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.
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.
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
.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?
EDITED (ALSO READ MY LAST POST REGARDING SELF DEFENSE)
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.
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:
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.
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?
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the light of what I said above would anyone believe you?