a surah like it
-
Peace mquran. You are painting a sad young/old figure from your posts...
Really clutching at straws now hey...?Enquirer, whatever view you have about me, that's fine. All I ask is for your RESPONSE. If you cannot, say you cannot. Be honest and don't hide behind your 25-year lies. Trust me, its pathetic.
Im begining to see that freud may have been partially right about repression.....
Really, did you read Freud like you 'read' Neitzche ? Haha, boy did you expose yourself with that one? What's next ? Was Heidegger a Christian perhaps? Lol.
Dont repress your natural intelligence mquran,it makes you 'effusive',irrelevant and downright dogmatic.....
Yeah, yeah it's me who tries to fake his way through cause I'm known for not answering questions.
Seriously chill my friend....
I think you are frustrated at my freedom from the 'quranic prison',and your inability to work out or defuse me intellectually... Dont fight things unnecessarily......Go for truth and peace.....Yes, I'm very jealous of you and your incisive questions and cutting-edge arguments. Oh wait...
-
Peace all. Oh,the surah like it thread....Any answers....? As you guys do always answer conclusively,and you dont have argumentative methodologies........ rotfl
Scraping the straws,hey...? -
Peace
Your behaviour is in your posts,dont you remember calling me a 'dabbler',ridiculing my opinions,and the complaints from one certain other poster regarding your behaviour...?
You call that subtle? I was being clear. You are a dabbler. There's nothing subtle in my opinion of you. I do not recall who this one certain other poster is. Please be clear.
just dont pretend like you have never ridiculed anyone...
I was not pretending. I did not even say I have not. Your word has no honor.
And as mod,how many times have you maintained the peace,or construtively criticised others for ridiculing others....? What kind of consistency do you posess...? You can only defend guys who agree with you,hey...?
You assume I have not warned MQ before.
'He who is without sin may cast the first stone'...
Then you're being a hypocrite.
Joe
-
Peace Nabi. As in many dialogues with you,you manage to say idealistically a lot,but practically little.....
Grow up mr idealist...... -
Peace
ridiculing my opinions
I find your opinion dishonourable. When you spoke to me before you even started posting on this forum you revealed to me your true self. You did not believe in the God of the quran, did not believe in the quran, and believed that free-minds was a foolish site.
As in many dialogues with you,you manage to say idealistically a lot,but practically little.....
Taking shots at me does little to change my opinion of you.
Grow up mr idealist......
I believe I'm growing up every day.
Joe
-
Peace mr nabi. When have i EVER spoken to you before i started posting on free-minds...?
Free-minds i do not consider a foolish site.....Though it contains some people acting foolishly...
Seeing as many hold so much stock on EVIDENCE,where is the evidence that i have talked to you before i started posting here.......?
Peace. I see many are very quick with unverified accusations when they feel upset or aggravated......A sign of immaturity..... ) -
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.
