a surah like it
-
Peace Nabi. I KNOW you have made an unfounded or mistaken statement that you have spoken or conversed with me BEFORE i started posting,but i know this is incorrect.....Rather than you having to sweat and distress yourself looking for non-existant or mistaken evidence,i will state that i FORGIVE you for your mistake and indiscretion.....
If you dont reply with evidence,i will not hold it against you.....Just learn in future to be 'moderate' in your emotions my friend......
Peace all. ps;to err is human,to forgive is divine..... bravo -
- If you can prove all my concerns as hogwash, I shall surrender, submit and seal my lips to never bring about such concerns on this forum again. If you, on the other hand, fail to provide substantial and relevant back-up on any one of my concerns, then you will admit openly on this forum that the Quran is NOT the Words of GOD and never to talk about being divine again.
Who determines what is 'hogwash' and 'failure to provide substantial and relevant backup' underlined above?
It will be a moderated debate, so its obvious. Others members (as judges) can pitch in their views on the side?
You? Pardon me but I don't trust you to determine it.
Xtra baggage?
Also, if you want me to 'admit openly', you should also be ready to 'admit openly' that your remarks were made due to your bigotry and not due to careful study.
OK.
- Since you are the defender of Quran?s divinity, I shall make series of questions in stages (to make it easier - one at a time), which you shall answer, specific to troubled verses.
No problem there AS LONG AS you are willing to defend your tools of deconstruction. I will not accept any unproven assumptions at all and thus you have the obligation to answer my questions regarding your assumptions.
I am the questioner (offender), you are the answerer (defender), period? Worry about your own defence. I will not accept your circling around, misquoting, dodging issues and playing personal word games. Examples are
-
Just because YOU think that the Quran is Allah's Words, hence I must accept it, OR just because the Quran says so.
-
Misquoting to mislead (the underlined being relevant to bold)
DanishYou are only here to promote your own "prophetic" garbage to the unrelenting Quranic injunctions that no man TODAY has willfully exercised reason and logic to believe in a 1400 year old historical/antique/ancient book of its time that is being displayed in museums, which, by the way, are neither in its original form nor the current, having understood in any certain ways by any two persons since generations.
You must have a large phonebook, huh Danish? Since you know no man today has willfully exercised reason and logic?
Also, quoting from a site will entail that you know what the site says. Quoting 'sura like it' when you can't even read it is laughable, let alone unacceptable.
If I can't read it, I'll have you read it and we'll see who's laughing then.
E.g. 'both western and islamic scholars' would qualify as an assumption. You can be sure I will thoroughly question this phrase. Don't expect me to take it because the word 'scholars' is in there.
Dodging already, eh? Are you afraid of them or have you acknowledged that they will defeat you purpose? Aren't you a BIG assumption yourself or have you certified yourself to be correct while all others wrong? Besides, can you prove them wrong? We shall see about that in a 'moderated fashion' when I hunt you down on this one.
- No extra baggage (meaning no personal attacks or out-of-subject matter) or quoting half sentences to mislead the other.
How will you get by then?
Simple. If you disobey point 3, the discussion will be halted until the moderators resolve and resume.
-
There will be no question upon question. If the question is not understood, then request clarity.
-
Once my first concern is aptly resolved, I?ll move onto another and so on.
The moderators will determine if a question has been addressed or not.
But ofcourse. That's just one of the many reasons they are there for.
-
I am the questioner (offender), you are the answerer (defender), period? Worry about your own defence. I will not accept your circling around, misquoting, dodging issues and playing personal word games. Examples are
-
Just because YOU think that the Quran is Allah's Words, hence I must accept it, OR just because the Quran says so.
-
Misquoting to mislead (the underlined being relevant to bold)
Ah I see. Let me give you an example just to clarify ok
Suppose you say 'islamic and western scholars' agree the quran was never written down during time of muhammad.
Am I allowed to question this thoroughly or do I have to accept your assumption because you say so? If its the latter, then you do some cheek, Danish D
What are you afraid of? That your 'scholarship' will come undone? Lol.
-
-
Ah I see. Let me give you an example just to clarify ok
Suppose you say 'islamic and western scholars' agree the quran was never written down during time of muhammad.
All you have to do is to prove THEM wrong for what THEY are saying, not me. On the same lines, if you say that Muhammad DID write it down with his own hands, do you expect me to blindly believe you?
Am I allowed to question this thoroughly or do I have to accept your assumption because you say so? If its the latter, then you do some cheek, Danish D
Firstly, you are deliberately mixing up things here. What the scholars and scientists say doesn't mean that I said it? I am presenting it for YOU to check it out. If you can prove historical and scientific date/analysis, encylopedias, dictionaries, Islamic and Western Scholars, and so and so forth, all of them WRONG, then there lies no question but to believe in YOU.
This debate is going to be a loooong haul, as long as all final conditions are being met. My questions will not only entail specifically to Quranic divinity but several other concerns in general as well. Keep that in mind.
-
All you have to do is to prove THEM wrong for what THEY are saying, not me.
If you quote some guy, the burden of proof is on ME? Where did you learn about debates? The nazis?
That's ludicrous. The topic at hand is AL-QURAAN. I have no obligation to defend against allegations about al-quraan. That just goes to show you can't rely on al-quraan itself but need to resort to extra-quranic resources )On the same lines, if you say that Muhammad DID write it down with his own hands, do you expect me to blindly believe you?
No, I wouldn't but then , I wouldn't assert that. My assertions will come from al-quraan , i.e. what I believe in and I expect you to be able to defend what YOU bring in.
Firstly, you are deliberately mixing up things here. What the scholars and scientists say doesn't mean that I said it? I am presenting it for YOU to check it out. If you can prove historical and scientific date/analysis, encylopedias, dictionaries, Islamic and Western Scholars, and so and so forth, all of them WRONG, then there lies no question but to believe in YOU.
Once again, I'm not obliged to prove them wrong because I DON'T USE THEM. I surrender this issue to the moderators for their perusal. I understand your fear Danish because I've seen you 'defend' (sic) your sources before.
This debate is going to be a loooong haul, as long as all final conditions are being met. My questions will not only entail specifically to Quranic divinity but several other concerns in general as well. Keep that in mind.
As long as I don't have to deal with 'essence of nature' , that'll be fine
-
-
i dont see the big deal. Here is how it can work
By posting the references, the reference provider MUST be able to defend them, because referencing them directly implies that is the side they are approaching the debate from. If not, they must clearly state prior to referencing that they are unsure of its veracity themselves but provide it for discussion.
Moderated debates should be structured, and gone through point by point. Please remember this.
-
Wakas dont see the big deal. Here is how it can work
The big deal is, some ppl want to just play with statements like 'both islamic and western scholars' and get away with it.
By posting the references, the reference provider MUST be able to defend them, because referencing them directly implies that is the side they are approaching the debate from. If not, they must clearly state prior to referencing that they are unsure of its veracity themselves but provide it for discussion.
Thank you Mr Moderator Sir, that would mean that any person posting 'suralikeit' must first be able to read it in order to defend it. That's all I needed to know.
-
All you have to do is to prove THEM wrong for what THEY are saying, not me.
If you quote some guy, the burden of proof is on ME? Where did you learn about debates? The nazis?
That's ludicrous.You think that all historical and scientific data/analysis, encyclopedias, dictionaries and so forth are just some guy, eh, and hence they are all wrong? rotfl Dude, are you living in this world or what? elektro
YES and absolutely, don't forget that the burden of proof relies on YOU for defending the Quran to become Allah's Words (divinity), contradictions, inconsistencies, repetitions, compilation methods, chaptering, numbering, headings, titling, overall presentation, etc., etc. which requires both internal and external analysis.
The topic at hand is AL-QURAAN. I have no obligation to defend against allegations about al-quraan.
Yes, it the Quran I shall be discussing and YOU will be defending my concerns?
That just goes to show you can't rely on al-quraan itself but need to resort to extra-quranic resources
Both internal and external relevancy of the Quran will be discussed along with some general questions to start with? Stop crying and bickering about extra-quranic sources and hochpoch of conditions. Just defend your alleged Allah's Words in any way you can, if you are so confident.
Once again, I'm not obliged to prove them wrong because I DON'T USE THEM. I surrender this issue to the moderators for their perusal.
A blatant outright LIE. Check your posts before you start making confession in bold above. I've kept your collected statements for later exposure.
I understand your fear Danish because I've seen you 'defend' (sic) your sources before.
And what have you done to refute my 'fears'....err...those sources? Absolutely nothing but peddling and bloating around with a big-mouth? Now you have a golden chance to prove it yourself by moderated debates for which you've been jumping and grunting about all over the forum for quite some time. So once again, stop crying about it and lets move on.
This debate is going to be a loooong haul, as long as all final conditions are being met. My questions will not only entail specifically to Quranic divinity but several other concerns in general as well. Keep that in mind.
As long as I don't have to deal with 'essence of nature' , that'll be fine
Don't worry, I'm will not bring that issue on this debate and will comprise a separate one.
Now, are you ready or have some sheds of tears left.
-
The big deal is, some ppl want to just play with statements like 'both islamic and western scholars' and get away with it.
The big deal is that you are CRINGED and AFRAID of those scholars, scientists, encyclopedias, dictionaries and other historical data, for exposing your BIG MOUTH. ignore
Thank you Mr Moderator Sir, that would mean that any person posting 'suralikeit' must first be able to read it in order to defend it. That's all I needed to know.
Mr. mquran thinks only he can read and understand the 'suralikeit' and no one else. rotfl Well, we'll see about that.
-
DanishYou think that all historical and scientific data/analysis, encyclopedias, dictionaries and so forth are just some guy, eh, and hence they are all wrong?
8Oh you'll be doing a lot of articulation of the philosophy of science so ready yourself please.
Dude, are you living in this world or what?
We shall soon see who is living in delusions.
YES and absolutely, don't forget that the burden of proof relies on YOU for defending the Quran to become Allah's Words (divinity), contradictions, inconsistencies, repetitions, compilation methods, chaptering, numbering, headings, titling, overall presentation, etc., etc. which requires both internal and external analysis.
I refuse the burden of proof of allegations you bring forward as in my approach, only al-quraan is necessary for al-quraan's divine nature to be proven. As Wakas has pointed out, the burden of proof is on you. Are you afraid to handle it? And I'm the one with no *****. you say?
Yes, it the Quran I shall be discussing and YOU will be defending my concerns?
Not if you bring for example, an allegation in which professor X said this about early arab historian Y who said Z. I couldn't care less about X,Y,Z and they only tell me that critics of al-quraan cannot handle its text but need to rely on extra-quranic resources.
Both internal and external relevancy of the Quran will be discussed along with some general questions to start with? Stop crying and bickering about extra-quranic sources and hochpoch of conditions. Just defend your alleged Allah's Words in any way you can, if you are so confident.
Ok and you will defend your interrogative assumptions. I will throughly question them and you do have plenty , don't worry.
A blatant outright LIE. Check your posts before you start making confession in bold above. I've kept your collected statements for later exposure.
Then produce one now please. Before we debate, kindly prove to me that I have used non-quranic evidence to support al-quraan's divinity. The fact that you and your pal Enquirer need to lie about me shows a lot.
And what have you done to refute my 'fears'....err...those sources? Absolutely nothing but peddling and bloating around with a big-mouth? Now you have a golden chance to prove it yourself by moderated debates for which you've been jumping and grunting about all over the forum for quite some time. So once again, stop crying about it and lets move on
Yawn...did you say something new?
Don't worry, I'm will not bring that issue on this debate and will comprise a separate one.
Ah good, I was wondering about that one. Let me know eh? Wouldn't want to miss that D
Now, are you ready or have some sheds of tears left.
Address my concern above and we can begin. Do you accept Wakas's decision or not?
-
Danish The big deal is that you are CRINGED and AFRAID of those scholars, scientists, encyclopedias, dictionaries and other historical data, for exposing your BIG MOUTH
Since Im afraid, why don't you take on the burden of proof? We will then see how far your faith in 'scholarship' is justified.
Mr. mquran thinks only he can read and understand the 'suralikeit' and no one else. Well, we'll see about that.
Actually no but I do know that YOU can't read it and that you brought it forward was an act of dishonesty on your part. This is what your 'scholarship' really comprises of dishonesty and if you think i'm wrong, accept the burden of proof and give the OK for me to interrogate your external sources because if they ARE true, they will stand rational questioning. However, I know for a fact they aren't.
Address this and we can begin.
-
Peace,
I study theology and there are as much scholars that agree that the Quran comes undisturbed and undistorted, except for only small details, as that there are scholars that say it is a copy of the Bible or that it is made in the middleages. For every scholar you put in, i can put in another scholar. So your arguments are ignorant. And most scholars that write against the Quran being authentic are scholars with agenda's. They are biased, as they are strict Christians, Jews or Atheists who don't respect any spirituality. On the other hand i have a lot of Christian, Jewish and Atheist scholars who highly respect the Quran and the history surrounding and acknowledge it's authenticity, some believe even it is from God, some say it is a copy of the Bible but say it comes directly from Muhammed to us. So using scholar arguments is futile, as i can throw in as much orientalists as you and probably more. This is the problem with history and trying to proof your stand using other people's writings. There are as much people's writings saying the opposite of what your preffered author wrote. And almost all of them have convincing evidence.
So what is left? Faith.......I believe in the Quran for certain reasons, and i'm certainly not a blind person. The problem with this discussion is, that there is almost as much proof against as for the Quran. You can choose a side. But the outcome of why you choose a certain side is based on your knowledge and experience of this life. I have a long long list of why i believe in the Quran, you have a long long list as to why not believe in the Quran. My proofs don't convince you, and yours don't convince me. So this is not a battle of the proofs anymore, but a battle of psychology. The clash of the convictions......Believing in the Quran is based as much on evidence as on will, this is the same for not believing in the Quran. So it is your psychology, how your conciousness was formed and is forming that determines the view, not 'proofs'.
I'm here to study the Quran and share views. have fun clashing..... In the end the people will choose the side that they already choose deep inside themselves. So people see what they will see.
Peace
-
Danish The big deal is that you are CRINGED and AFRAID of those scholars, scientists, encyclopedias, dictionaries and other historical data, for exposing your BIG MOUTH
Since Im afraid, why don't you take on the burden of proof? We will then see how far your faith in 'scholarship' is justified.
Actually it is you that is refusing to take on the burden of proof. rotfl Here it is if you can read your own quote
I refuse the burden of proof of allegations you bring forward as in my approach,
Mr. mquran thinks only he can read and understand the 'suralikeit' and no one else. Well, we'll see about that.
Actually no but I do know that YOU can't read it and that you brought it forward was an act of dishonesty on your part.
See above and stop repeating like a parrot.
This is what your 'scholarship' really comprises of dishonesty
We shall see about that too, as in the false explanation you gave to 'enquirer' on 538 in another thread. Check that one out. It was funny.
if you think i'm wrong, accept the burden of proof and give the OK for me to interrogate your external sources because if they ARE true, they will stand rational questioning. However, I know for a fact they aren't.
Once again, see above and stop parroting.
-
Peace,
Moderators, please determine an agenda of rules on which we can mutually agree upon and lets get this debate started for which he is extremely enthusiastic yet reluctant about. I am not here to play mquran?s fusses on refusal/acceptance games all day long, as shown below.
First his refusal
I refuse the burden of proof of allegations you bring forward as in my approach,
And then his acknowledgement.
Ok and you will defend your interrogative assumptions.
And once again
As Wakas has pointed out, the burden of proof is on you.
Now a hesitation
only al-quraan is necessary for al-quraan's divine nature to be proven.
Let me analyze his statement above
Danish Is Quran Allah?s Words?
Mquran Absolutely.
Danish How do you know that?
Mquran Because the Quran says so?
Danish How does the Quran say so?
Mquran Because Allah says so?
Danish How does Allah say so?
Mquran Because the Quran says so?The entire quran revolves around essentially on this moot and circular reasoning. Trash everything else because they are all assumptions and not to be trusted. Why? Because the Quran says so and thus Allah says so? This is the ?reality? where mquran dwells in. A blinded faith.
Another example of hesitation (as done earlier in similar fashion)
Not if you bring for example, an allegation in which professor X said this about early arab historian Y who said Z. I couldn't care less about X,Y,Z and they only tell me that critics of al-quraan cannot handle its text but need to rely on extra-quranic resources.
The point of muquran to discuss Al-quran from within, without outside interference, has already been acknowledged and mentioned. The point to discuss Al-quran from ?distance? must also be considered. It?s fair and balanced. I?m not sure what he?s bragging about. It seems he can't go pass his bickering and parroting.
I?ve said enough and shall only respond to the rules determined by you (the moderators), else I?m wasting my time with mquran's nonsense.
-
Dear Moderators,
Let me analyze his statement above
Danish Is Quran Allah?s Words?
Mquran Absolutely.
Danish How do you know that?
Mquran Because the Quran says so?
Danish How does the Quran say so?
Mquran Because Allah says so?
Danish How does Allah say so?
Mquran Because the Quran says so?The above statement constitutes a lie and slander. I have never said the following nor is my belief the following. Danish invented the above conversation because
a. He has - as usual - throughly miscomprehended how al-quraan explains imaan.
b. He doesn't actually dare to confront the facts.Wakas has said
By posting the references, the reference provider MUST be able to defend them, because referencing them directly implies that is the side they are approaching the debate from. If not, they must clearly state prior to referencing that they are unsure of its veracity themselves but provide it for discussion.
This is fair because unlike Danish, i don't worship scholars (when he claims to worship god, what rubbish, he worships himself more like). If he wants to bring in, as Wakas says, he MUST be able to defend it. I will make sure he does just that )
Thanks for your decision, I await Danish's response. Don't hold your breath though.
-
Why the contradiction and inconsistency?
The Quran does contain abundance of errs and I shall prove it one by one by moderated debates, else children come barging in.
Danish any "evidence" you come up with the alleged inaccuracies of the Quran, like arnoldyasin already said can be proven as incorrect understandings. I've read plenty of good articles my self that claim the quran contains an abundance of errors. And most of these articles say "if you ask a Muslim about these inaccuracies they will blame the translator" but simply checking another translation takes away the credibility of the article no matter how thorough their evaluation was. I personally like reading these articles coz it means i have to check other translations thus i end up with a better understanding of the quran. I don't see the point in a "moderated debate" about this subject when all you have to do is pick up an article which claims there are inaccuracies in the Quran and compare it to other translations. Any claim of inaccuracy you put forward can easily be proven wrong if you just took time to investigate it (by simply checking another translation), that way you will not have to "play around" with "puppies" like me and openmind. ignore But it genuinely sounds as though you are not interested in quranic divinity and just want to say that only idiots believe that the Quran is divine. Any alleged inaccuracies you put forward will probably be something I have heard of several times before by different people/books/articles but since you don?t want to "play around with puppies like me" then i?ll let you investigate for your self if you genuinely do care about the subject.
peace,
sugar -
Peace
I'm thoroughly disgusted by this thread.
I read page after page only to have my blood boiled more and more. I don't know where people find the audacity to call God's challenge pointless and yet in the same breath have challenged God. But of course, their challenge is perfectly rational.. it's God's Challenge that is baseless. How twisted one's logic can become.
The title of 'a surah like it' is a direct attack on God's Word period. Please do not splice hairs by trying to find non-sensical loopholes in His Challenge. If you are truthful why don't you come up with one!
Let's pick an aya any aya that deals with this challenge... let's say 223-24
here we see that Allah challenges any who is in doubt to produce a chapter like that of the quran and surely man cannot. OF COURSE anyone could make any text similar with words and analogies as another text. There is much more to quran than just something that rhymes. Perhaps this challenge is for believers to ponder of all the criteria which makes quran unique and superior to any other text.
It not only rhymes and makes sense, but has layer upon layer of meanings. It has wisdom for all times and places and is not culture specific. It relates scientific facts. It uses the universal language, mathematics. On top of all these things, it promotes peace and harmony with the rest of mankind and earth.
As for the ridiculous statement that Mohamed wrote it, then why wouldn't he just take the credit himself? Why wouldn't he go down in history as the greatest poet/philosopher/law-maker/history-writer/scientist/psychologist/sociologist of all time? Why would he write something as though God wrote it and he's just a messenger of a message he's making up? Sorry this is beyond delusional.
If you don't believe the quran is from God the burden is on you. You're the one making the claim. Prove to us all that people sat around and invented it.
How sad to see those who are so arrogant as to insult the Holy Word of God. It's no surprise when they in turn insult their own brothers and sisters on this forum.
Peace -
Danish any "evidence" you come up with the alleged inaccuracies of the Quran, like arnoldyasin already said can be proven as incorrect understandings.
Any evidence or references will back-up and support directly in relevance to Quran, so no misunderstandings occur. For example, if the Quran mentions 'cutting of hands' of thieves, then my reference will back up that claim by historical data/analysis to prove that that is exactly what used to happen back then. People twist the meanings of Quran to suit their agendas because their manipulations are from TODAY's perspectives (sometimes a mixture of both the past and current), not 1400+ years ago. No wonder we have so much chaos in understanding it.
An example of inconsistency Lets take a simple hypothetical situation, in that, Pakistan and India having exactly the same laws for thieves in cutting their hands as per the Quran. Now if the hands of a thief were cut off in Pakistan but a thief in India was imprisoned, assuming the cases were similar and both were found guilty, then this is inconsistant and has nothing to do with time and place.
Such cases are found in the Quran and will be presented to the upcoming "prophet of doom" to defend, specially when he mocks GOD by taking HIS name in vain and compares it to a man-made historical book to become Allah's Words in such fashions.
Now if you still don't understand what I said above, then there's no point in discussing with you. I would like to mention this though, that I too believe in the Quran for its wisdom to some extent, but not in the pathetic manner others believe by directly mocking GOD and thus notice that I don't take GOD's name when discussing verses of the Quran by venting out on HIM, i.e. GOD said this/that, GOD cannot this/that, GOD must this/that, etc.
