Is Surah al-M??idah contradicting itself?

runninglikezebras

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

good_logic

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.

runninglikezebras

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/jew

goodlogic 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 mocking

goodlogic 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 etc

This 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

good_logic

Peace runninglikezebras.

You say

551 forbids alliances with any jews or nasara
557 also forbids alliances with anyone mocking believers etc

I 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.

runninglikezebras

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

good_logic

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.

runninglikezebras

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

truthseeker11

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

runninglikezebras

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

truthseeker11

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

hawk99

Hawk99's abrogation to solve the contradiction

Peace runninglikezebras, there is no abrogation or contradiction involved
only your misunderstanding! Do not run like a zebra but keep up your research.

God bless

peace

good_logic

Peace runninglikezebras,truthseeker.

You are understanding 551 wrong,why?

Because you are taking "Jews and nasara" to mean "all the Jews and nasara" and GOD has not said "All the Jews and nasara"!!!!

GOD confirmed which ones in the same conversation (557). Do you think GOD does not choose His words carefully?

Let me give you an example here
2113
The Jews said, "The Christians have no basis," while the Christians said, "The Jews have no basis." Yet, both of them read the scripture. Such are the utterances of those who possess no knowledge. God will judge them on the Day of Resurrection, regarding their disputes.

Do you think all the Christians have said this about the Jews,and all the Jews have said that about the Christians?

Do you think they are no exceptions?
You need to read more verses to know the context of who was likely to say it. And you cannot say GOD means all the nasara and all the Jews?Why? because He did not use the word "All".

The same when GOD says the "nasara" have said " GOD has begotten a son". Does it mean "all the nasara"? I know and you know some are monotheist!!!!

I am afraid your argument does not hold.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

runninglikezebras

Peace runninglikezebras,truthseeker.

You are understanding 551 wrong,why?

Because you are taking "Jews and nasara" to mean "all the Jews and nasara" and GOD has not said "All the Jews and nasara"!!!!

GOD confirmed which ones in the same conversation (557). Do you think GOD does not choose His words carefully?

Let me give you an example here
2113
The Jews said, "The Christians have no basis," while the Christians said, "The Jews have no basis." Yet, both of them read the scripture. Such are the utterances of those who possess no knowledge. God will judge them on the Day of Resurrection, regarding their disputes.

Do you think all the Christians have said this about the Jews,and all the Jews have said that about the Christians?

Do you think they are no exceptions?
You need to read more verses to know the context of who was likely to say it. And you cannot say GOD means all the nasara and all the Jews?Why? because He did not use the word "All".

The same when GOD says the "nasara" have said " GOD has begotten a son". Does it mean "all the nasara"? I know and you know some are monotheist!!!!

I am afraid your argument does not hold.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

You are forcing me into repeating myself. The people of the Book are not synonymous to nasara and jews. Do I really need to post a Venn-diagram showing what the difference is?

People of the book = all the people of the Torah, Injeel and what was Revealed By The Lord.

?O Children of Israel ? be not the first to cover? And do not wrap Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is)? (2 41-42).
?Those to whom We have given the Book recite it with its true recital. They believe in it. And whoever covers it ? it is they who are the losers? (2121).
?When they are told Come to what GOD has revealed, and to the messenger , they say What we found our parents doing is sufficient for us? (5104).
?Some have said No one will enter Paradise except Jews (h?d)! Such is their wishful thinking. Say Show us your proof, if you are right? (2111). / (2112) / ?The Yah?d (Judaics) said The Nazarenes have no basis /?/ . Yet, both of them read the Book! Such are the utterances of those who possess no knowledge . God will judge them on the Day of Resurrection, regarding what they have changed? (2113).
?Those, among the People of the Book, who cover (Truth) and the associators will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye)? (986).

People of the book includes Jews and Nasara but also Coptic, byzantine, judeo-aramaic christians etc. 557 expands the prohibition in 551 it does NOT narrow it down; nor does it state any exemptions allowed for alliances concerning Jews and Nasara.

557 is speaking of People of the book NOT nasara and jews.

When Quran uses proper nouns with on top of it a definite article the entire group is referred to. There are no exemptions for alliances with Jews or Nasara. Not even if they are not mocking, affectionate. You can't take any nasara nor jew as ally because of their affiliation with those groups named.

Peace

good_logic

Peace runninglikezebras.

Let us review all the verses so the context is clear.

From 551 until the subject changes,then see for yourself,or members here can see what GOD is really saying

Let us quote all the verses first
551
O you who believe, do not take( certain) Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. God does not guide the transgressors.

Notice the word in bracket (certain) you will see why at the end?
552
You will see those who harbor doubt in their hearts hasten to join them, saying, "We fear lest we may be defeated." May God bring victory, or a command from Him, that causes them to regret their secret thoughts.

553
The believers will then say, "Are these the same people who swore by God solemnly that they were with you?" Their works have been nullified; they are the losers.

554
O you who believe, if you revert from your religion, then God will substitute in your place people whom He loves and who love Him. They will be kind with the believers, stern with the disbelievers, and will strive in the cause of God without fear of any blame. Such is God's blessing; He bestows it upon whomever He wills. God is Bounteous, Omniscient.

555
Your real allies are God and His messenger, and the believers who observe the Salat, and give the Zakat, and they bow down.

556
Those who ally themselves with God and His messenger, and those who believed, belong in the party of God; absolutely, they are the victors.

Now here comes the clue! Which Jews and Christians?

557
O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence God, if you are really believers.

558
When you call to the Salat, they mock and ridicule it. This is because they are people who do not understand.

559
Say, "O people of the scripture, do you not hate us because we believe in God, and in what was revealed to us, and in what was revealed before us, and because most of you are not righteous?"

560
Say, "Let me tell you who are worse in the sight of God those who are condemned by God after incurring His wrath until He made them (as despicable as) monkeys and pigs, and the idol worshipers. These are far worse, and farther from the right path."

561
When they come to you, they say, "We believe," even though they were full of disbelief when they entered, and they are full of disbelief when they leave. God is fully aware of everything they conceal.

562
You see many of them readily committing evil and transgression, and eating from illicit earnings. Miserable indeed is what they do.

563
If only the rabbis and the priests enjoin them from their sinful utterances and illicit earnings! Miserable indeed is what they commit.

See ,their rabbis and priests" means certain Jews and Christians!!!!

The context brother ,settles the issue here. Now you see why the word "certain" was necessary.
GOD bless you
Peace

runninglikezebras