Is Surah al-M??idah contradicting itself?
-
I guess you are just here for the name-calling then, huruf?
Please take a hike and let people interested in it debate it using rational arguments. I'm personally done with your constant insults and personal attacks that are totally off-topic.
Peace
-
Nope you are always invited and welcome to logical argumentation and critical, logical debunking of this thesis.
But please keep the attacks on my person to yourself. It's not that I'm offended by them but you are harming yourself by doing so.
Peace
-
Well you are wrong to think this is only my opinion. The work (doctorate) these opinions are based on can be ordered online, unfortunately so far only in french
http//www.librairietequi.com/A-28885-le-messie-et-son-prophete-aux-origines-de-l-islam-t1-studia-arabica-i.aspx
http//www.librairietequi.com/A-28886-le-messie-et-son-prophete-aux-origines-de-l-islam-t2-studia-arabica-ii.aspxHow is your french huruf? For me it's my second native language.
Summary in English can be found here
http//www.lemessieetsonprophete.com/annexes/presentation-en.htm
Wiki about the author
https//fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89douard-Marie_Gallez
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras.
Now follow this "logically"
1- you claim 557 is verses apart from 551.
I claim 551 and 557 is the same subject addressing the same believers, the same dialogue ,where 557 confirms which Jews and nasara .Only those that mock and ridicule the believers.
Is this not logical/read again 551 onwards and see for yourself.
2-You claim 557 is abrogating 551.
I say the same conversation/subject in few different numbered verses does not mean one verse is abrogating the other verse,it is a continuous theme that is clarifying the context. Qoran has many examples where the context is clarified in the verse/s after it,when it is the same subject.
3- you claim 582 is contradicting 551.
I say 582 is talking about a different nasara , read and see how the subject now changes to those nasara that are not arrogant and when they hear the revelation of GOD you see their eyes flooding with tears... As in
583
When they hear what was revealed to the messenger, you see their eyes flooding with tears as they recognize the truth therein, and they say, "Our Lord, we have believed, so count us among the witnesses.584
"Why should we not believe in God, and in the truth that has come to us, and hope that our Lord may admit us with the righteous people?"Simple and logical to me. No abrogation and no contradiction.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace runninglikezebras.
Now follow this "logically"
1- you claim 557 is verses apart from 551.
I claim 551 and 557 is the same subject addressing the same believers, the same dialogue ,where 557 confirms which Jews and nasara .Only those that mock and ridicule the believers.
Is this not logical/read again 551 onwards and see for yourself.
2-You claim 557 is abrogating 551.
I say the same conversation/subject in few different numbered verses does not mean one verse is abrogating the other verse,it is a continuous theme that is clarifying the context. Qoran has many examples where the context is clarified in the verse/s after it,when it is the same subject.
3- you claim 582 is contradicting 551.
I say 582 is talking about a different nasara , read and see how the subject now changes to those nasara that are not arrogant and when they hear the revelation of GOD you see their eyes flooding with tears... As in
583
When they hear what was revealed to the messenger, you see their eyes flooding with tears as they recognize the truth therein, and they say, "Our Lord, we have believed, so count us among the witnesses.584
"Why should we not believe in God, and in the truth that has come to us, and hope that our Lord may admit us with the righteous people?"Simple and logical to me. No abrogation and no contradiction.
GOD bless you.
Peace.Peace good logic if you have time check out these ayats of criterion
Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because
of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous
toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those
who act justly.Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion
and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - that
you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is
those who are the wrongdoers.God bless
peace
-
Well you are wrong to think this is only my opinion. The work (doctorate) these opinions are based on can be ordered online, unfortunately so far only in french
http//www.librairietequi.com/A-28885-le-messie-et-son-prophete-aux-origines-de-l-islam-t1-studia-arabica-i.aspx
http//www.librairietequi.com/A-28886-le-messie-et-son-prophete-aux-origines-de-l-islam-t2-studia-arabica-ii.aspxHow is your french huruf? For me it's my second native language.
Summary in English can be found here
http//www.lemessieetsonprophete.com/annexes/presentation-en.htm
Wiki about the author
https//fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89douard-Marie_Gallez
Peace
So what, doctors have had opinions for the same thing and the opposite all over history. So what, Does that make it a proof of anything. Only for wpople who do not do what the Qur'an says ponder, reflect, think, reason, etc.
Whatever, doctors or no doctors, when somebody wants to find something illogical in the Qur'an, they will. When they want to be misled, they will be misled. The Qur'an also says that. And the Qur'an also says to take the best in it. If one takes the worst and not the best... what is such a person?
Salam
-
Peace Hawk.
I am aware of those verses as well.
Thanks for quoting them here .
I also agree with you, there will always be those who find contradictions and will assume Qoran is at fault rather than their own understanding of it.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace runninglikezebras.
Now follow this "logically"
1- you claim 557 is verses apart from 551.
I claim 551 and 557 is the same subject addressing the same believers, the same dialogue ,where 557 confirms which Jews and nasara .Only those that mock and ridicule the believers.
I do not dispute it belongs to the same sura and that it is a reiteration of 551. You seem to suffer from a form of blindness however 557 do NOT take them as allies. You distort 557 to it being an exemption of what kind of alliances are allowed. How can one twist a verse saying DO NOT TAKE THEM AS ALLIES to say IT'S OKAY TO TAKE THOSE AS ALLIES on the condition that etc.
Is this not logical/read again 551 onwards and see for yourself.
2-You claim 557 is abrogating 551.
I say the same conversation/subject in few different numbered verses does not mean one verse is abrogating the other verse,it is a continuous theme that is clarifying the context. Qoran has many examples where the context is clarified in the verse/s after it,when it is the same subject.
It seems you have a problem reading my text as well. I never claimed 557 is abrogating 551. All I ever claimed is your distorted interpretation of 557 (being an exemption for allowed alliances instead of a prohibition on that kind of alliances in the objective text) makes 557 abrogate 551. It's only your distortion of 557 creating the abrogation.
3- you claim 582 is contradicting 551.
I say 582 is talking about a different nasara , read and see how the subject now changes to those nasara that are not arrogant and when they hear the revelation of GOD you see their eyes flooding with tears... As in
583
When they hear what was revealed to the messenger, you see their eyes flooding with tears as they recognize the truth therein, and they say, "Our Lord, we have believed, so count us among the witnesses.584
"Why should we not believe in God, and in the truth that has come to us, and hope that our Lord may admit us with the righteous people?"Simple and logical to me. No abrogation and no contradiction.
Again you distort. Nasara = Nasara period. If Quran would be talking about different Nasara it would not refer to them with the same proper name. How many abrahams are there in your reading?
Peace
-
Peace good logic if you have time check out these ayats of criterion
Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because
of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous
toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those
who act justly.Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion
and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - that
you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is
those who are the wrongdoers.God bless
peace
Hawk99 demonstrating his lack of critical thinking capabilities. Do I really need to explain to you how rules of engagement are not the same thing as instructions for which kind of alliances are allowed?
Rules of engagement are battlefield instructions for an ongoing armed conflict that apply to forces on the field.
Rules for alliances are strategical decisions made by the commanders and leadership that are part of diplomacy and are unrelated to battlefield instructions.
Hawk99's abrogation to solve the contradiction
"One can take anyone who is not fighting you as allies even if they are nasara or jews" => abrogating 551
Are you seriously claiming Quran would be saying things like it's okay to take allies who do not fight you, but it's not okay to take allies who are fighting you? Do you really think God would be uttering such nonsense?
rotfl
-
Peace runninglikezebras.
You do not accept that 551 is talking about a type of jews and nasara,the ones in 557 i.e the ones that mock and ridicule the believers!
551 is not talking about the same "nasara" as 582. as explained in my post.
nasara in 551 are one type and nasara in 582 are a different type.
You say nasara = nasara in both. I disagree with you . I say a nasara who mocks and riducules is one type and a nasara that is not arrogant is another type. However they are both nasara.
There is no contradiction.No issue whatsoever for me.
Like you said ,the readers can now look at both sides of the argument and decide for themselves.
I have no more to say on the matter now.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace runninglikezebras.
You do not accept that 551 is talking about a type of jews and nasara,the ones in 557 i.e the ones that mock and ridicule the believers!
It says do not take jews and nasara as allies. It does not say do not take "some jews and nasara" as allies. Stop distorting the objective text.
551 is not talking about the same "nasara" as 582. as explained in my post.
nasara in 551 are one type and nasara in 582 are a different type.
Are you suggesting God ignores that proper nouns designate unique realities?
You say nasara = nasara in both. I disagree with you . I say a nasara who mocks and riducules is one type and a nasara that is not arrogant is another type. However they are both nasara.
You are suggesting God ignores proper nouns designate unique realities.
There is no contradiction.No issue whatsoever for me.
Like you said ,the readers can now look at both sides of the argument and decide for themselves.
I have no more to say on the matter now.
GOD bless you.
Peace.You are ignoring there is contradiction. I would agree with you if 551 said "do not take some of the nasara and jews as allies" elaborated in 557. But it does not say that does it? It says "do not take nasara and jews as allies". The proper nouns jews and nasara are unique realities that should not be taken as allies.
Test of logic
nasara/jew who does not mock you can he be taken as ally?
551 says you can't because he is nasara/jew.
557 allows it
551 + 557 does not allow it because even if he is not mocking, he is nasara/jewgoodlogic says you can because he isn't mocking you (requiring abrogation of 551)
I say you can't.non-nasara/non-jew who mocks you can he be taken as ally?
551 allows it
557 does not allow it
551 + 557 does not allow it, because they are mockinggoodlogic says you can't take him as ally
I say you can't either.So as you can see 557 only broadens the group that is not allowed to be made alliances with.
551 forbids alliances with any jews and nasara
557 also forbids alliances with anyone mocking believers etcThis allows overlap between 551 as demonstrated (eg a nasara/jew who mocks believers) but does not narrow it down. It does not remove/abrogate the criteria in 551 of nasara and jews. In contrary.
Logic 101.
The reader should also be aware this is only one of the many contradictions mentioned in the OP. Goodlogic has been trying to narrow it down to this one. Reminder christians never referred to themselves as nasara in that period of time. The traits of nasara are fully contradicting in one verse affectionate, most close in faith. In the other hostile, mocking and arrogant towards believers and not to be taken as allies.
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras.
You say
551 forbids alliances with any jews or nasara
557 also forbids alliances with anyone mocking believers etcI say
551 forbids alliances with Jews or nasara.
557 confirms which type ,same subject as 551.i.e( those that mock and ridicule the believers).Hence you find an issue with 582 and I do not. Hence you say Qoran contradicts and I say there are no contradictions in Qoran.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
See my previous post that shows your logic is flawed. 557 does not narrow down the group of nasara and jews. I demonstrated using a logical test, showing that it broadens the prohibition of alliances with anyone mocking, ridiculing in addition to the prohibition on alliances with Jews and Nasara while allowing overlap.
Where does 551 say "some" Jews or Nasara? Where does 557 say Jews or Nasara? All these things you project into the objective text but aren't there in reality. Both of these are lacking and are crucial to make your understanding correct.
You are showing all the signs of distorting the text to avoid facing a contradiction that you dislike. Even going as far as to abrogate a very simple prohibition on alliances with certain groups that are referred to with PROPER NAMES.
I'm also clueless how you picked your username. Logic seems an unexplored terrain for you.
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras.
You follow your logic. I follow Qoran.
It seems your logic is leading you astray. You are not even accepting that 557 speaks about the Jews and nasara ?
Who are the ones who received the scripture before Qoran?
What can I say?
I now have to leave it here and wish you good luck with your logic.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace runninglikezebras.
You follow your logic. I follow Qoran.
It seems your logic is leading you astray. You are not even accepting that 557 speaks about the Jews and nasara ?
Who are the ones who received the scripture before Qoran?
What can I say?
I now have to leave it here and wish you good luck with your logic.
GOD bless you.
Peace.You follow quran even when it fully contradicts itself. And you are again using a false argument trying to distort meaning. If 557 narrowed down the prohibition in 551 it would repeat "nasara and jews". It would not say "people of the book". They are not the same you know. People of the book is much broader than "nasara and jews" proving the prohibition is BROADENED contrary to your misunderstanding it is NARROWED DOWN.
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
You follow quran even when it fully contradicts itself. And you are again using a false argument trying to distort meaning. If 557 narrowed down the prohibition in 551 it would repeat "nasara and jews". It would not say "people of the book". They are not the same you know. People of the book is much broader than "nasara and jews" proving the prohibition is BROADENED contrary to your misunderstanding it is NARROWED DOWN.
By now you know that I don't automatically condone every thesis of yours. I looked at your thesis reference 551, 557, 582 with a critical mind as always and tried my best to refute it but I have not been successful so far.
Here is how I understand the referenced verses
551 = believers cannot take al-yahud and al-nasara (THE YAHUD and THE NASARA which includes ALL YAHUD and ALL NASARA because of definite article) as allies.
CONCLUSION A = NONE OF THE YAHUD AND NONE OF THE NASARA CAN BE TAKEN AS ALLIES BY BELIEVERS.
557 = believers cannot take as allies those who consider the believers deen as mockery and play FROM AMONG the people of the book before them and the kuffar.
This clearly refers to a SUBSET OF THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK WHICH CAN INCLUDE SOME AL-YAHUD AND AL-NASARA who consider believers deen as mockery and play and NOT ALL AL-YAHUD AND AL-NASARA.
CONCLUSION B = SOME (NOT ALL) AL-YAHUD AND AL-NASARA CAN BE TAKEN AS ALLIES BY BELIEVERS (those who DO NOT mock deen).
But wait a minute .......
CONCLUSION A CLEARLY CONTRADICTS CONCLUSION B
582 = Nasara are closest in affection to the believers because they are not arrogant. THOSE WHO SAID "WE ARE NASARA" indicates ALL NASARA ARE BEING REFERRED TO.
BUT 551 PREVENTS TAKING ALL NASARA AS ALLIES BY BELIEVERS.
This doesn't make any sense.
WHY WOULD SOMEONE CLOSEST IN AFFECTION WHO IS NOT ARROGANT BE PREVENTED FROM BEING TAKEN AS AN ALLY?
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
By now you know that I don't automatically condone every thesis of yours. I looked at your thesis reference 551, 557, 582 with a critical mind as always and tried my best to refute it but I have not been successful so far.
Here is how I understand the referenced verses
551 = believers cannot take al-yahud and al-nasara (THE YAHUD and THE NASARA which includes ALL YAHUD and ALL NASARA because of definite article) as allies.
CONCLUSION A = NONE OF THE YAHUD AND NONE OF THE NASARA CAN BE TAKEN AS ALLIES BY BELIEVERS.
557 = believers cannot take as allies those who consider the believers deen as mockery and play FROM AMONG the people of the book before them and the kuffar.
This clearly refers to a SUBSET OF THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK WHICH CAN INCLUDE SOME AL-YAHUD AND AL-NASARA who consider believers deen as mockery and play and NOT ALL AL-YAHUD AND AL-NASARA.
CONCLUSION B = SOME (NOT ALL) AL-YAHUD AND AL-NASARA CAN BE TAKEN AS ALLIES BY BELIEVERS (those who DO NOT mock deen).
But wait a minute .......
CONCLUSION A CLEARLY CONTRADICTS CONCLUSION B
582 = Nasara are closest in affection to the believers because they are not arrogant. THOSE WHO SAID "WE ARE NASARA" indicates ALL NASARA ARE BEING REFERRED TO.
BUT 551 PREVENTS TAKING ALL NASARA AS ALLIES BY BELIEVERS.
This doesn't make any sense.
WHY WOULD SOMEONE CLOSEST IN AFFECTION WHO IS NOT ARROGANT BE PREVENTED FROM BEING TAKEN AS AN ALLY?
Peace
I agree with your logical analysis. I dispute however with People of the Book to refer "to a SUBSET OF THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK WHICH CAN INCLUDE SOME AL-YAHUD AND AL-NASARA"
This is not by definition the Jews and the Nasara exclusively, though you are right to state it can include them. The people of the book are a way larger group, basically any people of the Injeel and Torah. Most of you think this is identical to Al-Yahud and Al-Nasara but it is not. To demonstrate this point, think of the Apostolic christians. They are not Nazerenes yet they are included in the larger group of People of The Book. Another example would be Byzantine christians they are not nasara but included in the group of People of the Book.
It can include Jews and Nazarenes but 557 can also include any byzantine, judeo-armaic, coptic christian etc mocking the believers to be illegal allies.
It's not really an error but I found how you worded it a bit confusing. The contradiction is indeed very weighty and obvious. This thread is showing how those who don't like confronting this contradiction start resorting to abrogating and distorting verses to make it not contradict.
This contradiction and many others stated in the OP, show that the polemic versus the Jews has been expanded at later times to include "and the nasara". Remove "and the nasara" from those verses and the contradiction is magically gone.
The forbidden allies are Jews only and those People of the book who are being hostile, arrogant and ridiculing the believers.
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
I see how my wording could be confusing. Perhaps I should have said "this clearly includes .....".
I didn't say "this clearly refers to al-yahud and al-nasara", but "this clearly refers to a subset of people of the book, which can include some ......."
Further analysis indicates that even if "and al-nasara" is removed from 551, the contradiction STILL REMAINS!
Let's analyze without "and al-nasara"
551 = believers cannot take al-yahud (THE YAHUD which includes ALL YAHUD because of definite article) as allies.
CONCLUSION A = NONE OF THE YAHUD CAN BE TAKEN AS ALLIES BY BELIEVERS.
557 = believers cannot take as allies those who consider the believers deen as mockery and play FROM AMONG the people of the book before them and the kuffar.
This clearly talks about a SUBSET OF THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK WHICH CAN INCLUDE SOME AL-YAHUD who consider believers deen as mockery and play and NOT ALL AL-YAHUD.
CONCLUSION B = SOME (NOT ALL) AL-YAHUD CAN BE TAKEN AS ALLIES BY BELIEVERS (those who DO NOT mock deen).
CONCLUSION A CLEARLY CONTRADICTS CONCLUSION B
Removing "and al-nasara" removes contradiction between 551 and 582 but the contradiction between 551 and 557 still remains!
One way this contradiction is completely removed is by removing "and al-nasara" and adding "some"/ba3d before "al-yahud" in 551.
Peace