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 on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan

 (Read 10328 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     OP - April 09, 2009, 07:18 AM

    At BMZ's request I'm opening a new thread for Stage 2 of this thrilling battle of the Titans.  dance

    Take it away, folks.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #1 - April 09, 2009, 09:48 AM

    At BMZ's request I'm opening a new thread for Stage 2 of this thrilling battle of the Titans.  dance

    Take it away, folks.


    Thank you, osmanthus.

    I would appreciate if skynightblaze can post a prelude to this exchange by telling me how he wants to go about it, before posting an alleged contradiction in the verses of Qur'aan or Qur'aan as a whole.

    BMZ
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #2 - April 10, 2009, 02:07 PM

    INTERNAL CONTRADICTION 1

    2.256.
    Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
     
    2.193
    And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. 


    In the verse 2.193 believers are asked  to fight until the following  conditions are met:

    1) There is no more oppression

    2) There prevails justice and FAITH IN ALLAH

    Now the verse 2:256 says that there should be no compulsion in islam but on the other hand the verse 2:193  instructs its believers to make compulsion in Islam by fighting   until there PREVAILS FAITH IN ALLAH and not just  till oppression is stopped .This is a clear cut internal contradiction proving its author wasnt any GOD. I would like BMZ to clarify this .
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #3 - April 10, 2009, 04:38 PM

    INTERNAL CONTRADICTION 1

    2.256.
    Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
     
    2.193
    And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. 


    In the verse 2.193 believers are asked  to fight until the following  conditions are met:

    1) There is no more oppression

    2) There prevails justice and FAITH IN ALLAH

    Now the verse 2:256 says that there should be no compulsion in islam but on the other hand the verse 2:193  instructs its believers to make compulsion in Islam by fighting   until there PREVAILS FAITH IN ALLAH and not just  till oppression is stopped .This is a clear cut internal contradiction proving its author wasnt any GOD. I would like BMZ to clarify this .


    Thank you for bringing this up, SNB and for some strange reason, I had a feeling that you would bring this up as a topic.

    Again, you have opened up in the reverse order. You quoted 2:256 first and 2:193 later. Perhaps you like it that way.

    2:193 has nothing to do with 2:256. We cannot mix apples with oranges.

    We have to read in the order so that there is no confusion. In fact, it would be easier to understand, if one reads the verses in that section, which does not comprise of only one verse 2:193, which, in the Islamophobic and polemic world, is known as "The Killer Verse". lol!

    How should that verse be read? Are there any other verses going with that verse? Is that verse the only verse given as a Command to fight and kill people? Is there a topic that is being discussed?

    The answer is that 2:193 is not a single verse that has been given in that section and conclusion cannot be made alone basing on that verse.  Here is the section, of which 2:193 is an integral part and that is not how the passage starts. It goes like this and the translation is mine:

    Quote
    2:190 Fight, in the way of Allah, against those who wage war upon you, but do not commit aggression by attacking first. Allah does not like aggressors, 2:191 and kill them wherever you come upon them, drive them away from wherever they drove you away. Oppression is worse than slaughter. But do not fight in the vicinity of the Sacred House of Worship unless they attack you there first, but if they fight against you, you may slay them. This shall be the just retribution, such disbelievers deserve. 2:192 But if they desist, then Allah is much-forgiving and the Most Merciful.

    2:193 Fight until there is no more oppression, and worship of Allah is established. If the oppressors desist, then there shall be no more hostility, except against oppressors, if any.

    2:194 The Sacred months should be kept sacred but you are allowed to retaliate during the sacred months, only if you are attacked. If anyone commits aggression against you, then retaliate likewise and remain conscious of Allah. Know that Allah is with those who are conscious of Him.


    I have highlighted important parts in blue and bold. It is therefore, quite clear that the order to fight was given only when Muslims were under attack. If the pagans desisted from attacking, Muslims were told not to attack and to remain conscious of Allah.

    The whole picture is so clear that even a student of primary class can understand well and easily. One may also get a better  picture, if one reads 2:246-251, which I would like to produce for an easy reference. I am sure now you know why a people; who were persecuted, tortured and attacked; were told to fight in self-defence, only if attacked.

    Quote
    2:246 Have you not considered what the leaders of Beni Israel, faced after Moses?
    They said to their prophet,"Appoint a king for us and we will fight in the way of Allah" He said,"May be when the order is given to fight, you will not fight". They said,"How can it be possible that we would not fight in Allah's way, when our children and ourselves were kicked out from our homelands?" But when they were told to fight, only a few remained and most of them chickened out. Allah is aware of those unjust people.

    2:247 Their prophet said to them,"Allah has appointed Saul as your king".  They said,"How can he be king when we are truly more deserving and he does not even have any wealth?" He said,"Allah has chosen him over you because he is mentally and physically very strong". Allah grants power to anyone He wishes, for Allah knows all.

    2:248 He said to them,"His sign of authority is that you will get back the Ark of Covenant, which will be a comfort for you, and contains the relics left by people of Moses and Aaron, carried by angels. These are the signs if you are true believers".

    2:249 When Saul had set out with his forces, he said, "Allah will test you at a river. If you drink water, you do not belong to me and who does not drink, except a handful, will belong to me." Leaving a small group, most of them drank plenty of water. When he crossed the river with the believers, they said, "We have no power today against Goliath and his forces." But those who knew they would meet Allah one day, said, "Many times, a small army has vanquished a large army by the Will of Allah. Allah is always with those who are patient." 

    2:250 When they confronted Goliath and his forces, they said, "LORD, grant us patience to persevere, grant us strength and grant us victory against these disbelievers."

    2:251 By the Will of Allah, they routed them, David slew Goliath and Allah granted him power, wisdom and gave him whatever knowledge He willed. If Allah had not enabled people to defend themselves against another, there would have been chaos on earth but Allah is gracious to all.

     


    Coming to 2:256, it has nothing to do with fighting or killing. Let me translate it here:

    Quote
    2:256 There shall be no coercion in matters of faith. The right has clearly become distinct from the wrong. Whoever rejects the false deity and believes in Allah, has a strong grasp which will never break. Allah hears and is aware.


    In this verse, fighting or killing is not the subject. There is no mention of that. In fact, Prophet was told not to force Islam on people as people could distinguish between right and wrong.

    I don't see any contradiction here.

    The floor is yours.

    Good night

    BMZ

    Edited to remove some funny question marks, which appeared in the quoted text.
    I can't get rid of those unnecessary question marks. Any tips from anyone?

    Edited to try removing the question marks. Thanks, Islame. Hope it comes neater.


  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #4 - April 11, 2009, 08:25 AM

    Quote from: BMZ
    Thank you for bringing this up, SNB and for some strange reason, I had a feeling that you would bring this up as a topic.
    Again, you have opened up in the reverse order. You quoted 2:256 first and 2:193 later. Perhaps you like it that way.2:193 has nothing to do with 2:256. We cannot mix apples with oranges.We have to read in the order so that there is no confusion. In fact, it would be easier to understand, if one reads theverses in that section, which does not comprise of only one verse 2:193, which, in the Islamophobic and polemic world, is known as "The Killer Verse". lol!

     
    Ofcourse this verse is indeed a killer verse.I aint mixing apples and oranges here.Both these verses clearly contradict each other. The verse is not just talking about self defense it says something other than that. Lets move ahead and see what it says.


    Quote from: BMZ
    How should that verse be read? Are there any other verses going with that verse? Is that verse the only verse given as a Command to fight and kill people? Is there a topic that is being discussed?
    The answer is that 2:193 is not a single verse that has been given in that section and conclusion cannot be made alone basing on that verse.  Here is the section, of which 2:193 is an integral part and that is not how the passage starts. It goes like
    this and the translation is mine:


    2:190 Fight, in the way of Allah, against those who wage war upon you, but do not commit aggression by attacking first. Allah does not like aggressors, 2:191 and kill them wherever you come upon them, drive them away from wherever they drove you away.

    Oppression is worse than slaughter. But do not fight in the vicinity of the Sacred House of Worship unless they attack you there first, but if they fight against you, you may slay them. This shall be the just retribution, such disbelievers deserve.

    2:192 But if they desist, then Allah is much-forgiving and the Most Merciful.

    2:193 Fight until there is no more oppression, and worship of Allah is established. If the oppressors desist, then there shall be no more hostility, except against oppressors, if any.

    2:194 The Sacred months should be kept sacred but you are allowed to retaliate during the sacred months, only if you are attacked. If anyone commits aggression against you, then retaliate likewise and remain conscious of Allah. Know that Allah is
    with those who are conscious of Him.

    I have highlighted important parts in blue and bold. It is therefore, quite clear that the order to fight was given only when Muslims were under attack. If the pagans desisted from attacking, Muslims were told not to attack and to remain conscious of Allah.


    The verse  tells you to fight until Islam is accepted or faith in Allah prevails.Is that what you call self defense?? Such kind of fighting is by no means in self defense but it is instead an offensive fight.I do not deny that you are instructed to fight in self defense but in addition to self defense you are also commanded to wage an offensive war so that everyone accepts Islam amongst the oppressors.

    You muslims are therefore commanded to fight in self defense as well as to launch  an offensive  war to convert the opposite party . A point to be noted is that just because the opposite party is attacking you it doesnt give you the right to force your beliefs on them . You only get the right to fight back but quran is telling the believers to do something in addition to that.

     If it was all just about self defense saying "FIGHT THEM UNTIL THEY FIGHT YOU"" would have been sufficient.Why say in addition  "FIGHT THEM TILL FAITH IN ALLAH PREVAILS" ?

    This quote "FIGHT THEM TILL FAITH IN ALLAH PREVAILS" indicates compulsion and the tool to be  used by the believers is fighting to achieve that. The verse 2:256 tells you that there should be no compulsion in religion (it also forbids
    compulsion by fighting ) So there lies the contradiction. Now you tried to distort the meaning of 2:256 by saying that it doesnt talk about fighting . LEts see what you wrote:


    Quote from: BMZ
    Coming to 2:256, it has nothing to do with fighting or killing. Let me translate it here:

    2:256 There shall be no coercion in matters of faith. The right has clearly become distinct from the wrong. Whoever rejects the false deity and believes in Allah, has a strong grasp which will never break. Allah hears and is aware.
    In this verse, fighting or killing is not the subject. There is no mention of that. In fact, Prophet was told not to force Islam on people as people could distinguish between right and wrong.I don't see any contradiction here.
    The floor is yours.
    Good night



     When one says "No Compulsion" there is no need to again specify that  compulsion shouldnt be done by force. It means any way by which compulsion can be achieved should not be practiced. This meaning is  implicit and need not be again told seperately and hence it means that religion should not be forced by fighting (one of the ways of coercion) so you have no point really when you say this doesnt talk about fighting.

    In the light of the above we see that  Allah asking the believers to fight until faith in Allah prevails i.e believers are supposed to force islam   and the verse  2:256 tells us that there is no compulsion and hence the contradiction stays as it is.


    Quote from: BMZ
    The whole picture is so clear that even a student of primary class can understand well and easily. One may also get a better  picture, if one reads 2:246-251, which I would like to produce for an easy reference. I am sure now you know why a people; who were persecuted, tortured and attacked; were told to fight in self-defence, only if attacked.


    2:246
     Have you not considered what the leaders of Beni Israel, faced after Moses?
    They said to their prophet, "Appoint a king for us and we will fight in the way of Allah.? He said, ?May be when the order is given to fight, you will not fight." They said, ?How can it be possible that we would not fight in Allah?s way, when our children and ourselves were kicked out from our homelands?? But when they were told to fight, only a few remained and most of them chickened out. Allah is aware of those unjust people.

    2:247 Their prophet said to them, ?Allah has appointed Saul as your king.  They said: "How can he be king when we are truly more deserving and he does not even have any wealth?? He said, ?Allah has chosen him over you because he is mentally and physically very strong. Allah grants power to anyone He wishes, for Allah knows all.?

    2:248 He said to them, ?His sign of authority is that you will get back the Ark of Covenant, which will be a comfort for you, and contains the relics left by people of Moses and Aaron, carried by angels. These are the signs if you are true believers.

    2:249
    When Saul had set out with his forces, he said, ?Allah will test you at a river. If you drink water, you do not belong to me and who does not drink, except a handful, will belong to me. Leaving a small group, most of them drank plenty of water. When he crossed the river with the believers, they said, ?We have no power today against Goliath and his forces.? But those who knew they would meet Allah one day, said, ?Many times, a small army has vanquished a large army by the Will of Allah. Allah is always with those who are patient.?

    2:250 When they confronted Goliath and his forces, they said, ?LORD, grant us patience to persevere, grant us strength and grant us victory against these disbelievers.?

    2:251 By the Will of Allah, they routed them, David slew Goliath and Allah granted him power, wisdom and gave him whatever knowledge He willed. If Allah had not enabled people to defend themselves against another, there would have been chaos on
    earth but Allah is gracious to all.


    Eventhough these verses talk about self defense the verse 2:193 does talk about offensive fighting too as shown above.

  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #5 - April 11, 2009, 04:25 PM

     
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Ofcourse this verse is indeed a killer verse.I aint mixing apples and oranges here.Both these verses clearly contradict each other. The verse is not just talking about self defense it says something other than that. Lets move ahead and see what it says.

    The verse  tells you to fight until Islam is accepted or faith in Allah prevails.Is that what you call self defense?? Such kind of fighting is by no means in self defense but it is instead an offensive fight.I do not deny that you are instructed to fight in self defense but in addition to self defense you are also commanded to wage an offensive war so that everyone accepts Islam amongst the oppressors.

    You muslims are therefore commanded to fight in self defense as well as to launch  an offensive  war to convert the opposite party . A point to be noted is that just because the opposite party is attacking you it doesnt give you the right to force your beliefs on them . You only get the right to fight back but quran is telling the believers to do something in addition to that.



    Now you are adding on berries into the apple and orange mix. You have already been shown that the verses have nothing to do with each other.

    You have also been told that verse 2:193 is an integral part of 2:190-194, which is a topic entirely different from the message given by 2:256.

    It appears to me that either you are not familiar with the word Coercion or you are taking it to mean that Muslims were told to fight, which is silly. That is not what it means. Coercion means use of force or intimidation to make others comply. Another word is Compulsion.

    So, in 2:256 the message is not to force or compel others in the matters of faith or religion. Clearly, fighting has not been allowed in this case.

    Thus, you are clearly contradicting yourself by treating the two different verses, to mean the same, which, of course, is ludicrous.
    In order to show me an alleged contradiction, you will have to show me verses which really contradict and you have clearly failed to do so.

    In order to show that we have been commanded to wage an offensive, you have to present and prove through a verse, which says so. Right now, your entire post is a strawman argument.

    Can you show me where do the verses 2:190-194 or any other verses tell Muslims to eradicate and subjugate all others. Where does the verse say that one has to fight till Islam is accepted? How can you so conveniently ignore 2:192? You also conveniently ignored the last part of 2:193, your favourite, which clearly says, "If the oppressors desist, then there shall be no more hostility, except against oppressors, if any."

    It is quite clear that if the oppressors desisted, there had to be no hostility with them and naturally one had to leave them alone. Is there any instruction, which you can present, to show that hostilities were to be carried out on the oppressors non-stop, even if they had stopped?

    The answer is definitely a firm no.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    When one says "No Compulsion" there is no need to again specify that  compulsion shouldnt be done by force. It means any way by which compulsion can be achieved should not be practiced. This meaning is  implicit and need not be again told seperately and hence it means that religion should not be forced by fighting (one of the ways of coercion) so you have no point really when you say this doesnt talk about fighting.

    In the light of the above we see that  Allah asking the believers to fight until faith in Allah prevails i.e believers are supposed to force islam   and the verse  2:256 tells us that there is no compulsion and hence the contradiction stays as it is.


    Say what?

    Did you seriously realize what you wrote above? It means you have not at all understood the two sets of verses. Please go check a proper dictionary for the words Compulsion and/or Coercion. In 2:256, Muslims are clearly forbidden from fighting to force their religion on others.

    In 290-294, the Muslims were under oppression and hence they were allowed to fight till the oppressors were defeated but they were also told not to commit excesses if the oppressors stopped persecution. 

    In order to show an alleged contradiction, if there is any, you will have to show verses on the same topic. You have thus picked up verses poles apart in meaning and substance by not understanding at all the topics discussed.

    It is thus wrong and silly to say that 2:193 teaches to go on the offensive. And since you have not shown that, there is no contradiction.

    I can accept a contradiction only if you can prove that. To show this contradiction, which you cooked up, you mixed berries into apples and pears or oranges and it does not prove anything. You will have to do better than this.

    How do you wish to repair the self-inflicted damage? I cannot accept your preposterous argument because if you cannot prove to me that both verses were on the same subject then it would obviously be a lie on your part. Right?

    In that case, you have presented nothing, answered nothing and have proved nothing. You must have a rock-solid argument when you wish to point out a contradiction, if any, in Qur'aan.

    Here is a tip: For example, if you think a verse says that the sun is stationary and somewhere another verse says that the sun is moving, then you can say it is contradicting. However you will find no contradictions.

    Try again, please. That was a very poor case made.

    Good Night
    BMZ

    Edited to remove a mistake. Did not elaborate well.
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #6 - April 12, 2009, 10:50 AM

    Quote from: BMZ
    Now you are adding on berries into the apple and orange mix. You have already been shown that the verses have nothing to do with each other.You have also been told that verse 2:193 is an integral part of 2:190-194, which is a topic
    entirely different from the message given by 2:256.



     I have already shown you that these verses do have something to do with each other.One verse tells us there is no compulsion in islam but the other verse does ask you believers to force people into islam i.e make compulsion.

    Eventhough I explained properly in my previous post Lets see it again though I know you are going to come up with the same meaningless arguments.

    Quote from: BMZ
    It appears to me that either you are not familiar with the word Coercion or you are taking it to mean that Muslims were told to fight, which is silly. That is not what it means. Coercion means use of force or intimidation to make others comply. Another word is Compulsion.So, in 2:256 the message is not to force or compel others in the matters of faith or religion. Clearly, fighting has not been allowed in this case.



    Do you understand english language? This is the first question  I must ask you.Show me where I said 2:256 is talking about fighting and forcing the believers.I said its talking about no compulsion. When it says there is no compulsion in religion 
    it means you should avoid practicing any means that can cause compulsion. Please re read what I write instead of making baseless accusations.It only shows that you lack comprehension skills.


    Quote from: BMZ
    Thus, you are clearly contradicting yourself by treating the two different verses, to mean the same, which, of course, is ludicrous.In order to show me an alleged contradiction, you will have to show me verses which really contradict
    and you have clearly failed to do so.In order to show that we have been commanded to wage an offensive, you have to present and prove through a verse, which says so. Right now, your entire post is a strawman argument.



     Do you think that just because you say so people would believe you? It might work in your muslim world but not in the kafir world. I have shown the contradiction but you simply want to bury your head into the sand. I will however repeat it again
    here.




    Quote from: BMZ
    Can you show me where do the verses 2:190-194 or any other verses tell Muslims to eradicate and subjugate all others. Where does the verse say that one has to fight till Islam is accepted?How can you so conveniently ignore 2:192? You
    also conveniently ignored the last part of 2:193, your favourite, which clearly says, "If the oppressors desist, then there shall be no more hostility, except against oppressors, if any."[/color]

    It is quite clear that if the oppressors desisted, there had to be no hostility with them and naturally one had to leave them alone. Is there any instruction, which you can present, to show that hostilities were to be carried out on the oppressors non-stop, even if they had stopped?

    The answer is definitely a firm no.


    As expected I see I have to repeat myself time and again.I think even when I explain this again you are still not going to understand or rather pretend not to understand and accuse me of the same. I think I should write a program that repeats itself infinite number of times but still I am sure that some day the computer will break and stop but you still wont understand.(Allah hath sealed your hearts  instead of unbelievers Cheesy)


    I am now going to quote each of your above questions again and answer them seperately just to show everyone how you are trying to dance around the issue.

    Quote
    Can you show me where do the verses 2:190-194 or any other verses tell Muslims to eradicate and subjugate all others.Where does the verse say that one has to fight till Islam is accepted?


    ITs the first part of 2:193 (part in red below) talks about fighting till islam is accepted.

    Here is the first part of the  verse .

    2.193.
    And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.

    I am presenting a case in which oppressors are not willing to stop fighting muslims.. I aint talking about what should believers do when the oppressors stop fighting.Keep this thing in mind.What course of actions are the believers supposed to take against such non muslims who want to continue the fight with muslims? The answer lies in the first part of  2:193.

    1) Fight them so that there is no oppression

    2) Fight them until faith in Allah prevails

    It indicates fighting till oppression ends and also fighting till faith in Allah prevails.The later part literally means forcing your oppressors to accept islam So this answers your question where the verse is talking about forcing which contradicts no compulsion claim (verse 2:256).


    Quote
    How can you so conveniently ignore 2:192? You also conveniently ignored the last part of 2:193, your favourite, which clearly says, "If the oppressors desist, then there shall be no more hostility, except against oppressors, if any."


    Did I ever say that these verses absolutely dont talk about self defense?  I said it talks about self defense and something in addition to that i.e "FIGHT THEM TILL FAITH IN ALLAH PREVAILS" and not just self defense. Why do you chose to refuse to comment on this quote? Who is ignoring here and focusing only the part of self defense?



    Morever Lets see what I wrote previously.



    Quote from:  I previously

     If it was all just about self defense saying "FIGHT THEM UNTIL THEY FIGHT YOU"" would have been sufficient.Why say in addition  "FIGHT THEM TILL FAITH IN ALLAH PREVAILS"  ?


    You never answered this question.


    Btw quran is very  rich in errors and here is another verse that orders you to fight the believers till they accept islam which again contradicts 2:256 .


    [009:029]
    Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay
    the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.



    This should be sufficient to even demolish your contention that Islam doesnt allow compulsion of religion and its a religion of peace other than the obvious contradiction. ITs you who misinform and misreport people about islam by twisting ,lying ,distorting facts!!!.Do not play these games with me .Shifting the blame on the opponent when its you who is really at fault is not a new game. ITs what Muhhamad did and its what you followers are doing it even today.



    Quote from: BMZ

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    When one says "No Compulsion" there is no need to again specify that  compulsion shouldnt be done by force. It means any way by which compulsion can be achieved should not be practiced. This meaning is  implicit and need not be again told seperately and hence it means that religion should not be forced by fighting (one of the ways of coercion) so you have no point really when you say this doesnt talk about fighting.In the light of the above we see that  Allah asking the believers to fight until faith in Allah prevails i.e believers are supposed to force islam   and the verse  2:256 tells us that there is no compulsion and hence the contradiction stays as it is.



    Say what?

    Did you seriously realize what you wrote above? It means you have not at all understood the two sets of verses. Please go check a proper dictionary for the words Compulsion and/or Coercion. In 2:256, Muslims are clearly forbidden from fighting to
    force their religion on others.

    In 290-294, the Muslims were under oppression and hence they were allowed to fight till the oppressors were defeated but they were also told not to commit excesses if the oppressors stopped persecution.

    In order to show an alleged contradiction, if there is any, you will have to show verses on the same topic. You have thus picked up verses poles apart in meaning and substance by not understanding at all the topics discussed.




    Before you ask me to check a dictionary make sure you consult a doctor as to why your comprehension skills are so poor. You didnt even understand what I wrote .  How many times do I need to repeat myself? I never said once that 2:256 is talking
    about forcing people. Re read what I wrote.

    Morever you are still concerned about what muslims should do when the oppressors do not fight them. What if the oppressors continue fighting? Thats my case!! What should the believers do in that case ? My argument revolves around that case and not what believers should do when disbelievers do not want to fight.I have already explained my case above.

    Quote from: BMZ

    It is thus wrong and silly to say that 2:193 teaches to go on the offensive. And since you have not shown that, there is no contradiction.

    I can accept a contradiction only if you can prove that. To show this contradiction, which you cooked up, you mixed berries into apples and pears or oranges and it does not prove anything. You will have to do better than this.

    How do you wish to repair the self-inflicted damage? I cannot accept your preposterous argument because if you cannot prove to me that both verses were on the same subject then it would obviously be a lie on your part. Right?

    In that case, you have presented nothing, answered nothing and have proved nothing. You must have a rock-solid argument when you wish to point out a contradiction, if any, in Qur'aan.

    Here is a tip: For example, if you think a verse says that the sun is stationary and somewhere another verse says that the sun is moving, then you can say it is contradicting. However you will find no contradictions.

    Try again, please. That was a very poor case made.

    Good Night
    BMZ

    Edited to remove a mistake. Did not elaborate well.



    I know you are highly skilled in writing junk. There is no need to  write junk again and again when people know how professional you are at this art. Scribbling something is not called rebuttal.You muslims think that mere typing constitutes a rebuttal.
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #7 - April 12, 2009, 03:15 PM

    @BMZ

    Consider these points before submitting your rebuttal.

    1) Just because the other party is attacking you it doesnt give you the right to force your beliefs on them. YOu get  only the right of self defense . I do agree its mandatory to fight because there is no other option however there is no need for you force your beliefs on the opponents while you are at self defense.Had it been mandatory like fighting back then I would have understood.

    2) Since its not required to force your belief on others in case of self defense it can be seen that self defense is just an excuse cooked to meet your aims .Its unwarranted!!
     It goes like this in short:

    You arent required to force your beliefs in case of self defense and yet you forced your belief on your opponents . This means you contradicted 2:256 which tells us exactly the opposite.Again I repeat if forcing your beliefs  was mandatory like fighting in self defense for which there is no other option then you could have brought up the excuse of self defense however in this case we see there is no need for your force your beliefs while at self defense and hence this excuse of self defense doesnt work here.
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #8 - April 12, 2009, 03:53 PM

    Hello, Skynightblaze,

    Pardon me for saying this but I will not allow you to have the liberty of debate-FFI-style here. Your posts and responses have to be surgical and precise like those of mine. You have to be coherent and remarks such as "You Muslim", "Head buried in the Sand" will not be tolerated because I do not want to use a language similar to that of yours, as it may hurt you. Now on to the topic, which may need more briefing.

    I wrote:
    Quote from: BMZ
    Now you are adding on berries into the apple and orange mix. You have already been shown that the verses have nothing to do with each other.You have also been told that verse 2:193 is an integral part of 2:190-194, which is a topic
    entirely different from the message given by 2:256.


    You wrote back:
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    I have already shown you that these verses do have something to do with each other.One verse tells us there is no compulsion in islam but the other verse does ask you believers to force people into islam i.e make compulsion.

    Eventhough I explained properly in my previous post Lets see it again though I know you are going to come up with the same meaningless arguments.


    There you go again without explaining anything of any substance again! Actually, the contradiction is in your mind, not in the Qur'aan. You really have a problem here. Let me make it simple for you by explaining more, this time.

    In your OP, you brought up two verses, without even knowing the conditions which existed at that time. You just quoted the two verses in the wrong order. Never mind about that.

    Quote
    2.256. Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
     
    2.193 And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.


    When you cherry-picked 2:193, I had explained to you that the verses must be read from 2:190-194, which you never knew and usually polemics never bring it up for others to read. Before 2:190-194 was revealed, the Muslims were under oppression and were being persecuted. They could do nothing as they were small in numbers. The persecution went on and when they had grown in size, only then they were told to fight and all conditions were made clear, which you have learned for the first time.

    So, 2:190-194 are instructions to fight those who had started persecution, torture, killing and fighting earlier during the infancy of Islam. The pagan Meccans had not given freedom of speech or freedom of worship to the prophet. Prophet declared that there was only One God, laying the foundation stone of Islam. Pagans start persecution and slaughter. Muslims are kicked out from their homes and they go into exile.

    They wanted to fight but the instruction came only when they had increased in numbers. Had only a few fought with the pagans in Mecca, Islam would have been finished during it's infancy. Thus 2:190-194, including your favourite 2:193 were clearly orders to fight a people who were truly oppressors. Thus those verses clearly instructed the Muslims to stand up and fight against those who were the real oppressors.

    Another verse 2;256, which you cherry-picked wrongly does not help your case. That verse is a post-victory verse, when Mecca had already been taken and pagans were left unharmed. Was there any mass-killing when Prophet entered Mecca with ten thousand Muslims? Even the most acrimonious anti-Islam writer accepts that. It was the result of the teaching given by 2:256 that nobody will be forced to accept religion or faith, because the difference between right and wrong was clear. That is why I told you there was no contradiction at all. I even went on to show you that the two verses were poles apart and that you were mixing apples and oranges.

    Taking two verses from different topics and situations, and pitting them against each other, shows no contradiction. Perhaps you have not understood at all.

    It is amazing to see you still fail to understand 2:193. Look at it again:
    Quote
    2:193 Fight them until there is no more oppression, and worship of Allah is established. If the oppressors desist, then there shall be no more hostility, except against oppressors, if any.


    I see you have no problem in understanding and accepting "Fight them until there is no more oppression,".

    Regarding your gripe with the next part, "and worship of Allah is established." or the word "prevail", which you prefer,
    that was the aim of Allah to have the religion established in the land of pagans and idolatory and that Muslims would be able to worship Allah as ordered. However, you conveniently forget, ignore and fail to register and mention the last part, which I have emboldened. It does not talk of annihilating them or forcing them into submission to Islam. They were to be left alone as Allah and His Messenger had won.

    You have thus failed to show me or the readers any contradiction. I have covered almost all of your latest questions and now I would like to comment on some irrelevant statements made by you. I will leave the rest which have been covered in my explanations above, hence this double assurance.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Do you understand english language? This is the first question  I must ask you.Show me where I said 2:256 is talking about fighting and forcing the believers.I said its talking about no compulsion. When it says there is no compulsion in religion it means you should avoid practicing any means that can cause compulsion. Please re read what I write instead of making baseless accusations.It only shows that you lack comprehension skills.


    Don't you think I do? It is just that you have not been able to present your points coherently. I did mention Compulsion and Coercion in italics for you. Right?

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Do you think that just because you say so people would believe you? It might work in your muslim world but not in the kafir world. I have shown the contradiction but you simply want to bury your head into the sand. I will however repeat it again here.


    I am here already on a Kafir world, my head held high, discussing with you. Right?

    I am aware that you are trying your best to show a contradiction but there is simply no contradiction, as I have already re-explained above. Readers will read, analyze and make their own conclusions. Your job is to show and prove an alleged contradiction, not your confusion.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    As expected I see I have to repeat myself time and again.I think even when I explain this again you are still not going to understand or rather pretend not to understand and accuse me of the same. I think I should write a program that repeats itself infinite number of times but still I am sure that some day the computer will break and stop but you still wont understand.(Allah hath sealed your hearts  instead of unbelievers Cheesy)


    lol!

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Btw quran is very  rich in errors and here is another verse that orders you to fight the believers till they accept islam which again contradicts 2:256.

    [009:029]
    Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay
    the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


    First you mixed apples and oranges to come up with your strawman and now, what do we have here? By bringing in 9:29, you are mixing pears. And again, all you do is to quote a verse 9:29, which was not an issue but you have brought it in, without having a clue to Surahs 8 and 9. I suggest you study Surahs 2, 8 and 9 thorougly and come back to me again.

    It is quite obvious that you are now trying to use diversionary tactic, which will also be of no use or help to your argument. so, please do not try to continue with Straw Man and the Red Herring sort of arguments.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    This should be sufficient to even demolish your contention that Islam doesnt allow compulsion of religion and its a religion of peace other than the obvious contradiction. ITs you who misinform and misreport people about islam by twisting ,lying ,distorting facts!!!.Do not play these games with me .Shifting the blame on the opponent when its you who is really at fault is not a new game. ITs what Muhhamad did and its what you followers are doing it even today.


    I think such comments do not add credibility to your arguments. I sense some sort of frustrations in you. I understand and I sympathise but you need to show me a genuine contradiction, which you have not been able to.

    I, even gave you a tip. Try that.

    Good Night
    BMZ



  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #9 - April 12, 2009, 03:54 PM

    @BMZ

    Consider these points before submitting your rebuttal.

    1) Just because the other party is attacking you it doesnt give you the right to force your beliefs on them. YOu get  only the right of self defense . I do agree its mandatory to fight because there is no other option however there is no need for you force your beliefs on the opponents while you are at self defense.Had it been mandatory like fighting back then I would have understood.

    2) Since its not required to force your belief on others in case of self defense it can be seen that self defense is just an excuse cooked to meet your aims .Its unwarranted!!
     It goes like this in short:

    You arent required to force your beliefs in case of self defense and yet you forced your belief on your opponents . This means you contradicted 2:256 which tells us exactly the opposite.Again I repeat if forcing your beliefs  was mandatory like fighting in self defense for which there is no other option then you could have brought up the excuse of self defense however in this case we see there is no need for your force your beliefs while at self defense and hence this excuse of self defense doesnt work here.


    Too late. I just submitted. Will respond later to your note. In the mean time, please study 9:29, which you have brought in very late. I will include it in my comments tomorrow as it is midnight here.

    Quote
    Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay
    the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


    This is a case similar to 2:193, which you cherry-picked and 9:29 is another cherry you picked. lol!

    Good night
    BMZ

    Edited to add 9:29 and some comments
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #10 - April 13, 2009, 12:40 PM

    Quote from: BMZ
    Hello, Skynightblaze,
    Pardon me for saying this but I will not allow you to have the liberty of debate-FFI-style here. Your posts and responses have to be surgical and precise like those of mine. You have to be coherent and remarks such as "You Muslim", "Head buried in the Sand" will not be tolerated because I do not want to use a language similar to that of yours, as it may hurt you. Now on
    to the topic, which may need more briefing.


    I always wonder why some Muslims (like you) are offended when being addressed as "Muslim". What is wrong in saying 'You Muslim'? Is 'Muslim' an obscene word? Aren't you in fact be proud of being addressed as 'Muslim'?

    And let me tell you and all those who accuse FFI of insulting muslims they need to understand that respect needs to be earned. FFI calls spade a spade. Being a Muslim will hardly earn you any respect on its own if you are being uncivil in your conduct. Respect follows give and take policy.Did you ever consider looking on your trolling work in FFI plus the personal insults you made in that forum on several other members there? There was no way for you to NOT to get ridiculed.

    One who has qualities never has to demand respect infact he gets it automatically so you must have understood why I dont respect you. That being said; I was civil until you started some mockery in your post. If you mock me, what do you expect in return?

    Regarding preciseness; Oh sorry, you have no right to speak because you are not even close to it. Everyone saw how incoherent you were in your previous post. You didnt even understand what I wrote and  all you did is threw some baseless accusations against me.


    Quote from: BMZ

    Quote from: Skynightblaze

    I have already shown you that these verses do have something to do with each other.One verse tells us there is no compulsion in islam but the other verse does ask you believers to force people into islam i.e make compulsion.Eventhough I explained properly in my previous post Lets see it again though I know you are going to come up with the same meaningless arguments.



    There you go again without explaining anything of any substance again! Actually, the contradiction is in your mind, not in the Qur'aan. You really have a problem here. Let me make it simple for you by explaining more, this time.In your OP, you brought up two verses, without even knowing the conditions which existed at that time. You just quoted the two verses in the wrong order. Never mind about that.


    I tell you that exactly reverse is the case.The contradiction does exists and its your mind that doesnt accept it. Regarding conditions during that time I have refuted this argument below.

    Quote from: BMZ
    2.256. Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
     
    2.193 And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
    When you cherry-picked 2:193, I had explained to you that the verses must be read from 2:190-194, which you never knew and usually polemics never bring it up for others to read. Before 2:190-194 was revealed, the Muslims were under oppression and were being persecuted. They could do nothing as they were small in numbers. The persecution went on and when they had
    grown in size, only then they were told to fight and all conditions were made clear, which you have learned for the first time.

    So, 2:190-194 are instructions to fight those who had started persecution, torture, killing and fighting earlier during the infancy of Islam. The pagan Meccans had not given freedom of speech or freedom of worship to the prophet. Prophet declared that there was only One God, laying the foundation stone of Islam. Pagans start persecution and slaughter. Muslims are kicked out from their homes and they go into exile.

    They wanted to fight but the instruction came only when they had increased in numbers. Had only a few fought with the pagans in Mecca, Islam would have been finished during it's infancy. Thus 2:190-194, including your favourite 2:193 were clearly orders to fight a people who were truly oppressors. Thus those verses clearly instructed the Muslims to stand up and fight
    against those who were the real oppressors.



    Before showing fallacies of the above argument of yours I would like to show a carelessness on your part if you take it as a joke. BMZ, You should have told the your friend or whosoever it is helping you about the terms of this debate. You simply copy pasted what he sent you without bothering to read it Cheesy.Our terms clearly stated that no source other than quran is allowed and yet you have brought up something not from quran.

    Anyway; though obvious, I don't accuse you of plagiarizing someone. I will consider all what you brought as genuine. Here are  a few questions for the bolded part above.

    What is the source for your above arguments for the part in bold ?. As per terms of the debate we both are  allowed to source  Quran only. I hope you remember it.

    Your point in its entirety revolves around the argument that these verses were meant for self defense but  there is a problem for this self defense argument. Let us see what it is.

    How is converting those who attack you help in self defense? Self defense means defending your life from  aggressor. Isn't it so? Or do you have any convoluted, bizarre definition for self defense?

    Many means can be used to defend your life. If there is chance for you to escape through running away from your opponent, you can escape and maximum what you can do in self defense is killing the aggressor so that he will not kill you. How is converting your aggressor to your religion amount to self defense?

    Moreover to convert your opponents, you need to subdue them by all means.  Would anyone convert to your religion when he is in commanding position while you are in a weak position?

    You can only think of converting  your opponents  when you are in a commanding position and the opponent is weak. When the opponent is weak how is he a threat to you  ? Where is the question of self defense in that case?Are you sure you are not joking here by saying that you are defending yourself by converting the opponent even when he is a no threat to you?Cheesy


    EDITED (ALSO READ MY LAST POST REGARDING SELF DEFENSE)

    Quote from: BMZ
    Another verse 2;256, which you cherry-picked wrongly does not help your case. That verse is a post-victory verse, when Mecca had already been taken and pagans were left unharmed. Was there any mass-killing when Prophet entered Mecca with ten thousand Muslims? Even the most acrimonious anti-Islam writer accepts that. It was the result of the teaching given by 2:256 that
    nobody will be forced to accept religion or faith, because the difference between right and wrong was clear. That is why I told you there was no contradiction at all. I even went on to show you that the two verses were poles apart and that you were mixing apples and oranges.Taking two verses from different topics and situations, and pitting them against each other, shows
    no contradiction. Perhaps you have not understood at all.



    Again would you please care to prove what you wrote above using Quran only? Quran doesnt mention any context or whatever you have written here so how did you know these verses were poles apart?

    I have no burden to refute any of your contentions that are not adequately sourced. And the source we mutually agreed on was Quran only. Anyway let me show you how flawed is this argument.

    To say it simply: The context argument of your book is pure nonsense;

    What is your belief about your book Quran?Dont you believe that it is valid till the end of times?

    If Quran's relevance is not bound to time and place, how can you constrict some of its verses to a certain context? That means at least some verses of Quran are not applicable in today's world or for many tomorrows to come. Dont you think you are doing more damage than any good?

    You can not have your cake and eat it too. Since we are agreed on using only Quran as our source of reference, either you have to bring verses from Quran  to show me the verses we debate on apply only for a specific context and are not to be followed in the future. Can you?

    Finally when we talk about internal contradictions in the quran you are not allowed to bring sources other than Quran even if you are arguing from a traditional Muslim standpoint. If your book can not be defended without the help of additional sources, that amounts to a grave weakness. You should be able to defend your book independently. Otherwise it would be a tacit admission of the weakness of Quran and also it doesnt change the fact that quran contradicted itself.




    Quote from: BMZ
    It is amazing to see you still fail to understand 2:193. Look at it again:
    2:193 Fight them until there is no more oppression, and worship of Allah is established. If the oppressors desist, then there shall be no more hostility, except against oppressors, if any.

    I see you have no problem in understanding and accepting "Fight them until there is no more oppression,".Regarding your gripe with the next part, "and worship of Allah is established." or the word "prevail", which you prefer,that was the aim of Allah to have the religion established in the land of pagans and idolatory and that Muslims would be able to worship Allah as ordered. However, you conveniently forget, ignore and fail to register and mention the last part,
    which I have emboldened. It does not talk of annihilating them or forcing them into submission to Islam. They were to be left alone as Allah and His Messenger had won.


    Again what is your source for the argument in bold? This is not found in quran so where do you get it from?

    Please do not talk about context as I have already shattered this claim of yours above. The verse tells us that muslims are to fight until faith prevails in Allah and you are saying the following:

    Quote
    that was the aim of Allah to have the religion established in the land of pagans and idolatory and that Muslims would be able to worship Allah as ordered


    LOL.. You admit yourself there is compulsion. Read what you wrote again.

    Why do you always shoot on your foot?



    Suppose My aim is to establish religion of hinduism over the land of saudi arabia. I guess you should have no problem if I ask the hindus to fight saudis until they faith prevails in hinduism and going by your logic you shouldnt call it a compulsion.

    Here is another joke from you.

    Quote
    They were to be left alone as Allah and His Messenger had won


    Why ask muslims to fight them until faith in Allah prevails if they were to be left alone? Cheesy


    Quote from: BMZ
    You have thus failed to show me or the readers any contradiction. I have covered almost all of your latest questions and now I would like to comment on some irrelevant statements made by you. I will leave the rest which have been covered in my explanations above, hence this double assurance.


    Every single time you say this you get refuted in the next post so how about saving yourself from embarrassment next time onwards ?

    Quote from: BMZ

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Do you understand english language? This is the first question  I must ask you.Show me where I said 2:256 is talking about fighting and forcing the believers.I said its talking about no compulsion. When it says there is no compulsion in religion it means you should avoid practicing any means that can cause compulsion. Please re read what I write instead of making baseless
    accusations.It only shows that you lack comprehension skills.


    Don't you think I do? It is just that you have not been able to present your points coherently. I did mention Compulsion and Coercion in italics for you. Right?


    I did answer you but  you were the one who didnt understand what I wrote and hence its not my fault that you dont understand.

    Quote from: BMZ

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Do you think that just because you say so people would believe you? It might work in your muslim world but not in the kafir world. I have shown the contradiction but you simply want to bury your head into the sand. I will however repeat it again here.


    I am here already on a Kafir world, my head held high, discussing with you. Right?
    I am aware that you are trying your best to show a contradiction but there is simply no contradiction, as I have already re-explained above. Readers will read, analyze and make their own conclusions. Your job is to show and prove an alleged
    contradiction, not your confusion.



    I have already proved the contradiction. I have thrashed your so-called logical arguments. Let me tell you kafirs are much superior than what Allah told you. Allah himself doesnt know the potentials of kafirs. Of course readers will see through the loop holes in your argument as you have used a source other than Quran in this debate which Is NOT allowed as per the terms we agreed on earlier before we started debating.

    Quote from: BMZ
    Quote from: Skynightblaze
    Btw quran is very  rich in errors and here is another verse that orders you to fight the believers till they accept islam which again contradicts 2:256.

    [009:029]
    Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


    First you mixed apples and oranges to come up with your strawman and now, what do we have here? By bringing in 9:29, you are mixing pears. And again, all you do is to quote a verse 9:29, which was not an issue but you have brought it in, without having a clue to Surahs 8 and 9. I suggest you study Surahs 2, 8 and 9 thorougly and come back to me again.It is quite obvious that you are now trying to use diversionary tactic, which will also be of no use or help to your argument. so, please do not try to continue with Straw Man and the Red Herring sort of arguments.


    Why dont you just answer the question at hand? Instead of mere accusations why not prove something and then speak? Surah 2,8 have got nothing do with surah 9.Infact it contradicts 2:256. There is contradiction everywhere in the quran it is obvious. Just because you say there is no contradiction is not going to make your book contradiction free.

    Frankly speaking If I lived during your prophet's time I would have surely taught him some basics as to how to write a book on behalf of god. The verse 9:29 clearly says that muslims are supposed to fight the non muslims until they accept islam and also pay jizya. That is  COMPULSION!!! Your game is over. However would you like to have one more chance? I feel generous today.Cheesy



    Quote from: BMZ
    Quote from: skynightblaze
    This should be sufficient to even demolish your contention that Islam doesnt allow compulsion of religion and its a religion of peace other than the obvious contradiction. ITs you who misinform and misreport people about islam by twisting ,lying ,distorting facts!!!.Do not play these games with me .Shifting the blame on the opponent when its you who is really at fault
    is not a new game. ITs what Muhhamad did and its what you followers are doing it even today.


    I think such comments do not add credibility to your arguments. I sense some sort of frustrations in you. I understand and I sympathise but you need to show me a genuine contradiction, which you have not been able to.I, even gave you a tip. Try that.
    Good Night
    BMZ


    In the light of what I said above would anyone believe you?Cheesy
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #11 - April 13, 2009, 04:39 PM

    Oh! What a terrible waste of the internet bandwidth, skynightblaze! There was no need to rush up this sort of illogical and evasive response. Are you seriously debating or believe that you are writing a humorous post on FFI?

    There is nothing in here which, imho, needs a rebuttal, so I will take this opportunity to remove the unwanted material, which forms the bulk of your post and trim it to see what you have come up with. In other words, I am sizing it down to see if I can get anything worthy in your post.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    I always wonder why some Muslims (like you) are offended when being addressed as "Muslim". What is wrong in saying 'You Muslim'? Is 'Muslim' an obscene word? Aren't you in fact be proud of being addressed as 'Muslim'?

    And let me tell you and all those who accuse FFI of insulting muslims they need to understand that respect needs to be earned. FFI calls spade a spade. Being a Muslim will hardly earn you any respect on its own if you are being uncivil in your conduct. Respect follows give and take policy.Did you ever consider looking on your trolling work in FFI plus the personal insults you made in that forum on several other members there? There was no way for you to NOT to get ridiculed.

    One who has qualities never has to demand respect infact he gets it automatically so you must have understood why I dont respect you. That being said; I was civil until you started some mockery in your post. If you mock me, what do you expect in return?

    Regarding preciseness; Oh sorry, you have no right to speak because you are not even close to it. Everyone saw how incoherent you were in your previous post. You didnt even understand what I wrote and  all you did is threw some baseless accusations against me.


    I have to disregard the above waste as it is gibberish and you have not contributed anything positive.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    I tell you that exactly reverse is the case.The contradiction does exists and its your mind that doesnt accept it. Regarding conditions during that time I have refuted this argument below.


    You have clearly failed to prove a contradiction and you know that very well. You and I are not the ones to decide. The readers will.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Before showing fallacies of the above argument of yours I would like to show a carelessness on your part if you take it as a joke. BMZ, You should have told the your friend or whosoever it is helping you about the terms of this debate. You simply copy pasted what he sent you without bothering to read it Cheesy.Our terms clearly stated that no source other than quran is allowed and yet you have brought up something not from quran.


    Such remarks are usually made by people who are confident of losing a debate and run out of arguments. I do not need help from anyone and I write my own thoughts. Writing my own thoughts is part of the debate. I cannot help you, if you entertain such negative thoughts in your mind. It was uncalled for.   

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Anyway; though obvious, I don't accuse you of plagiarizing someone. I will consider all what you brought as genuine. Here are  a few questions for the bolded part above.


    You did! And yet you dare ask me silly questions? Anyway, I will entertain.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    What is the source for your above arguments for the part in bold ?. As per terms of the debate we both are  allowed to source  Quran only. I hope you remember it.


    Source: BMZ

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Your point in its entirety revolves around the argument that these verses were meant for self defense but  there is a problem for this self defense argument. Let us see what it is.

    How is converting those who attack you help in self defense? Self defense means defending your life from  aggressor. Isn't it so? Or do you have any convoluted, bizarre definition for self defense?

    Many means can be used to defend your life. If there is chance for you to escape through running away from your opponent, you can escape and maximum what you can do in self defense is killing the aggressor so that he will not kill you. How is converting your aggressor to your religion amount to self defense?

    Moreover to convert your opponents, you need to subdue them by all means.  Would anyone convert to your religion when he is in commanding position while you are in a weak position?

    You can only think of converting  your opponents  when you are in a commanding position and the opponent is weak. When the opponent is weak how is he a threat to you  ? Where is the question of self defense in that case?Are you sure you are not joking here by saying that you are defending yourself by converting the opponent even when he is a no threat to you?Cheesy


    I must remind you, that having exhausted your Strawman, Red Herrings and a little bit of Tu Quoque, you have now led yourself on the Slippery Slope. I suggest you go back, read my first response again as above questions are nothing but intellectual masturbation and diversion.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Again would you please care to prove what you wrote above using Quran only? Quran doesnt mention any context or whatever you have written here so how did you know these verses were poles apart?


    It shows me that you have not really read even one complete translation of Qur'aan. Poles apart in the case of scenarios and situations. You can see clearly that you are not even able to differentiate the two verses on different matters.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    I have no burden to refute any of your contentions that are not adequately sourced. And the source we mutually agreed on was Quran only. Anyway let me show you how flawed is this argument.


    The only source is Qur'aan and we are discussing mainly two verses and one 2:193 has to be read from 2:190-194 as yours truly has made you understand, which you even did not know at all before this debate started. I have ignored a blunder committed by your goodself when you tried to bring in 9:29 without having an iota of knowledge on Surahs 8 and 9. 

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    To say it simply: The context argument of your book is pure nonsense;


    Irrelevant comment!

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    What is your belief about your book Quran?Dont you believe that it is valid till the end of times?


    Irrelevant comment, again!

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    If Quran's relevance is not bound to time and place, how can you constrict some of its verses to a certain context? That means at least some verses of Quran are not applicable in today's world or for many tomorrows to come. Dont you think you are doing more damage than any good?


    Another irrelevant comment!

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    You can not have your cake and eat it too. Since we are agreed on using only Quran as our source of reference, either you have to bring verses from Quran  to show me the verses we debate on apply only for a specific context and are not to be followed in the future. Can you?


    It is quite clear that you write without reading and understanding my posts. It also means that you are not paying any attention.
    When you quoted only 2:193 alone in trying to make your invalid point, I was the one who brought up the verses 2:190, 2:191, 2:192, 2:193 and 2:194 and provided you with my own translation of the same. 

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Finally when we talk about internal contradictions in the quran you are not allowed to bring sources other than Quran even if you are arguing from a traditional Muslim standpoint. If your book can not be defended without the help of additional sources, that amounts to a grave weakness. You should be able to defend your book independently. Otherwise it would be a tacit admission of the weakness of Quran and also it doesnt change the fact that quran contradicted itself.


    I must say that this is utter balderdash! If this were a debate in a hall, the audience would have booed and shipped you out.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    what is your source for the argument in bold? This is not found in quran so where do you get it from?


    BMZ

    Of course, when I write my thoughts out, you will not find them in Qur'aan. Are you quoting, copying and pasting from Shaitan?  Cheesy

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    Please do not talk about context as I have already shattered this claim of yours above. The verse tells us that muslims are to fight until faith prevails in Allah and you are saying the following:

    LOL.. You admit yourself there is compulsion. Read what you wrote again.

    Why do you always shoot on your foot?

    Suppose My aim is to establish religion of hinduism over the land of saudi arabia. I guess you should have no problem if I ask the hindus to fight saudis until they faith prevails in hinduism and going by your logic you shouldnt call it a compulsion.

    Here is another joke from you.

    Why ask muslims to fight them until faith in Allah prevails if they were to be left alone? Cheesy

    Every single time you say this you get refuted in the next post so how about saving yourself from embarrassment next time onwards ?


    That is indeed good, laughable and hilarious.


    I did answer you but  you were the one who didnt understand what I wrote and hence its not my fault that you dont understand.

    Quote from: skynightblaze
    I have already proved the contradiction. I have thrashed your so-called logical arguments. Let me tell you kafirs are much superior than what Allah told you. Allah himself doesnt know the potentials of kafirs. Of course readers will see through the loop holes in your argument as you have used a source other than Quran in this debate which Is NOT allowed as per the terms we agreed on earlier before we started debating.

    Why dont you just answer the question at hand? Instead of mere accusations why not prove something and then speak? Surah 2,8 have got nothing do with surah 9.Infact it contradicts 2:256. There is contradiction everywhere in the quran it is obvious. Just because you say there is no contradiction is not going to make your book contradiction free.

    Frankly speaking If I lived during your prophet's time I would have surely taught him some basics as to how to write a book on behalf of god. The verse 9:29 clearly says that muslims are supposed to fight the non muslims until they accept islam and also pay jizya. That is  COMPULSION!!! Your game is over. However would you like to have one more chance? I feel generous today.Cheesy

    In the light of what I said above would anyone believe you?Cheesy


    Cop out!

    I thank the LORD Almighty Allah that you were not there in the Prophet's time.  You would have beaten Abu Jahal flat out.  Cheesy

    I sincerely suggest you go back, take a break and read Surahs 2, 8 and 9 first in all the fourteen translations which you have.
    Once you have done that, come back and start again. You take 24 hours to reply and I do within an hour. That should tell you a lot. Hope you get it?

    A good debater will always keep in mind that he/she has to present a clear-cut contradiction and I am sorry to write that you failed to provide one.

    Please proceed with the next alleged contradiction, if you have any.

    Good night
    BMZ
     



  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #12 - April 13, 2009, 04:55 PM

    Quote from: BMZ
    Once you have done that, come back and start again. You take 24 hours to reply and I do within an hour. That should tell you a lot. Hope you get it?



    So according to your logic one who replies faster wins the debate  Cheesy .I see Its no wonder why muslims are backward . Your logic says it all!!

     To respond to your post it takes hardly an hour but still I have to manage other things in life and thats why I take time. Anyway I have said my point and you yours. Let the readers be the judge of this debate. I will bring the next contradiction soon. This is my last post regarding this subject. I dont want a seperate thread to be opened for that . I will continue the contradictions here itself.
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #13 - April 13, 2009, 05:01 PM

    Quote from: BMZ
    Once you have done that, come back and start again. You take 24 hours to reply and I do within an hour. That should tell you a lot. Hope you get it?



    So according to your logic one who replies faster wins the debate  Cheesy .I see Its no wonder why muslims are backward . Your logic says it all!!

     To respond to your post it takes hardly an hour but still I have to manage other things in life and thats why I take time. Anyway I have said my point and you yours. Let the readers be the judge of this debate. I will bring the next contradiction soon. This is my last post regarding this subject. I dont want a seperate thread to be opened for that . I will continue the contradictions here itself.



    No, it was to show that you take more time for consultation and advice from the FFI HQ.  Cheesy

    Carry on and you can even take 72 hours.  Cheesy

    One request: Please try to read at least one translation thoroughly and make sure that you understand what is the message of a particular verse within a certain section.

    Good night
    BMZ
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #14 - April 13, 2009, 05:06 PM

    Quote from: BMZ
    Once you have done that, come back and start again. You take 24 hours to reply and I do within an hour. That should tell you a lot. Hope you get it?



    So according to your logic one who replies faster wins the debate  Cheesy .I see Its no wonder why muslims are backward . Your logic says it all!!

     To respond to your post it takes hardly an hour but still I have to manage other things in life and thats why I take time. Anyway I have said my point and you yours. Let the readers be the judge of this debate. I will bring the next contradiction soon. This is my last post regarding this subject. I dont want a seperate thread to be opened for that . I will continue the contradictions here itself.



    No, it was to show that you take more time for consultation and advice from the FFI HQ.  Cheesy

    Carry on and you can even take 72 hours.  Cheesy

    Good night
    BMZ


    You never understand logic . Do you? Let us assume that I write nothing on my own. Every single statement is written by others for me and I simply paste what they send me through PMs. How does that make islam true and how does that change the fact that you lost miserably?
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #15 - April 13, 2009, 09:24 PM

    If the two of you would like to continue in this thread that's fine but could we please have less of the ridicule and more substance? Thanks.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #16 - April 13, 2009, 11:33 PM

    If the two of you would like to continue in this thread that's fine but could we please have less of the ridicule and more substance? Thanks.


    Thank you for the note, osmanthus.

    Please lock this this thread and open a new thread, if SNB wishes to continue. I will write him a separate note
    on how to continue his contradictions.

    Thank you very much for the time and space.

    BMZ
  • Re: BMZ vs Skynightblaze on "Contradictions" in Qur'aan
     Reply #17 - April 15, 2009, 08:19 PM

    Well you seem to want a new thread and SNB would like to continue in this thread. Since this thread is so short I can't see any particular reason to lock it, but I don't mind either way. I suggest you and SNB sort out the details by PM and let me know what you decide.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »