is sitting on a kursi or his kursi",  it is indeed a chair to fit you in.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    I guess we need to move on further as you accept that Kursi here is literal chair.My intention of bringing such a verse was to prove that khursi is indeed literal and it seems we have no disagreement on it.


    Yes, in the verse, you brought up Solomon, it is his kursi (chair) or to be more specific his royal chair. Yes, you are right in saying that we have to move on. How many times do you have to repeat this? I am moving on. Thanks.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    First of all you are none to decide what FFI should do with Ahmed. ITs between FFI and Ahmed and secondly what sort of pathetic logic are you applying here? If ahmed is right then I would agree with him but not otherwise. Here in this case he is right because he is sticking to the arabic dictionaries unlike you who is twisting the meaning even when no source backs you up. Let us apply your own logic to yourself. I hope you consider Ahmed  good in arabic . Now you must agree with ahmed 100% in what he says or say he is bad in arabic. Is that acceptable? DO you see the shallowness of your logic?Btw please dont make any accusations against FFI here. YOu can do that outside the thread .


    It was totally wrong and unethical of you to drag in Ahmed's name in here. It was also wrong of you to provide me with the FFI link in the debate. You did what Ali Sina's Faith Freedom International (FFI) does by exploiting various members' posts and trying to pit them against each other, when you do not even understand the head and tail.

    All the guys at FFI hold Ahmed in disdain, have never shown him any respect, courtesy and have never accepted any of his explanations and rebuttals. All the silent international posters can go and read all the rubbish at FFI.

    Ali Sina's FFI is an organization which is full of pathological liars and is run by megalomaniacs.

    This is a one on one debate. It is between you and me and my job is to demolish your arguments, which hold no water.

    So, do not bring Ahmed Bahgat's name or refer to his posts in this debate. I forbid you. Do you understand? Once the debate is over, you can discuss that separately.

    I wrote:
    Quote from: Bmz
    A king's chair or throne usually is made to fit the one who is going to sit in it. I am sure, you have never heard of two kings sitting in one chair.  Cheesy So Arsh and Kursi on their own have to be the same size. Thus Solomon's chair or throne
    was made to fit him. Thus if God will be sitting in His chair or arsh, one would see HIM.


    and you replied:

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    ITs not my fault that your quran told us that Allahs chair extends over the heavens and earth. Now its upto you to decide whether Allahs butt is that big or not but it is you who is dishonestly denying it . Let us see move ahead anyway.


    You have just shown the FFI mentality and have been very disrespectful. This is not FFI. Throw the FFI culture behind, when you discuss with me. Do not do that again!


    Quote from: skynightblaze
    FIne so we agree that khursi here means chair.


    How many times would you like to go back to Solomon's chair or kursi. Agreed he had a kursi. I don't think he sat on the ground as a king.  Cheesy


    Quote from: Bmz
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    That should be sufficient to prove my case of chair be a physical entity.Having said that let me ask BMz another question.

    21:22
    If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!

    Doesnt this mean that Allah too is present in the heavens and the earth? IF yes then Allahs throne should also be in the heavens and the earth . That being the case Bmz is requested to show me where in the heavens and earth is the throne of Allah
    that is equal or more in extent of heavens and earth? If it was we should certainly be seeing it.



    Leaving the translation aside, the word Arsh is Allah's throne. No problem here.
    No! So, I do not have to show you anything. All your arguments come to naught now!
    I have already told you that Allah is not a huge blob. QED.This is the problem with all Ex-Muhammadans  Cheesy, I mean Ex-Muslims, non-Muslims and Muslims too.
    If you read and understand Qur'aan, Allah says that He knows, He is aware, He sees, He hears, etc.

    Concluding Remark: You are after two words, namely Arsh and Kursi and you are just  parroting out.You mentioned "kursi-yehee" for Solomon in your comment and you took it from my comments and there was nothing wrong in that.But when you
    come to 2:255, neither you not your Arabic ansaar have registered what the word WASAY-AA KURSI-YEHEE or KURSI-YEHU  means.

    وَسِعَ does not define dimensions of a chair or object. It defines the vastness or the limitless reach.You have thus not been able to refute my explanations and instead you are stuck up with Arsh and Kursi.If you wish to carry on, please go ahead. If
    you wish to bring up something else, please do so.



    Done that. If you did not understand, please ask again.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    I would like to summarize what has happened during this course of debate. This is heart of the debate and hence I feel the need to repeat it in short. I have proved in previous posts that  ARsh(throne ) is literal . Bmz accepted that. Now I have also quoted quran  to show him that khursi -yehee also is literal as seen in 38:34 to which BMz has agreed .Now to indicate throne Of Joseph the word used was "Arsh" which BMz agrees is throne.Similarly the word Khursi yehee is used to indicate throne of suleman to which again BMZ agrees. SO in the light of this we can see that there is no  no difference between the words Arsh and khursi so we see both are literal and are used to address the same thing i.e throne so ideally proving ARsh is literal is sufficient to prove Kursi too is literal.


    So now it is clearly established that Arsh and khursi are synonymous . I have proved that using quran itself and BMz too has to agree with it and stating otherwise would mean quran was wrong.I have already proved  in my previous post that ARsh is
    literal(Bmz has accepted that too) so Khursi too has to be literal since its synonymous


    Morever throughout the quran we see these words synonymously and literally and now suddenly Bmz wants me to interpret Khursi in 2:255 as metaphorical instead of literal when throughout the quran its meaning is literal. Readers should note that its
    only the problematic verse where BMZ is asking me to interpret it as metaphorical. DOes anyone smell a rat here?


    Yes, I smell you!  You are the one. Cheesy

    Let me summarise now:

    Kursi can mean chair, throne, seat, etc. In Solomon's or any human's case it would mean that. In 2:255 it does not mean chair like the one you and I sit upon. About Joseph, I would like to add that he was no king and had no throne. So, there is no reason to accept that he put his parents on a throne. In 11:7, the use of Arsh does not indicate any throne.


    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Btw Bmz you brought some arabic phrase in the end to say that it can mean vastness or limitless reach. Just to comment on that Vastness does have dimensions so the verse can be referring to the throne  but I guess now the debate is independent of even arabic language as i have successfully proved that Arsh and Kursi are synonymous using your own quran.SO in the case of your translation it has to mean vastness which again has dimensions.So clearly 2:255 indeed meant "Throne" is clear now for all to see!!


    Yes, you can define vastness by the help of L=thousands of light-years X W=thousands of light-years x H=thousands of light-years. I have no problem with that, as long as you can tell me where the four legs of the chair are placed. Cheesy

    I take this opportunity to request that you stop writing gibberish and offer proper rebuttal, if you have any.

    I will wait for your next post and respond if there is any substance.

    If not, I will move on the debate by taking you to task on the word Arsh, by quoting some verses in Arabic. Please prepare yourself well. You are allowed to seek help from Arabic speakers for preparing your replies. I am under no obligation to accept any silly opinions and references.

    Before I do that, can I have your acknowledgement and confirmation that Arsh means only Kursi or throne?

    If you think and believe that is correct, just write a simple acknowledgement, saying, "Hello, BMZ. I write to confirm that Arsh in Arabic only means a throne or a chair." This confirmation is imperative. I can then take you through the next but short phase.


    Note to Muslims reading this exchange:

    Dear brothers and sisters, please DO NOT discuss the word Arsh and it's meanings at all in the Ringside Seat topic. Salaams



    Cheers
    BMZ

     

  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #22 - April 06, 2009, 04:22 PM

    CONCLUDING POST


    Quote from: BMz lately

    Yes, I smell you!  You are the one. Cheesy
    Let me summarise now:
    Kursi can mean chair, throne, seat, etc. In Solomon's or any human's case it would mean that. In 2:255 it does not mean chair like the one you and I sit upon. About Joseph, I would like to add that he was no king and had no throne. So, there is no reason to accept that he put his parents on a throne. In 11:7, the use of Arsh does not indicate any throne.




    Quote from: Bmz  previously
    The word Arsh when mentioned alone would mean the Throne, the Seat of His Power. It need not be a sofa or a seat or a stool or a chair or a stage or dice, as we do not believe that Allah is a huge man sitting on some furniture piece. Allah can call Himself anything he likes as He is the Master.The word Arsh does not mean dominion or power, reach, etc.
    there yet.




    Here is it friends!!! . More nonsense from this troll!!!. I have to use these words because its becoming disgusting  for me to tolerate his lies and dishonesty.  I have decided that I am not going to respond to his previous posts because he  answered nothing and merely accused me of writing giberish.I raised points against his arguments and his reply was you didnt understand instead of refuting them and showing me where I went wrong. People can read his and mine posts to see whether he and logic has any connection  .

    I was forced to repeat the same things again and again and thats why I found it disgusting to show his stupidity one more time and thereby I request people to judge him .Now focus on the red part above and let me quote you what he wrote previously so that every single reader knows how he is dancing around the topic.Lately he says that the use of  ARsh does not indicate throne when clearly in previous posts he accepted that Arsh alone means throne.


    SO anyone can see to what level of dishonesty this person can go to just to make his case.It doesnt matter to him whether he is contradicting himself or not .


    Quote from: Bmz


    Quote from: Skynightblaze

    Btw Bmz you brought some arabic phrase in the end to say that it can mean vastness or limitless reach. Just to comment on that Vastness does have dimensions so the verse can be referring to the throne  but I guess now the debate is independent of even arabic language as i have successfully proved that Arsh and Kursi are synonymous using your own quran.SO in the case of your translation it has to mean vastness which again has dimensions.So clearly 2:255 indeed meant "Throne" is clear now for all to see!!


    Yes, you can define vastness by the help of L=thousands of light-years X W=thousands of light-years x H=thousands of light-years. I have no problem with that, as long as you can tell me where the four legs of the chair are placed. Cheesy
    I take this opportunity to request that you stop writing gibberish and offer proper rebuttal, if you have any.I will wait for your next post and respond if there is any substance.


    I know you are frustrated because logic is not your domain. I would like to tell you that mere typing is not called rebuttal.You are of the opinion that if something is scribbled in response then the job is done. I hope you take a course on logical fallacies before you come for the next topic.

    Finally  its not my fault that Muhhamad was not smart enough to think about these problems. HE should have thought about these problems before authoring such verses.

    Quote from: Bmz
    If not, I will move on the debate by taking you to task on the word Arsh, by quoting some verses in Arabic. Please prepare yourself well. You are allowed to seek help from Arabic speakers for preparing your replies. I am under no obligation to accept any silly opinions and references.Before I do that, can I have your acknowledgement and confirmation that Arsh means only Kursi or throne?If you think and believe that is correct, just write a simple acknowledgement, saying, "Hello, BMZ. I write to confirm that Arsh in Arabic only means a throne or a chair." This confirmation is imperative. I can then take you through the next but short phase.Note to Muslims reading this exchange:Dear brothers and sisters, please DO NOT discuss the word Arsh and it's meanings at all in the Ringside Seat topic.
    Salaams


    Here is what BMz has failed to understand time and again. Someone please take the impossible task of making him understand. The debate is not about what arabic can provide. The main point is whether quran used ARsh and khursi as literal or metaphor. The point is kursi and arsh are both literally used by quran ( Refer points  3 & 4 & 5 of the summary of the debate below)

    Now the question is  are we again required to look whether ArsH in arabic can mean something other than Throne when we have evidence that quran used it literally?

     Even if arabic allows it to be interpreted as metaphorically it doesnt matter because it has already been established that quran used it literally.What matters is how quran used it and not how it can be used in arabic The case is over and we need not go to arabic again.




    Here is the summary of the debate in a few lines:


    1) In my rebuttal I proved ARsh is literal in many verses And BMz agreed in his counter rebuttal.

    2) Secondly I proved kursi as literal in 38:34 to which again BMZ agreed.

    3) In my last response I brought an argument saying Josephs Arsh was referred as throne and sulemans throne was referred as    Khursi yehee so both these words are synonyms and quran considers them both as same. SO proving Arsh as literal(as in point 1) also proves that kursi is literal.So practically the debate is over here.

    4) In response to that argument BMZ said that Arsh of joseph doesnt mean throne . It means something else but he simply didnt realize that by this argument he contradicts himself because previously he clearly said that ARsh alone means throne(as shown above).SO one must have realized how dishonest this person is . Now that he is cornered he again wants to backtrack and change the meaning of ARsh saying that Arsh can be a metaphor in Joseph's verse .

    5) Now for the sake of argument Even if we assume that Josephs throne was not literal there are plenty of other verses which tell us that Allahs throne(arsh) is literal and BMZ has agreed with them.sO those verses would be sufficient to make my case that ARsh(for e.g in 39:75 where BMZ agreed) and Kursi(in 38:34 where BMz agreed)  are  2 different words used to denote the same object i.e physical throne and are hence   synonyms .I have proved this using quran itself. AS a result proving Arsh as literal is as good as proving kursi as literal in 2:255.

    Now I would like the readers to the judge of this debate .This is my last post regarding this topic.I would like to move to the next topic unless required.
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #23 - April 07, 2009, 02:24 AM

    Hello, skynightblaze

    We are not amused!  Cheesy I am sorry to say that you are supposed to debate here and you cannot act like an FFI-charlatan!

    On a serious note, I have to disregard your churlish and another gibberish Reply #22 on: Today at 11:22:51 AM as it is not worth even referring to it.

    It also appears to me that you are running away from the debate.  Cheesy You have really not made any serious rebuttals and have avoided my questions by totally ignoring them. You are trying to be the judge, the moderator, the jury, the panel and the audience, all rolled into one. Cheesy I expected a peer to debate with me. But never mind, I will still go ahead with you.

    I can understand your predicament but come back to the rostrum and answer this first, which I asked you and you did not answer. The debate is not over yet but if you wish to make an exit, stage left, I will let you go.  Cheesy

    Please leave aside your Shenanigans FFI-Style and answer the following question, which I had asked:

    Quote
    Before I do that, can I have your acknowledgement and confirmation that Arsh means only Kursi or throne?

    If you think and believe that is correct, just write a simple acknowledgement, saying, "Hello, BMZ. I write to confirm that Arsh in Arabic only means a throne or a chair." This confirmation is imperative. I can then take you through the next but short phase.


    Once you write down your answer, I will write down a conclusive summary and you can then either choose to carry on or concede. However, you will not be released until you answer the above question.

    BMZ


  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #24 - April 07, 2009, 02:51 PM

    Hello, skynightblaze

    We are not amused!  Cheesy I am sorry to say that you are supposed to debate here and you cannot act like an FFI-charlatan!

    On a serious note, I have to disregard your churlish and another gibberish Reply #22 on: Today at 11:22:51 AM as it is not worth even referring to it.

    It also appears to me that you are running away from the debate.  Cheesy You have really not made any serious rebuttals and have avoided my questions by totally ignoring them. You are trying to be the judge, the moderator, the jury, the panel and the audience, all rolled into one. Cheesy I expected a peer to debate with me. But never mind, I will still go ahead with you.

    I can understand your predicament but come back to the rostrum and answer this first, which I asked you and you did not answer. The debate is not over yet but if you wish to make an exit, stage left, I will let you go.  Cheesy

    Please leave aside your Shenanigans FFI-Style and answer the following question, which I had asked:

    Quote
    Before I do that, can I have your acknowledgement and confirmation that Arsh means only Kursi or throne?

    If you think and believe that is correct, just write a simple acknowledgement, saying, "Hello, BMZ. I write to confirm that Arsh in Arabic only means a throne or a chair." This confirmation is imperative. I can then take you through the next but short phase.


    Once you write down your answer, I will write down a conclusive summary and you can then either choose to carry on or concede. However, you will not be released until you answer the above question.

    BMZ






    BMZ ,  I have an advice for you .Smilies dont make up for arguments. Cheesy.
    As shown by Aksel In the comments thread it was expected of you to go in circles. I guess I have to tell you again.I was supposed to prove kursi as literal in 2:255 . IF I managed then I win and  obvious errors in quran would be shown.There is no need of arabic now since I have already proved that Arsh and Kursi used by quran are literal and you agreed so if arabic language allows it to be metaphor doesnt matter because quran used it literally . WE are concerned about how quran used it.

    Here is again a very brief summary.

    1) Arsh meant throne as  in 39:75 (you agreed) i.e literal and not metaphorical

    2)Kursi-yehee  was used as throne in 38:34(you agreed) i.e literal and not metaphorical

    3) Hence from 1 and 2 kursi and Arsh are synonyms since both the words were used to describe the same physical object i.e throne and hence proving ARsh of Allah as throne i.e literal is sufficient to prove that kursi of Allah too is literal.You agreed that arsh of Allah is literal and hence game is over for you.

     Anyway We will be starting the next topic within a day or two.I am not going to respond to any of your post regarding this topic again as I am sure you will try to make for arguments using smilies. Cheesy
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #25 - April 07, 2009, 03:56 PM

    Hello, skynightblaze

    We are not amused!  Cheesy I am sorry to say that you are supposed to debate here and you cannot act like an FFI-charlatan!

    On a serious note, I have to disregard your churlish and another gibberish Reply #22 on: Today at 11:22:51 AM as it is not worth even referring to it.

    It also appears to me that you are running away from the debate.  Cheesy You have really not made any serious rebuttals and have avoided my questions by totally ignoring them. You are trying to be the judge, the moderator, the jury, the panel and the audience, all rolled into one. Cheesy I expected a peer to debate with me. But never mind, I will still go ahead with you.

    I can understand your predicament but come back to the rostrum and answer this first, which I asked you and you did not answer. The debate is not over yet but if you wish to make an exit, stage left, I will let you go.  Cheesy

    Please leave aside your Shenanigans FFI-Style and answer the following question, which I had asked:

    Quote
    Before I do that, can I have your acknowledgement and confirmation that Arsh means only Kursi or throne?

    If you think and believe that is correct, just write a simple acknowledgement, saying, "Hello, BMZ. I write to confirm that Arsh in Arabic only means a throne or a chair." This confirmation is imperative. I can then take you through the next but short phase.


    Once you write down your answer, I will write down a conclusive summary and you can then either choose to carry on or concede. However, you will not be released until you answer the above question.

    BMZ






    BMZ ,  I have an advice for you .Smilies dont make up for arguments. Cheesy.
    As shown by Aksel In the comments thread it was expected of you to go in circles. I guess I have to tell you again.I was supposed to prove kursi as literal in 2:255 . IF I managed then I win and  obvious errors in quran would be shown.There is no need of arabic now since I have already proved that Arsh and Kursi used by quran are literal and you agreed so if arabic language allows it to be metaphor doesnt matter because quran used it literally . WE are concerned about how quran used it.

    Here is again a very brief summary.

    1) Arsh meant throne as  in 39:75 (you agreed) i.e literal and not metaphorical

    2)Kursi-yehee  was used as throne in 38:34(you agreed) i.e literal and not metaphorical

    3) Hence from 1 and 2 kursi and Arsh are synonyms since both the words were used to describe the same physical object i.e throne and hence proving ARsh of Allah as throne i.e literal is sufficient to prove that kursi of Allah too is literal.You agreed that arsh of Allah is literal and hence game is over for you.

     Anyway We will be starting the next topic within a day or two.I am not going to respond to any of your post regarding this topic again as I am sure you will try to make for arguments using smilies. Cheesy



    SNB,

    Please stop writing Cop Outs in the debate section. I have already told you not to mention other posters' name in this debate.
    The poster, you mentioned above, is on my ignore list as I consider him incompetent and not able to hold any proper conversation like your goodself.

    This debate is not finished yet. You have failed to answer and address various points.

    If you stop using foul language, I will stop using smileys. Please do not try to run away. Answer that relevant question. Do you feel unnerved by that question? Once you have answered, I will write down my conclusion.

    You cannot run away by writing your own comments. Get back in the ring!

    Good Night
    BMZ
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #26 - April 08, 2009, 02:56 PM

    SNB,

    I have checked your latest replies and you have not yet answered the question in above posts.

    I will make the question very easy for you, now.

    Question: Can I have your acknowledgement and confirmation that Arsh means only Kursi or throne?

    A concession: You can consult your lead writers at FFI, who went in their own search for the word Arsh, wherever they could find and misled you.

    Good night

    BMZ

  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #27 - April 08, 2009, 04:17 PM

    To: BerberElla

    skynightblaze has run away from the debate. It was not even half way through.

    You may lock this topic now. If the poster or any other FFI member wishes to debate, he/she can open another topic.

    Thank you and all for giving me the chance and a huge space to write here, allowing me to write freely.

    Salaams & good night
    Baig M Z
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #28 - April 08, 2009, 04:20 PM

    Excuse me MR . We are supposed to debate another contradiction. Well let the others be the judge of the debate. I have said my point and you yours. Please wait until I post the second topic i.e an internal contradiction in quran .
  • Re: Bmz vs Skynightblaze
     Reply #29 - April 08, 2009, 04:51 PM

    HELLO ALL,

    Let me make it clear  first that this post is not addressed to BMZ but I wanted to clarify why I chose this topic of angels moving around the throne inspite of it being a spiritual matter.

     BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN REALITY AND SPIRITUALITY



    chapter 19
    66. Man says: "What! When I am dead, shall I then be raised up alive?"
    67. But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?


    To convince the human that he will be resurrected Allah asks the human to consider his original creation .Now if we were born with eye sight that can see that long then certainly it would be a superior re creation on judgement day  than what we born on earth.

    Now the problem is how can a human be convinced of the possibility of a superior recreation of him by showing him his inferior original creation? He wouldnt not be unless its similar to original creation or even lesser but definitely not more. Let me clarify with an example to explain what I am trying to say here.

    Suppose that its a well known fact that i can jump from 10 feet and now I claim to jump from 20 feet but you dont believe me.To convince you should I say why dont you see I can jump from 10 feet?

    You would say that just because i can jump from 10 feet doesnt necessarily mean that i can jump from 20 feet too.In short you would not be convinced.My argument would convince you only when I say I can jump 10 feet or below.ITs is then only you would believe me completely because its a well known fact that i can jump from 10 feet .

    Same is the case here . Re creation has to be similar or even lesser . It is then only the human would be convinced.

    SO the conclusion is either Allah is poor at convincing people OR humans would be resurrected  in a similar way to what they are on earth or even inferior but definitely not superior. Muslims however do not have the luxury of accepting that Allah is poor at convincing and hence they have to accept the other possibility i.e of a similar recreation after death and hence this essentially means we would be born the same way as we are on the earth and hence would not be able to see angels going around the throne.


    I SHALL SOON BRING THE NEXT TOPIC i.e INTERNAL CONTRADICTION WITHIN THE QURAN
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »