Is Surah al-M??idah contradicting itself?
-
Peace good logic,
1- How do you know which part?
Already answered. Please re read my previous post. Mind/reason/logic, knowledge, not contradicting external real world evidence. Ring a bell?
2- How can you be sure the other parts are not altered?
Already answered. Please re read my previous post. Same as above.
3- Do you believe the verse that says "there is no contradiction" in it? Which parts?
Already answered. Please re read my previous post. Does CIRCULAR REASONING ring a bell? brickwall
4- Does evidence needs to be provided for both ,what is true and what has been altered?
Already answered. Please re read my previous post. Does 4153 ring a bell? brickwall
5-Can you use any verses from it as evidence? Well they may not be original, unless you provided evidence to the contrary?
Already answered. Please re read my previous post. Only if it does not contradict reasoning/logic, knowledge, and external real world evidence.
For example I have a verifiable proof, that the Qoran, the Final Testament,( also which mushaf) is the unaltered word of God, we have entered a new era in religion. Verse 1736 quoted above mandates, that we use our hearing , eyesight and brain to verify all information, including the miracle of the Qoran by ourselves,all the letters,words verses surahs that are interlocked and can be verified as such.
Logical fallacy of SYLLOGISTIC FALLACY.
Robert is white (has the property of being white)
Some white are intelligent (Not all white are intelligent)
Therefore Robert is intelligentbrickwall brickwall brickwall
Actually even "Robert is white" is a false premise because Robert is actually black.
Logical fallacy of FALSE PREMISE.
brickwall brickwall brickwall
Also fallacy of RED HERRING brickwall
WHEN DID I SAY THAT ORIGINAL TEXT OF AL-QURAN IS NOT THE TRUTH?
YOU ARE ASSUMING CURRENT TEXT OF AL-QURAN IS SAME AS ORIGINAL TEXT. PLEASE PROVE THIS.
Now I have a headache due to brick wall banging. Have to take aspirin and chill for a while
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras.
If you imply this
?O you who have believed! Do not take the Jews and the nas?r? as allies they are allies of one another? (551)
To mean all the nasara and all the jews,then you are wrong,why?
Because when GOD says elsewhere "Oh people of the book,why do you do such and such" obviously HE does not mean every single one,there must be one or two who stay loyal to HIM, especially when HE explains the exceptions.
I said to you GOD does not mean all the Jews and all the Nasara,because He explained which ones in 557.
And you still say to me
I can't believe you are disputing this.What more do you want me to say ,after I clearly explained my understanding giving you Qoran verses?
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace runninglikezebras.
If you imply this
?O you who have believed! Do not take the Jews and the nas?r? as allies they are allies of one another? (551)
To mean all the nasara and all the jews,then you are wrong,why?
Because when GOD says elsewhere "Oh people of the book,why do you do such and such" obviously HE does not mean every single one,there must be one or two who stay loyal to HIM, especially when HE explains the exceptions.
I said to you GOD does not mean all the Jews and all the Nasara,because He explained which ones in 557.
And you still say to me
I can't believe you are disputing this.What more do you want me to say ,after I clearly explained my understanding giving you Qoran verses?
GOD bless you.
Peace.I want you to say "'yes I am abrogating 551 with 557"
Because that is what you are doing; you are using 557 to annul the command in 551.
You are not resolving the contradiction logically, but you are abrogating the part that would render it to contradiction.
557 is not an exemption allowed for alliances with the nasara and jews but a simple statement saying the nasara and jews mentioned in 551 tend to mock the believers. If anything it is stating why these alliances are not allowed. Instead you distort them and render them as saying they are allowed. This equals abrogation. And you are well aware.
And then there is the contradiction in 582.
?You will surely find that the people who are the most hostile to the believers are al-Yah?d and those who associate others to God; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, ?We are Nas?r?.? That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant? (582).
The closest to the believers and at the same time mocking the believers? Really? Nazarene priests and monks, running around mocking believers folks but by no means arrogant. There you have it! So the believers can only take the non-nazarene priests and monks as allies, or only the nazarene priests and monks who don't mock the believers. Or maybe the nazarene monks who don't mock and aren't too arrogant?
I hope you can see, goodlogic, how absurd this rendition is getting. Because that's what it is absurd. This while the original message was really simple.
No alliance with jews because they mock, are arrogant, attribute partners to God.
Alliances allowed with nazarenes because they have monks and priests who aren't arrogant and are closest to the believers.No absurdities flow from this rendition. No contradictions or necessity for abrogation either.
Peace
-
Peace Truthseeker.
Thank you for your post.
I said i have proof that the Qoran I checked is the one I follow and believe in all of it . I do not assume.
Also I said I have my proof.
I will now save your head from further banging the wall, by thanking you for the conversation.
Have a rest.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace runninglikezebras.
557 is a continuation of the same dialogue to the believers as 551.
The jews and nasara in 551 are the same Jews and nasara of 557.
i.e 557 explains what type of Jews and nasara that must not be taken as friends/allies.
What can be simpler?
582 talks about another type of Jews( that are arrogant) and another type of nasara (that are not arrogant/Mustakbireen).
Again a simple fact.
Now if this is not clear to you,then stick with your understanding which you are entitled to.
I cannot keep repeating the same thing,if you do not mind.
You are assuming there is only one type of nasara and one type of Jews? You are also assuming nasara and jews means all the nasara and all the jews?
It is clear to me that there is no abrogation and no contradiction. GOD is talking about a "certain type of jews and nasara in the two sets of verses.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace runninglikezebras.
557 is a continuation of the same dialogue to the believers as 551.
The jews and nasara in 551 are the same Jews and nasara of 557.
It's a reiteration of 551.
Reiterating these alliances are NOT allowed where is your evidence this verse allows them? Does it say if they don't mock you, feel free to take them as allies? No, it does not.
i.e 557 explains what type of Jews and nasara that must not be taken as friends/allies.
What can be simpler?
Exactly it does not say you can take them as allies. Not even when they aren't mocking you. You have been claiming it's allowed to take them as allies based on this verse. This while this verse only speaks on what is NOT allowed. Your assumption about what is allowed is conjecture and abrogation of 551
582 talks about another type of Jews( that are arrogant) and another type of nasara (that are not arrogant/Mustakbireen).
This is very unlikely. The same words are used. It is not referring to them with different denominators. Are you saying nasara and nasara are different groups entirely?
You are assuming there is only one type of nasara and one type of Jews? You are also assuming nasara and jews means all the nasara and all the jews?
Jews are consistently spoken negatively of in matters of their faith and the right to forge alliances with them. Nasara are ambiguous, contradictory. In one verse the closest to the believers, contrasted to the wrong path of the Jews. In other verses generalized with the Jews and forbidden to be forged alliances with and mocking believers. This is contradiction in its purest format. When God uses Nasara, God means Nasara. All Nasara. If God does not speak about all Nasara, God defines which Nasara. Now, which Nasara are adressed in 551? Some of the Nasara or the Nasara? Answer all the Nasara. Which Nasara are referred to in 582 all of the Nasara because some of them are monks and priests and aren't arrogant. Which Nasara and Jew are referred to in 557? Answer some of them.
It is clear to me that there is no abrogation and no contradiction. GOD is talking about a "certain type of jews and nasara in the two sets of verses.
GOD bless you.
Peace.You can shout you are not abrogating at all. But you clearly are. So much even as to distort 557 from a prohibition to forge alliances with to an exemption of who with alliances are allowed.
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras.
I will make this my last post.
Look 551 says do not take Jews and nasara as friends/allies and 557 explains which jews and nasara.
i.e the ones that mock and ridicule the believers. Qoran is clear here which type of nasara and jews. Only the ones that mock and ridicule the believers.
582 says you find a different type of nasara friendly to the believers.Those that are not arrogant.
Where is the contradiction or the abrogation?
Thank you for the conversation.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Objective
551 No alliances with nasara or jews period.
557 No alliances with nasara or jews BECAUSE they mock and ridicule the believers
=> no abrogation
Your version
551 No alliances with nasara or jews (continued in 557 despite the fact there are at least 5 other verses in between)
557 No alliances with nasara or jews IF/ON THE CONDITION THAT they don't mock and ridicule the believers
=> abrogating 551 and creating an exemption that is not there in the objective text.
Contradiction
?You will surely find that the people who are the most hostile to the believers are al-Yah?d and those who associate others to God; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, ?We are Nas?r?.? That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant? (582).
Nasara and jews are hostile to the believers (ridiculing and mocking them) (557)
Is mocking and ridiculing a hostile or an affectionate way? It is hostile. Is mocking and ridiculing arrogant or affectionate? It is arrogant. Contradicting 582 (nasara = not arrogant/affection with). No contradiction concerning the Jews (hostile and arrogant in 582) however.
From this one can only do one of these three things
- Abrogate.
- Accept irrational, contradicting statements from God.
- Face the reality "and the nasara" is a later addition to the verses. Implying the Quran we dispose of today is no longer the original version. If you don't believe in abrogation or irrationality in Gods verses, then this is your only choice.
Peace
-
Well I will leave it to the reader to establish how much substantial arguments you have provided so far that are different from 'just assuming I'm wrong'. You remind me of some imams when confronted with uneasy questions.
Peace runninglikezebras you see contradictions while I see cohesion
I am sure while you have doubts, I believe in the whole Quran, while you
are not sure about parts of it, your questions are not uneasy, but you
make them uneasy, such is the nature of doubt.God bless
-
Peace runninglikezebras you see contradictions while I see cohesion
I am sure while you have doubts, I believe in the whole Quran, while you
are not sure about parts of it, your questions are not uneasy, but you
make them uneasy, such is the nature of doubt.God bless
I'm not in doubt about the Qurans message. The message I fully accept. I distrust some of those who have written down this version of Quran we have on paper these days.
My faith in God, the messengers is still rock solid. Don't you worry about me. In contrast to some, my faith is not determined by the divinity of a paper printed book written down by humans.
ps Good for you if you can accept the concept of nazarenes who aren't arrogant, are affectionate to the believers and at the same time ridiculing and mocking, being hostile to the believers. I must say that's quite an achievement.
Peace
-
In order to read the Qur'an one does not need to become an idiot forsaking thought, logic and reflection and taking the Qur'an as if it was some sort of hurdle where you are out to trick and catch the unware. I do nto think the Qur'an bothers with that kind of people.
If one wants to find fault rather than "follow the best", one will find fault, no worry, plenty of it. If one is out to follow the best, that is what one will find, the best.
There is nothing wrong with the Qur'an such as it is. And it is slander to say that because you one is out to find fault that it has been trampled with.
If it is so for somebody, so drop it, you do not need it. Seek some other toy for yourself. Find a doll to make dresses for it, and make it wear models. The Qur'an is not a toy and is in no need of having dreses cut.
Salaam
-
What is slanderous? Those who added their own words to Quran and altered it or those exposing their crime? What about those defending those who altered it and are still calling it 'entirely' from God despite the evidence of contradiction that could have only originated from human changes?
If I did not think the Quran is valuable I wouldn't go through as much effort as to researching it and trying to find out its exact meaning.
My critical mind does not accept a definition of nazarenes who are at the same time mocking, ridiculing believers, being hostile to them and at the same time having most affection with the believers and not being arrogant.
If your non-critical mind allows you to accept such definitions then I'm sure you accept many more irrational ideas and contradicting statements.
Peace
-
Bring proof. You know what a proof is? Bring proof. Your opinion is no proof. Your opinion is just proof of your opini?n nothing else. That you opine this or that is proof of nothing. If you do not bring proof you are slandering.
Salaam
Didn't you read the OP at all? One can hardly say I did not bring proof, given the length of the article and many source references.
I still have to see one person proving it is NOT contradicting, including you.
Peace
-
I think I have demonstrated how and why it contradicts on multiple occasions.
You have called me an idiot and deluded so far, what's next huruf?
Peace
-
ps Good for you if you can accept the concept of nazarenes who aren't arrogant, are affectionate to the believers and at the same time ridiculing and mocking, being hostile to the believers. I must say that's quite an achievement.
Peace runninglikezebras I think you have your sarcasm misdirected,
I never stated the above, why not try making a contribution to the
spiritual growth of forum members instead of making contradictions that
exist only in your mind.God bless
-
I'm not here to help anyone grow spiritually. I'm not a messenger nor a messiah. I'm just an average joe. Thinking critically and wanting to debate these matters with others.
Seems to me you have only one agenda, being to silence me as much as you can. It will be in vain though, I will continue posting on this forum - I'm not breaking any rules.
Peace
-
I'm not here to help anyone grow spiritually.
Maybe that is why you pick such a topic?
Seems to me you have only one agenda, being to silence me as much as you can.
It will be in vain though, I will continue posting on this forum - I'm not breaking any rules.Peace
Peace runninglikezebras, no I do not want to silence you, I find you
entertaining, wrong about the contradictions but entertaining
nonetheless.God bless