Debate on Quran and Jews

[KhaliL]

BOT1,

Let me say, you are not the first Muslim I am debating and by no means you can not be the last too. I have been with FFI long before you ever came to know of this site. I have had many one-on-one debates with many Muslims in FFI and various other forums too where I am active though not as active as I am in FFI. I know the tactics of Muslims well through the experience of debating with them. And by no means you are not even remote to being exceptional. But if to say on you, I have come across more sore tactless Muslim debaters less rotten than you. This is the impression you left on me.

See what you wrote here:

And don't be so impatient, it might take us some time to discuss the terms and conditions of the debate, which may constitute a debate in its own right, and eventually return to the topic. If you think you are on truth, these must be small matters to you.

This one caught my eye and do you remember me reminding you to not to shoot on your foot? But you did it here and what a pathetic…, The above tells it all about your current acrobatics. You want to deflect this debate which is more than taxing to you after my rebuttal to your posts. You want to save your face by deflecting this to a debate of stipulating rules for debates. And the worst of all you believe like all delusional Muslims your tactic is going to work. But FFI is the wrong place my dear contester. And let me say you have the wrong man at the other end. In the old forum, I have debated one-on-one with many Muslims and one of them is an apostate now. That to say, the tactic you are trying to evade this contest may work for you but NOT for the readers here who are a mixed group. There are Muslims and non-Muslims surfing this forum and from the few comments they made on this debate, you should have been aware (if your reasoning has not completely gone) what an image you left for them to have unlimited fun.

So what is your next aim BOT1? Or what do you want me to do? To address the post which betrayed you? Okay, I am going to do it, but not in hope that you will ever address the real issue. Your fright to address my posts is palpable for everyone. And I am not someone who is going to delve in delusional hopes of having an afterlife where a god seated upstairs is going to help me having orgies with high bosomed virgins.

But remember, this will be the last time I am addressing the issues pertaining to the rules of this debate. Rough end of the pineapples; to make me laugh again, I saw in the comment section you are answering to someone that you always made the last post in the thread so you always emerged victorious against him. Dear man… making the last post is not going to make you victorious in a debate. You are below elementary in this case. Far more disappointing…! I have let some of my opponents to make last posts in this forum and some other forums too but some of them were honest enough to admit that did not do them any good and I had good points. A debate is viewed and analyzed on the overall performance of participants. It is reviewed who bring forth logical arguments and wins over the opponent by logical refutations. NOT by who is going to make the last presentation.., when was the last time you had a level-head to think and approach matters realistically?

Let me address the post which you says will decide the future of this debate and take this from me, this will perhaps be my last post on issues that is not pertaining to the central theme of this debate. That is to say; your aversion tactic by lengthening it is not going to work at all;

I am glad you brought this up early in your post. Because we'll have to settle it first before moving to actual debate.

Why? What makes you bring up this issue of rules of the debates after debate has moved to a good extent? Should not this have to do a lot with my response to you which I spread out as five parts? (It was to entertain readers as lengthy posts will often get ignored by casual readers)

I am absolutely willing to debate you and correct the many wrong conceptions you hold and disseminate about Islam.

Again what makes you bring up this in the middle when we have traveled to a good extent with the debate? I know you are willing to debate and you participated in the debate I created in Exclusive Rooms. You answered to my opening post and after my rather comprehensive rebuttal; all of a sudden you are becoming aware of some rules..! What is this phenomenon?

I have read in full your latest response and believe it wouldn't take a moment's thought to demolish it all, as far as I am concerned. I can't wait to do it, believe you me.

You can be a good comedian because your bluff triggers laughter. Man…, what holds you back if you are so confident in Demolishing (My goodness..!!) my arguments? Why do you want and what heck of reason I should believe ‘you can’t wait to do it’ when in fact what you try is looking for routes of escape?

Don't try to project as if I trying to evade this debate. I am not at all interested in it, if the debate functions in the proper manner.

There is nothing to project now because the damage is already done in your case. You don’t want to pretend more to make matters worse for you.

However, if principle dictates me that this debate should be terminated, I will terminate this debate immediately without worrying in the least about how loudly you can shout victory or what impression it leaves to the kind of readers you are impressed with (those posting in the comment thread).

Huh…. You are so concerned of winning a debate? Why are you obsessed with it? Your above post sells out this weakness of yours too. FYI, there can not be winners or losers in a debate. At the end of the day, all are winners because a fruitful debate, a productive reciprocation will offer chances to contestants and viewers the opportunity to learn something. So, technically even if one loses a debate that is a negligible loss because he should have won to learn a lot of things through reciprocating.
That being said, I have debated with many in past and I never trumpeted of my victory over opponents mounting roofs. Therefore either you terminate this debate or stick with this is not going to affect me at all. I will be KhaliL FarieL known to all in this forum and necessarily in many other forums too where I am partaking like a part-time participant.

So your painting a scenario about the upheaval that would supposedly follow upon my terminating this dialogue, about this grand battle between Islam and Kufr, doesn't cut it in the least.

So what or what do you mean here? I am trying to move ahead with this debate and I need your active chipping in if I want to. I was just alerting you of terminating this debate will leave a bad impression on readers so you should continue. Does not it cut in the least? Okay, so what?

They are childish tactics on your part.

Childish tactics..??? In what sense? What makes requesting you to continue with the dialogue a childish tactic? The silliest person turns out to be you who are trying to evade this contest by putting unnecessary prerequisites and as you admitted trying to evade the central theme by deflecting the discussion to something else.

If the terms of the debates are agreed by us, the debate will continue, and if the terms are not agreed or not upheld, the debate will be terminated. This is the ONLY factor which I would consider in determining the future of this debate.

And nobody here will forget the fact these are coming out of you after you have moved along with me to a good extent. Why? What makes you threaten to terminate this debate at this juncture? Am I too good for you?

It was our mistake that we did not a priori discussed and agreed to the conditions of this debate. However, it's not too late.

Well, it can not be even called a mistake because it wasn’t that much necessary to stipulate rules. By default good debaters know the stipulations. The only clause of a logical debate is “there should not be any logical fallacies” It is the default canon.

In general, you are right that logical fallacies are unacceptable in a proper debate. However, what constitutes logical fallacies is also a topic of debate.

NO. NOT at all. What constitutes logical fallacies is not a topic of debate, because there are no disagreements in philosophical tenets on this. You want to make debate out of all issues…, what a pathetic attempt again..,

When I agreed to debate with you, I saw the conduct you exhibited in other threads talking to me. However, in your first rebuttal to me in this thread, you showed a totally different conduct, from not only attacking my belief in inapporiate ways, but also employing street talk and all sorts of adolescent pranks.

Which came as a shock to me,

Really..? But why? We have engaged in the past in the old forum too. And we had been ferocious most of the times, and now all of a sudden you are coming up praising, eulogizing me to sky…!!!

I presented my case here fairly well in the opening post, but the way you managed to answer it didn’t give me an impression you are looking for a serious contest but I admit that is not an excuse for me to compose a rather lazy response to it. But after your reminder, I shifted my mode drastically and answered your post in the most prolific manner without resorting to any logical fallacies. I omitted all of your ad hominem rants for the purpose and dead focused on refuting what you presented though there was very little of substance in your response for me to address.

Now, what is the big matter?

however, I didn't terminate the debate because we didn't agree to the conditions beforehand. I however gave you a warning to change your conduct. Since you raise the above (and other) issues about this warning, it is important we should address it first.

There you are; you warned me and I corrected my rather negligible mistake and glued to the topic and did without any fallacies. So what? Why should you again bring up this issue?

Now, it's not about being sensitive, it's about self-respect and principles.

Self respect is given. I did give you self respect but did not give any damn to the faith you adhered, because if you constrict me to not to attack your faith, that means you are thwarting me from the debate. And do you think I am going to comply with it?

You mentioned logical fallacies, They are those which prove a barrier to the smooth functioning of the debate, to divert attention, and to prove fallacious arguments in disemebling ways.

This is also include unnecessary offence.

I am sure you don’t even have a remote understanding of what constitutes logic and logical fallacies. Or tell me what does the above paragraph mean?

If I hold something sacred and holy to me, you cannot desecrate it in word in a proper debate. Of course, what may constitute desecration for me might not be so to you, however, I am taking it objectively.

How is it? I don’t get it at all. If you hold something sacred and holy to yourself, and when the debate is concerned of your beliefs; I can attack it and that does not amount to logical fallacy. Because I am attacking your beliefs not YOU in person; I did attack your faith in this debate but I refrained from attacking you in person after I stipulated the rule of “No logical fallacies”

When I am discussing of the treatment of Jews (a certain group of religionists) in Islam, I have all rights to attack Islam which is sacred to you. You may only watch for whether I am attacking you as a person. Okay?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[KhaliL]

_________________
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Of course, as a believer, I have to accept certain offence in a debate about by religion as necessary. But this does not include accepting unneceassary assualt on my beliefs.

As a believer, you can hold any belief and that does not concern me much but your faith comes to the central theme when you agree to debate on a topic that is connected to your belief. And what does it mean unnecessary assault? Where did I unnecessarily attack your faith in my counter rebuttals to you? Where? Do not escape from this.

Quran (Islam) and Jews is the topic of this debate. And when debate progresses your faith will come under attack. If you were sensitive to this, you should not have come to this place at first. And ah… I know what makes you whine at this juncture after the debate progressed to a good two pages. How convenient..!!!

It does not mean you can't vigorously argue your point against my belief, but you can't involve in attacks which can seen as abusive. That is, repeating that my Prophet, whom are asked to love more than our parents, is this and that, like a child, is a form of unncessary offence that is caused only with the wilful intention that it will offend the Muslim opponent and hamper the smooth functioning of the debate.

So, to be succinct, I can not attack your prophet or use words like he was a paedophile, he was a bandit, he was a mass murderer in this debate. Isn’t this what you want to tell me?

What about dictating a rule that I should not answer to any of your posts so that you can have an easy time here?

Boy…, you are more than pathetic. Your reverence to a man lived in seventh century Arabian Desert is not my headache at all. The topic is of Jews treatment in Islam. When I brought a Quranic verse which says Jews are an accursed lot, you answered to it because they did evil. Remember this point.

Then what will a good debater do? He will definitely ask you of the evils Jews committed. But I was smart enough (which you failed to foresee) to ask you of the concept of evil in Islam too because it has to be defined first to define the evil Jews committed. That put you in a quandary. When talking of evils in Islam, of course your prophet Muhammad will come into the picture because there is no Islam without Muhammad. And from the acts he committed what we understand is “evil” has an anomalistic definition in Islam. In light of the morals Muhammad left and taught his followers and you Muslims follow, what we understand is many acts we abhor to the most; do not amount to evil in Islam. What a surprise..!!! Paedophilia, mass murder, rape, banditry all these are seen in the prophet’s life and you can reasonably expect a question from your contester based on this. Whining then that I attacked or desecrated your belief system is making you singularly unattractive. Did you get it?

For example, let me get this to you on your level by invoking what may be close to you. Let's suppose that a person's father is accused by someone of a crime. Of course, we all love and respect out fathers, and this will cause offence to us - but this is not necessarily an unnecessary offence. It is quite possible that the accuser is right, and if we are brave enough to face facts, we should ask the accuser to prove his contention. However, if the accuser starts shouting and repeating, "Your father is a murderer, your father is a murderer, that son of a b!tch has murdered an innocent person, that barbarian!", what must be your response? You will certainly not find this enviornment conducive to discuss the accusation on its merit. This is causing uncessary offence - something which hampers the appropriate functioning of an argument or debate.

I say do not sink more. Your father analogy does nothing in your defense for the very reason, if my father has committed a crime, I can expect charges being produced against him in any situations. If chargers have elements with them to prove the charge, there is no option for me other than staying mute because my father is guilty. He deserved to be trialed, condemned and all based on evidences. And do you mean my accusations against your prophet? Mate… they are accusations well proven in this forum and known to all persons in the world. I myself have had debates with many Muslims on those issues and proved my contentions beyond any shadow of doubt. Ali Sina’s (this site owner’s) challenge constitutes those charges I made, and you are in the forum of the same site. So, the default position here is ‘the man you consider holy prophet is a paedophile, rapist, mass murderer, bandit and many more can be added to this. I repeat they are well known and established facts here so I can definitely bring them if necessary when I am discussing with any Muslim. Here there was a necessary to bring them so I brought. And if you want to debate (I hate to say this) on those issues, keep in your mind of these allegations and when we settle this topic at hand, you can urge me or invite me for a debate or debates. (But in your case, I will have to think for a while because you are nowhere near to a contester and a very pathetic debater as you proved so far. I am really fed up contesting with amateurs and not willing to waste my time.)

Had we agreed to discuss the propositions "Whether Prophet Muhammad massacred innocents", or "Wether Prophet Muhammad committed paedophilia", or "Whether Prophet Muhammad committed slavery in a brutal fashion", you would then be welcomed to defend your positive reply to the above questions as vigorously as you want. But not even in those debates, based on the terms and conditions reached, you have the right to just repeat "Muhammad was this, Muhammad was that" to cause unnecessary offence to your opponent when you have been notifed that it causes such - something you had one in THIS debate which is not even about those issues.

Answered, answered well above. Just go through it again. Our central theme is not the paedophilia or moral laxity or cruelty of Muhammad, but it emerged out as we moved on. To be specific, when I asked you to define evil in Islamic context, you could not bring a proper definition then you can naturally expect all these. It is very much a natural reaction because evil in Islam means what is dictated by god through his prophet Muhammad. Then I can definitely turn towards this seventh century person and the concept of morals he left. All what I do in this regard are all in strict line of logic and very much with the topic at hand. Because the discussion of evil emerged as inevitable when the debate progressed, and your failure to define “evil” in proper sense is not an excuse for you to attack my debating style and accuse me of diverting to extraneous topics. NO. I am very much with the topic. Any impartial observer can get it.

"Stick to the topic at hand" as you said to me.

I did, but you failed. Your tactic to deflect the debate is an ample proof for it.

Scathing statements like your "Prophet murdered innocents, he committed paedophilia" or "what am I evil, when your prophet committed massares, torture, slavery, etc" are unnecessary offence. They have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
We are not discussiong those propositions. You must stick to the proposition we are discussion.

See above to have a grip why your prophet’s atrocious acts came into the debate. And get it well, they are not deflections but in fact are very much in concordance with the topic at hand.

Saying stuff like "Oh, so I am evil, what about your prophet who did this and that" is also not a kind of reasonble debate argument that must be entertained in a civilized discussion, and to me doens't deserve my special time. Within a specific context, you raised a question. I answered it. You don't need to jump up and down.

Amateurish…, anything worthwhile to say? This puts me to sleep again though I have just had a nap.

Secondly, when we are debating in exclusively, we both would set terms and conditions.

Conditions are set and are you going to move ahead? I can’t wait for any longer to answer your repartees.

If you don't agree with my conditions, you may not agree to debate. But cannot dictate unilaterally what must be the sole terms of debate.

Dictating terms as “No logical fallacies” is not unilateral. It is the commonly accepted canon for logical discussions. Are you an exemption to this? How exactly?

You don't have anything equivalent to a believer's faith, which when attacked in the wrong manner turns into a form of disrespect towards him which effectively amounts to your dreaded "personal attacks".

Here you go…, the cat comes out in right time. Yes, you can not employ tu quoque against me an atheist and the only way Muslims manages to escape from the daunting questions of opponents is using this fallacious mode of debating. Sorry, not having any faith for myself for you to attack and employ tu quoque is not my guilt but my strong point. That is why I departed from the cult you revere and try hard to defend amidst of all humiliations such an attempt inflicts upon you..,

And when we are discussing the proporition at hand, you cannot bring up any form of attack against my belief - you can attack it regarding the proposition we have choosed to discuss, and not attack in general.

I consider it a form of disprespect to me that in a specially designated thread, my opponents throw such attacks at my belief.

I can’t repeat everything ad nauseum. I already stated why your faith came under attack. Or let me ask you “What should come under attack when the topic of debate is Jews in Islam? You mean I should have attacked Mormonism and make you happy?”

And some part of your posts has to be chopped off because they are nauseating repetitions of the same sentimental nonsense you want to utilize.

Then what is left..? Let me see:

ANOTHER POINT - this is a very important point:

Calling my belief "nonsense" whether I believe in talking trees or flying elephants, is an inappropriate form of offence that can be caused. This is elementary, if you repeat any objection on this, the debate will be terminated immediately. As I said, this is ELEMANTARY. We can discuss what I said in the previous paragraphs, BUT NOT THIS ISSUE. It should be clear to you. I can't imagine trying to a have civilized discussion with a person who can't GET THIS. Whether you think my belief is nonsense is not the point, the point is can you control yourself to not attack my belief in such a childish way?

Oh… then what do you expect me to do? Should I as an atheist believe or concord to flying Buraq, talking stones, bone eating djinns kinds of superstitions which forms your belief system? I have all of my liberty to trash them as nonsensical to the most. And if you can prove they are not nonsense but make perfect sense, come on… prove it. But why whine? But let me say, I am not going to make this a big issue but I only patted this as part of the debate because since this topic is on Jews in Islam I have to deal with a hadith which speaks about the massacre of Jews and the nonsense of talking stones is there in that hadith. I call it again NONSENSE. If you are irritated, you can show it in a positive way by proving "stones and trees (except Garqad) talking makes perfect sense". But do not try to limit my freedom of attacking nonsensical beliefs.
Pathetic…,

Remember, there is NO second thought in this.

So..? You want all those embarrassing daunting questions not been asked to you and be perfectly happy..! If you want to be happy, you may better regress to your religious delusional world where there are thousands winged Gabriel, winged mule to take your prophet to a mosque that has yet to build, and again to take your prophet to heavens to meet the denizens of paradise and hell but do not tell us to stop attacking and ridiculing those stupid (stupid is a mild term here) concepts. If you do not have second thought on this, man… who are you trying to overawe? Me an atheist who don’t give a damn to either your god upstairs or the swampy beliefs you hold?

It is important that we clarify the above before preceding. I can't wait to refute your latest rebuttal, so you must realize my intention is only to hold by principles and have a fine debate on these topic with you, and not to evade. But I sense that you want to put me between a rock and a hard place.

If you are honest in saying you do not want to evade this debate, you should have addressed my posts straightaway without bothering for this acrobatics. Sorry, I don’t believe your words like “I can’t wait to refute your last rebuttal”. Who are you trying to fool out? People here in FFI?

If what I have said above may cause some confusion to you, or you think it is unreasonble, you can ask me to clarify. We can discuss this issue. But we must agree to certain terms before we move to the actual debate.

Your response to the above is eagerly awaited so that I can move on to refute your latest rebuttal at the earliest.

All what you said are nothing but sheer nonsense. Third rate tactics to avoid a confrontation with an opponent you find inaccessible for you. There is nothing reasonable in your post and the whole post is rejected mercilessly, (like your Allah who mercilessly roasts people in hell).

If you want to continue the debate, address my five posts that I made in direct refutation to you. And let me reiterate: This is my last posting concerning anything extraneous to the debate which has moved to a good far before you realized you will never have a chance in hell to refute me. But that is strictly up to you and who knows...,may be you will emerge victorious later. I am least concerned. But do not try to play tricks here. I mean dirty third rate tactics which will only pay to skin you in broad daylight.

The damage is already done in your case. And only by continuing this debate without subscribing to logical fallacies you can salvage your pride. Otherwise, I can only pity you.

Still waiting for your rebuttal to my posts, but not a single post from your side which amount to an attempt to deflect this debate will be entertained. If you do so, if you still want to do so, consider this is my last post in this thread.

Regards
KH

[Balls_of_Titanium_1]

BOT1,

Let me say, you are not the first Muslim I am debating and by no means you can not be the last too. I have been with FFI long before you ever came to know of this site. I have had many one-on-one debates with many Muslims in FFI and various other forums too where I am active though not as active as I am in FFI. I know the tactics of Muslims well through the experience of debating with them.

I am not interested in you past or any experience you may boost to hold.

And by no means you are not even remote to being exceptional. But if to say on you, I have come across more sore tactless Muslim debaters less rotten than you. This is the impression you left on me.

You took words from my mouth about what I think of you.

See what you wrote here:

And don't be so impatient, it might take us some time to discuss the terms and conditions of the debate, which may constitute a debate in its own right, and eventually return to the topic. If you think you are on truth, these must be small matters to you.

This one caught my eye and do you remember me reminding you to not to shoot on your foot? But you did it here and what a pathetic…,The above tells it all about your current acrobatics.

I am not an acrobat and I do not perform acrobatics. You told me you were going to sleep, next time respond while you are fully awake only.

You want to deflect this debate which is more than taxing to you after my rebuttal to your posts.

This is not the first time you have been wrong.

You want to save your face by deflecting this to a debate of stipulating rules for debates.

There is nothing to save face as your arguments don't bear a moment's thought to be discredited.

Don't again complain about me trumpeting unreasonably, it is only when you say I am trying to evade the issue that I have to say the above.

And the worst of all you believe like all delusional Muslims your tactic is going to work.

It has already worked. I mean not the tactic you are talking about.

But FFI is the wrong place my dear contester. And let me say you have the wrong man at the other end. In the old forum, I have debated one-on-one with many Muslims and one of them is an apostate now.

Do not try to tell me which I may know better than you. I had been visiting the old forum too.

That to say, the tactic you are trying to evade this contest may work for you but NOT for the readers here who are a mixed group. There are Muslims and non-Muslims surfing this forum and from the few comments they made on this debate, you should have been aware (if your reasoning has not completely gone) what an image you left for them to have unlimited fun.

I have told you that such tactics won't work for YOU.

Only the terms and conditions matter for this debate. Accept them, and we continue. Reject them, the debate is terminated. What some amatures say in certain threads do not affect me in the least.

So what is your next aim BOT1? Or what do you want me to do? To address the post which betrayed you? Okay, I am going to do it, but not in hope that you will ever address the real issue. Your fright to address my posts is palpable for everyone. And I am not someone who is going to delve in delusional hopes of having an afterlife where a god seated upstairs is going to help me having orgies with high bosomed virgins.

You may believe that, I am not interested in that.

Yes, come to susbtance - address my post:

But remember, this will be the last time I am addressing the issues pertaining to the rules of this debate. Rough end of the pineapples; to make me laugh again, I saw in the comment section you are answering to someone that you always made the last post in the thread so you always emerged victorious against him. Dear man… making the last post is not going to make you victorious in a debate. You are below elementary in this case. Far more disappointing…! I have let some of my opponents to make last posts in this forum and some other forums too but some of them were honest enough to admit that did not do them any good and I had good points. A debate is viewed and analyzed on the overall performance of participants. It is reviewed who bring forth logical arguments and wins over the opponent by logical refutations. NOT by who is going to make the last presentation.., when was the last time you had a level-head to think and approach matters realistically?

Don't not ask me personal question, which do not pertain to debate.

Agreeing to your invitation have not given you a licence to be frank with me.

Oh and don't try to teach me elementary matters. I say certain things in certain context in certain modes. Stay away from this.

Let me address the post which you says will decide the future of this debate and take this from me, this will perhaps be my last post on issues that is not pertaining to the central theme of this debate. That is to say; your aversion tactic by lengthening it is not going to work at all;

There is no aversion tactic.

If this is your last post on these matters (rules and regulations), then the readers who are interested in the debate must hope that have you written for the most part something which would lead to our reaching an agreement on the terms and conditions. Otherwise, we'll have to part ways in this debate.

I am glad you brought this up early in your post. Because we'll have to settle it first before moving to actual debate.

Why? What makes you bring up this issue of rules of the debates after debate has moved to a good extent? Should not this have to do a lot with my response to you which I spread out as five parts? (It was to entertain readers as lengthy posts will often get ignored by casual readers)

Here is one good debate technique:

A good debater reads the opponent's arguments in full, before responding to them one by one.

Have you done so, you would not have asked the above question.

What made me enter this debate without stipulating the terms and conditons beforehand, was a mistake that I committed of relying on your past conduct and thinking that you will maintain it. By "past conduct" I mean your recent postings in the political section. (I know you from the old forum, so yes you are right that I should not have been naive to just jump in the debate without discussing terms and conditions, however, I completely relied on your conduct in those two threads, and for this reason we have to raise these issues now, rather than before the opening of the debate.)

However, when certain shocks came during the debate, I raised them while gave my response to your posts at the same time. Then you raised certain questions and objections about those points I raised about debate etiquette, which brought us to what we are doing now.

And no, your series of five postings didn't not scare me. Thinking such is ridiculously childish on anyone's part who does so.

See, for example, how I sliced through your first rebuttal in this debate, which consisted of no less than three posts.

I am absolutely willing to debate you and correct the many wrong conceptions you hold and disseminate about Islam.

Again what makes you bring up this in the middle when we have traveled to a good extent with the debate? I know you are willing to debate and you participated in the debate I created in Exclusive Rooms. You answered to my opening post and after my rather comprehensive rebuttal; all of a sudden you are becoming aware of some rules..! What is this phenomenon?

See above.

I have read in full your latest response and believe it wouldn't take a moment's thought to demolish it all, as far as I am concerned. I can't wait to do it, believe you me.

You can be a good comedian because your bluff triggers laughter. Man…, what holds you back if you are so confident in Demolishing (My goodness..!!) my arguments? Why do you want and what heck of reason I should believe ‘you can’t wait to do it’ when in fact what you try is looking for routes of escape?

That is your misunderstanding.

Don't try to project as if I trying to evade this debate. I am not at all interested in it, if the debate functions in the proper manner.

There is nothing to project now because the damage is already done in your case. You don’t want to pretend more to make matters worse for you.

These tactics won't work. Told you so.

However, if principle dictates me that this debate should be terminated, I will terminate this debate immediately without worrying in the least about how loudly you can shout victory or what impression it leaves to the kind of readers you are impressed with (those posting in the comment thread).

Huh…. You are so concerned of winning a debate? Why are you obsessed with it? Your above post sells out this weakness of yours too. FYI, there can not be winners or losers in a debate. At the end of the day, all are winners because a fruitful debate, a productive reciprocation will offer chances to contestants and viewers the opportunity to learn something. So, technically even if one loses a debate that is a negligible loss because he should have won to learn a lot of things through reciprocating.

Exactly. I have said nothing which shows disagreement with the above.

That being said, I have debated with many in past and I never trumpeted of my victory over opponents mounting roofs. Therefore either you terminate this debate or stick with this is not going to affect me at all. I will be KhaliL FarieL known to all in this forum and necessarily in many other forums too where I am partaking like a part-time participant.

Ok.

So your painting a scenario about the upheaval that would supposedly follow upon my terminating this dialogue, about this grand battle between Islam and Kufr, doesn't cut it in the least.

So what or what do you mean here? I am trying to move ahead with this debate and I need your active chipping in if I want to. I was just alerting you of terminating this debate will leave a bad impression on readers so you should continue. Does not it cut in the least? Okay, so what?

So what? Why you raise such a scenario? Stick to the argument, don't tell me about the "world watching".

That's what.

They are childish tactics on your part.

Childish tactics..??? In what sense? What makes requesting you to continue with the dialogue a childish tactic? The silliest person turns out to be you who are trying to evade this contest by putting unnecessary prerequisites and as you admitted trying to evade the central theme by deflecting the discussion to something else.

I admitted to no such thing. This would make you a liar, wouldn't it? But I withhold saying it loud, as we are still debate opponents (at this point).

You may say to me that this debate should continue, that I should not make matters out of what you consider insignificant, however, "hundreds of readers watching"? The world stopping for a moment? The kufr and Islam? What is that but (to borrow your term) "third rate" tactics?

If the terms of the debates are agreed by us, the debate will continue, and if the terms are not agreed or not upheld, the debate will be terminated. This is the ONLY factor which I would consider in determining the future of this debate.

And nobody here will forget the fact these are coming out of you after you have moved along with me to a good extent. Why? What makes you threaten to terminate this debate at this juncture? Am I too good for you?

It's about determining whether you are too bad for me, which has lead to the (temprorary?) suspension of this debate.

So to answer your question: NO.

And you have been told - actually you were told in the post you are supposedly responding to - why it came at this "juncture".

It was our mistake that we did not a priori discussed and agreed to the conditions of this debate. However, it's not too late.

Well, it can not be even called a mistake because it wasn’t that much necessary to stipulate rules. By default good debaters know the stipulations. The only clause of a logical debate is “there should not be any logical fallacies” It is the default canon.

That is to you. For a formal agreement on the rules is essential for a proper debate. As I said, when religions come in, when faith comes in, rules need explication.

In general, you are right that logical fallacies are unacceptable in a proper debate. However, what constitutes logical fallacies is also a topic of debate.

NO. NOT at all. What constitutes logical fallacies is not a topic of debate, because there are no disagreements in philosophical tenets on this. You want to make debate out of all issues…, what a pathetic attempt again..,

Actually, it is. I am not saying that we start having debate on this immediately, I am saying simply "no logical fallacies" does no good alone - at least to me. We need to discuss rules and regulations beforehand.

When I agreed to debate with you, I saw the conduct you exhibited in other threads talking to me. However, in your first rebuttal to me in this thread, you showed a totally different conduct, from not only attacking my belief in inapporiate ways, but also employing street talk and all sorts of adolescent pranks.

Which came as a shock to me,

Really..? But why? We have engaged in the past in the old forum too. And we had been ferocious most of the times, and now all of a sudden you are coming up praising, eulogizing me to sky…!!!

I presented my case here fairly well in the opening post, but the way you managed to answer it didn’t give me an impression you are looking for a serious contest but I admit that is not an excuse for me to compose a rather lazy response to it. But after your reminder, I shifted my mode drastically and answered your post in the most prolific manner without resorting to any logical fallacies. I omitted all of your ad hominem rants for the purpose and dead focused on refuting what you presented though there was very little of substance in your response for me to address.

Now, what is the big matter?

Big matters are just coming. I am about to witness your response to them.

I agree, that your latest round of postings on the original argument are better than your first rebuttal.

Yet in that you said that you can't resist saying that the belief of your debate opponent are "nonsense", didn't you?

The above needs addressing a priori right? Or should I continue and witness you attacking my beliefs in the above manner?

Secondly, you diverted into certain other issues, and then you made what I consider unnecessary offensive statements.

This led to me to think that all this needs a priori addressing.

That's the matter.

however, I didn't terminate the debate because we didn't agree to the conditions beforehand. I however gave you a warning to change your conduct. Since you raise the above (and other) issues about this warning, it is important we should address it first.

There you are; you warned me and I corrected my rather negligible mistake and glued to the topic and did without any fallacies. So what? Why should you again bring up this issue?

See above. You did in practice for the most part, refrained from certaint things I said were unnacceptable. I agreed above that your latest rebuttal was better than your first one. But you raised issues about the "warning", didn't you? And I also noticed other things, which I thought need a priori addressing.

That's why I brought this issue "again".

Now, it's not about being sensitive, it's about self-respect and principles.

Self respect is given. I did give you self respect but did not give any damn to the faith you adhered, because if you constrict me to not to attack your faith, that means you are thwarting me from the debate. And do you think I am going to comply with it?

Again, a believer puts his religious beliefs very high, thus attacking his belief senselessly amounts to an attack which also attacks his self-respect.

I am not necessarily saying you were involved in "senseless" attacks, but I am clearing the point about the fact that you cannot say that I you can attack my beliefs in any manner you wish, while not attack me, and expect me to not be justifiably offended. I have already said that many things will offend me in this debate but I have to bear the offence because they are necessary part of debate, but simply shouting at my beliefs and calling my figures this and that, and diverting form one topic to another, and expressing your own conclusions about matters unrelated to the debate, conclusions which expressed in a certain way constitute attacks on the opponent's religon which fall into the unreasonable and unnecessary category - that's something that is not acceptable to me.

You might be miscontruing me, to which I say that I do not restrict your right to attack my belief with ideas and with arguments, on the issue we have agreed to debate, nor I ask you to respect my faith - but you will have to refrain from saying certain things against it, or refrain from saying certain things in a certain manner, which you usually do on this forum; isn't that simple to understand? - but that you will have to show a certain amount of respect to it as the formality of a scholarly debate demands, even if you have to put in a lot of effort doing so.

The above I think is elemantary.

You mentioned logical fallacies, They are those which prove a barrier to the smooth functioning of the debate, to divert attention, and to prove fallacious arguments in disemebling ways.

This is also include unnecessary offence.

I am sure you don’t even have a remote understanding of what constitutes logic and logical fallacies. Or tell me what does the above paragraph mean?

The above para means what it says, that is logical fallacies are employed to hamper the smooth functioning of a debate and to prove arguments in disembling ways.

I cannot use simpler language.

If I hold something sacred and holy to me, you cannot desecrate it in word in a proper debate. Of course, what may constitute desecration for me might not be so to you, however, I am taking it objectively.

How is it? I don’t get it at all. If you hold something sacred and holy to yourself, and when the debate is concerned of your beliefs; I can attack it and that does not amount to logical fallacy. Because I am attacking your beliefs not YOU in person

See above about a believer and his relation to his faith. To me your repeating the above again and again is a little dishonest, because you know abusing beilefs is a form of disrespecting the believer - and thus causing offence to the debate opponent, which is not much different from personal attacks. So yes, in some way it can be considered attacks against the person, an attempt to cause unnecessary offence to him.

One of your supporters you hinted to, among the "hundred of readers" watching may I note, charlesmartel, did not have any problem understanding the concept of "unnecessary" offence.

What are you?

; I did attack your faith in this debate but I refrained from attacking you in person after I stipulated the rule of “No logical fallacies”

And you have repeated this enough times and I have answered it enough times.

When I am discussing of the treatment of Jews (a certain group of religionists) in Islam, I have all rights to attack Islam which is sacred to you. You may only watch for whether I am attacking you as a person. Okay?

You can attack Islam in so far as we have agreed to debate the issue - Jews in Islam. You cannot jump from one issue to another and express your own conclusions in certain matters which can be considered abusive attacks against my religion just like that. Because by causing unnecessary offence to my beliefs, you are trying to get an unwarranted advantage in the debate.

CONTINUED.

[Balls_of_Titanium_1]

_________________
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Of course, as a believer, I have to accept certain offence in a debate about by religion as necessary. But this does not include accepting unneceassary assualt on my beliefs.

As a believer, you can hold any belief and that does not concern me much but your faith comes to the central theme when you agree to debate on a topic that is connected to your belief. And what does it mean unnecessary assault? Where did I unnecessarily attack your faith in my counter rebuttals to you? Where? Do not escape from this.

The fact that you are asking me this question, means you do agree at least with the concept of "unnecessary offence" that can be caused.

I have hinted to where you did that in the later part of the post you are supposedly replying to here. We'll come to that shortly.

However, I will thoroughly touch those issues when I actually response to your posts if the debate can continue. Here we will have (or not) only to reach a general agreement about what is unnecessary offence and when it can be caused.

Your question above also doesn't bode well for the future of this debate, as you think you did not employ unnecessary offence anywhere. However, this may well be ignored were we to reach an agreement to govern our future conduct in the debate.

Quran (Islam) and Jews is the topic of this debate. And when debate progresses your faith will come under attack.

Only in so far as we have agreed to debate. You say Qur'an advocates lethal hatred against Jews, argue this. Bring supporting evidence. Present ideas. But you do not have a license to attack Islam or any of its figures in any manner you may choose, attacks which by they way are not logically related to the topic at hand.

If you were sensitive to this, you should not have come to this place at first. And ah… I know what makes you whine at this juncture after the debate progressed to a good two pages. How convenient..!!!

Believe away what you want.

I am not sensitive to attacks against my beliefs, as you say, I have come to visit this site and I am a regular poster in this site too.

However, when agreed to enter a scholarly debate, I deserve to confront the right conduct.

It does not mean you can't vigorously argue your point against my belief, but you can't involve in attacks which can seen as abusive. That is, repeating that my Prophet, whom are asked to love more than our parents, is this and that, like a child, is a form of unncessary offence that is caused only with the wilful intention that it will offend the Muslim opponent and hamper the smooth functioning of the debate.

So, to be succinct, I can not attack your prophet or use words like he was a paedophile, he was a bandit, he was a mass murderer in this debate. Isn’t this what you want to tell me?

Exactly. All is not lost. They are not linked to debate, and they are topics of discussion within themselves. Thus above statements said in this manner cause unnecessary offence.

If you think the above is in some way linked to the debate, you can properly express your ideas in a more intellectual way, rather than being crass.

Now we have entered the VERY important part of the current discussion, which will determine the future of this debate.

What about dictating a rule that I should not answer to any of your posts so that you can have an easy time here?

Damn, all is lost!

That is childish on your part.

Boy…, you are more than pathetic.[/quote]

That's what I thought about you when I witnessed the comment of yours just above this one.

Your reverence to a man lived in seventh century Arabian Desert is not my headache at all. The topic is of Jews treatment in Islam. When I brought a Quranic verse which says Jews are an accursed lot, you answered to it because they did evil. Remember this point.

I remember this. That in no way justifies a debater making unnecessary offence to the opponent.

Then what will a good debater do? He will definitely ask you of the evils Jews committed.

Yes, you can ask me. But what about, "Evil? Oh your Prophet is this and that, your prophet was this and that, oh he committed this oh he committed that", what can justify this hyestria?

But I was smart enough (which you failed to foresee) to ask you of the concept of evil in Islam too because it has to be defined first to define the evil Jews committed.

That too is admitted, but what about the hystria?

That put you in a quandary. When talking of evils in Islam, of course your prophet Muhammad will come into the picture because there is no Islam without Muhammad.

That is your belief. My belief is that Allah/God revealed Islam. As such Muhammad (p) depends on Islam, not vice versa.

As shuch you have to understand your opponent's way of looking at things - I am saying "understand" not "concur".

I know you want me to put between a rock and a hard place, I forsaw that many moons ago.

The point -

The evil that you think exists in Islam is none of the business of this debate. If you want to move the debate to that, then terminate the debate about Jews in Islam and move to a debate about Evil in Islam (concept of evil and otherise).

But these are issues I wished to raise while responding to your points, however, here they are, as sadly we about to witness the end of any debate in this thread.

And from the acts he committed what we understand is “evil” has an anomalistic definition in Islam. In light of the morals Muhammad left and taught his followers and you Muslims follow, what we understand is many acts we abhor to the most; do not amount to evil in Islam.

I have touched upon on the above a little.

Again, these are logical issues - we would have got to them in the debate itself.

Here it is only about what constitute good debate etiquette and whether we can reach an argument above. At this point, I don't think so we can.

What a surprise..!!! Paedophilia, mass murder, rape, banditry all these are seen in the prophet’s life and you can reasonably expect a question from your contester based on this. Whining then that I attacked or desecrated your belief system is making you singularly unattractive. Did you get it?

I do finally...

For example, let me get this to you on your level by invoking what may be close to you. Let's suppose that a person's father is accused by someone of a crime. Of course, we all love and respect out fathers, and this will cause offence to us - but this is not necessarily an unnecessary offence. It is quite possible that the accuser is right, and if we are brave enough to face facts, we should ask the accuser to prove his contention. However, if the accuser starts shouting and repeating, "Your father is a murderer, your father is a murderer, that son of a b!tch has murdered an innocent person, that barbarian!", what must be your response? You will certainly not find this enviornment conducive to discuss the accusation on its merit. This is causing uncessary offence - something which hampers the appropriate functioning of an argument or debate.

I say do not sink more.

The sinking is only on your part.

Your father analogy does nothing in your defense for the very reason, if my father has committed a crime, I can expect charges being produced against him in any situations. If chargers have elements with them to prove the charge, there is no option for me other than staying mute because my father is guilty.

This is not the point. Don't think you can avoid the point whenever you want. Not with me.

The point is - would you decide to sit down, have a serious discussion, based on these accusations with a person who shouts, "Your father is a murderer, that son of a b!tch murdered an innocent person..."?

Don't take it personal.

He deserved to be trialed, condemned and all based on evidences.

The situation in my hypothetical scenario has not reached this point. Don't add things.

And do you mean my accusations against your prophet? Mate… they are accusations well proven in this forum and known to all persons in the world.

"Known to all persons of the world"? You have gone mad.

I have told you from the start, don't not project. Do not expect anything from your opponenet which is unreasonble.

You want me to agree with your accusations? Not only have you lost your mind, but you do not even understnad the intericacies of a logical debate.

If that would be the case, certainly I would not be having this debate with. If I agreed with your accusations, I would no longer be a Muslim. Thus your subtle demand to take your conclusions, your understanding of certain matters, as "universal truth", shows the low state of of your mind regarding the understanding of the prerequisites of a debate of a religious kind.

Your subtle demands amounts to me agreeing that Islam is wrong. You should beseech me then, and not debate, right?

You have completely lost your bearings.

The debate is officially terminated.

The rest of your post is too low and useless for me to address and constitute mostly about what I have addressed already.

PS: Before leaving this thread, I must say that I consider your original argument in this thread rebutted by me. The readers can read that and can make up their own minds. That is, my mistake of not setting up the terms and conditions of the debate a priori, has proven fruitful to a certain extent.

[KhaliL]

The debate is officially terminated.

The rest of your post is too low and useless for me to address and constitute mostly about what I have addressed already.

PS: Before leaving this thread, I must say that I consider your original argument in this thread rebutted by me. The readers can read that and can make up their own minds. That is, my mistake of not setting up the terms and conditions of the debate a priori, has proven fruitful to a certain extent.

FYI, This is the image you left for all in this forum...



It was my fault trying to imagine you with a personality....But the most interesting part is you are yet to understand the whole of forum is laughing at your back now..!!

So long kid, there can not be more of an expedient time like this for you to become a missing person.

And let me add this more: I do not think you are a coward or a fool, but but what's my opinion compared to that of hundreds of others???

Sympathetically yours
KhaliL FarieL

[KhaliL]

___________________

Okay. Forget about BOT1 who is not willing but I am willing to open this thread for all Muslims to have productive discussions.
The only rule for the debate will be "No Logical Fallacies"

If you are a Muslim, please consider this as an invitation. Civility is guaranteed.

Kindest Regards

KF

[debunker]

Ok, I take up the challenge... but before starting this I need to give you a few very basic lessons in Arabic literature... Are you up for it? (I'm assuming you speak Arabic, right?)

[KhaliL]

Ok, I take up the challenge... but before starting this I need to give you a few very basic lessons in Arabic literature... Are you up for it? (I'm assuming you speak Arabic, right?)

Hello debunker,

You are not invited to troll but to debate. If you want to troll; do it somewhere else. Please..,


Regards
KF

[debunker]

is this how you're avoiding my debate?

I asked you if you spoke any Arabic, because I was going to DEBUNK YOUR LIES about many verses.

For example, in the verse about the Jews saying God's hands are tied.

Did you ever read the verse in Arabic? Forget the translation and tell me: did you ever read it in Arabic? Or is it convenient for you, to write the verse in its SEVERLY flawed translation to make your pathetic point?

[KhaliL]

is this how you're avoiding my debate?

I asked you if you spoke any Arabic, because I was going to DEBUNK YOUR LIES about many verses.

For example, in the verse about the Jews saying God's hands are tied.

Did you ever read the verse in Arabic? Forget the translation and tell me: did you ever read it in Arabic? Or is it convenient for you, to write the verse in its SEVERLY flawed translation to make your pathetic point?

My expertise in Arabic language must not be the subject of this debate. Perhaps I know Arabic or not, perhaps I read your book from right to left or not, but bring out your arguments and stop this argumentum ad hominem.

My profile is none of your business, got it? You may bring out what you want to and let me see whether you deserve my time or not.


Regards
KF

[debunker]

Ok, for those of you who don't speak Arabic, KNOW THIS: Arabic verbs have many forms. These two are relevant to the following discussion:

single-feminine form (SF)
plural-masculine form (PM)

Let me start here with asking this question: What's the difference between the following sentences?

a- The Arabs say (SF) treading the desert is a way of life. (it means: some Arabs say ....)
b- The Arabs say (PM) treading the desert is a way of life. (it means: The Arabs say ....)
c- The Arabs said (SF) treading the desert is a way of life. (it means: some Arabs said ....)
d- The Arabs said (PM) treading the desert is a way of life. (it means: The Arabs said ....)

So understand that in Arabic when use the single-feminine form desrcibing the actions/beliefs of a people, then you mean that these actions/beliefs were produced NOT by the whole nation, but only a certain group within this nation (even a SINGLE person in it).

For example, when I say: The Arabs said (SF): "Every head has its own headache", then I'm simply quoting a "single" Arab.

I'm sorry if you find this confusing but that's how the classical Arabic language is.

Now, regarding the idiots who think that the Quran claims that the "ALL" the Jews "SAY" that Uzair was a son of God, that's BS. The verse was:

The Jews SAID (SF) Uzair is a son of God... i.e. 'some' Jews 'said' that Uzair was a son of God.

And since I'm still giving language lessons, let me discuss the word Allah.

god = elah
goddess = elaha
gods = aliha
godesses = alehat

Now, the reason why monotheistic(Jewish/Christian/Muslim) Arabs use the word Allah, is that Allah has NO plural form, nor a feminine form (unlike elah). It's the same word used in the Arabic Bible.


Finally let me correct that verse for you Mr. EXPERT. The corrections are made in captial letters. (your verse has mixed up even past with present).

The Jews SAID (SF): "God's hand is tied up." their hands WERE tied up and they WERE accursed for the (blasphemy) they UTTERED. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He gives and spends (of His bounty) as He pleases. AND WHAT WAS REVEALED to you from your God increases in MANY of them their obstinate rebellion and DISBELIEF. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God doth extinguish it; but they strive to do mischief on earth. And God loves not those who do mischief.


So do you see where you're wrong, hon? Let me explain it to you:

1- "The Jews SAID (SF): "God's hand is tied up." their hands WERE tied up and they WERE accursed for the (blasphemy) they UTTERED. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He gives and spends (of His bounty) as He pleases."
-- This part explains that some Jews were rebelious in the past and God cursed them for it.

2- "AND WHAT WAS REVEALED to you from your God increases in MANY of them their obstinate rebellion and DISBELIEF. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God doth extinguish it; but they strive to do mischief on earth. And God loves not those who do mischief."
-- This part explains that likewise, in the Jews of Medina, some will be rebellious against God. Among those, God placed enmity/hatred forever, etc.

So no, this verse was NOT talking about the Jews as an entire race.

As for the Quran cursing the Jews, I don't see a problem at all in this. Why?

Huge parts of the Quran (according to many people) was stolen from the Hebrew Bible. So don't be surprised, if you find verses in the Quran cursing the Jews, because the Jews themselves cursed themselves QUITE A LOT in their OWN book while never cursing Satan, not even once!

Do you care for verses from the "Hebrew" Bible, Khalil? I would love to diversify your education.

In case my point is still not clear, let me clarify with an example: suppose that a person (not anyone I know) wrote in his own autobiography that he was an arrogrant clueless prick, and then I quoted him in my book, does this mean that I'm insulting him?

[KhaliL]

______________________________________

The Jews SAID (SF): "God's hand is tied up." their hands WERE tied up and they WERE accursed for the (blasphemy) they UTTERED. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He gives and spends (of His bounty) as He pleases. AND WHAT WAS REVEALED to you from your God increases in MANY of them their obstinate rebellion and DISBELIEF. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God doth extinguish it; but they strive to do mischief on earth. And God loves not those who do mischief.


So do you see where you're wrong, hon? Let me explain it to you:

1- "The Jews SAID (SF): "God's hand is tied up." their hands WERE tied up and they WERE accursed for the (blasphemy) they UTTERED. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He gives and spends (of His bounty) as He pleases."
-- This part explains that some Jews were rebelious in the past and God cursed them for it.

How did you figure it out from the verse 5:64? Just focus on the bolded part in your quote: it says among them Allah has placed enmity and hatred TILL THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. How can you constrict this curse in a past community? What does it mean Day of Judgement for you? Can you please make it up?

“Allah’s hand is fettered” this phrase is metaphorical of Jews accusing or slandering god for being a miser in their affairs. God retorts “Jews are the real misers and not he himself”. Then god reiterates among the Jews he has placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. If you may please make this part clear..!!??

2- "AND WHAT WAS REVEALED to you from your God increases in MANY of them their obstinate rebellion and DISBELIEF. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God doth extinguish it; but they strive to do mischief on earth. And God loves not those who do mischief."
-- This part explains that likewise, in the Jews of Medina, some will be rebellious against God. Among those, God placed enmity/hatred forever, etc.

So no, this verse was NOT talking about the Jews as an entire race. .

How do you know that? I don’t see a word “Yathrib” in that verse but you say “in the Jews of Medina”? How did you pull off a Medina from the verse?

Do you use any other source than Quran to make these things out? If you do, then can you bring it out here?

As for the Quran cursing the Jews, I don't see a problem at all in this. Why?

Huge parts of the Quran (according to many people) was stolen from the Hebrew Bible. So don't be surprised, if you find verses in the Quran cursing the Jews, because the Jews themselves cursed themselves QUITE A LOT in their OWN book while never cursing Satan, not even once!

Debate should be on Quran and a verse or verses within, not Hebrew Bible. Do not bring red herrings. Focus on the verse and the text and do not deflect or try to employ tu quoque.

Do you care for verses from the "Hebrew" Bible, Khalil? I would love to diversify your education.

In case my point is still not clear, let me clarify with an example: suppose that a person (not anyone I know) wrote in his own autobiography that he was an arrogrant clueless prick, and then I quoted him in my book, does this mean that I'm insulting him?

Oh thanks chum. I don’t have time enough to shed for learning “Hebrew Bible”. You may redirect it to someone with a Harvard ranking.

After all, what is your motive behind this? Who let you out?

Regards btw,

KF

Edit: Do not expect quick replies from me. I have to log out right now. Post your response for me to pick up after sometimes.

[debunker]

So what are you saying? You're very angry at the Quran for supposedly being Anti-Semitic for cursing some of the Jews, but you do NOT care that the Torah (the book of the JEWS) was also supposedly EXTREMELY Anti-Semitic (by your measure of 'generational' curses)? Is that your stand?

Please make yourself clear about this point because this'll help me a lot in answering all your questions very clearly.

[KhaliL]

So what are you saying? You're very angry at the Quran for supposedly being Anti-Semitic for cursing some of the Jews, but you do NOT care that the Torah (the book of the JEWS) was also supposedly EXTREMELY Anti-Semitic (by your measure of 'generational' curses)? Is that your stand?

Please make yourself clear about this point because this'll help me a lot in answering all your questions very clearly.

Hello debunker,

I should not necessarily be angry or happy with Quran. I was just making a case against it.

My problem is not with Torah but with Quran. Torah can be or not the most wicked book over this planet but that does not let Quran off the hook.

Violence or anti-Semitism in Torah; you may please debate with any Hebrew scholar.

Regards
KF

[debunker]

Ok, how about I ask you a very simple question:

If the Torah routinely 'generationally' curses the Jews in such frightening and unimaginablly opressive style, does this make the Torah Anti-Semitic or NOT?

This is a yes/no question. very simple. If you answer by either yes or no, then I promise you I'll answer all your questions without mentioning the Torah or any other book ever again. ONLY Quran. Agreed?

[KhaliL]

Ok, how about I ask you a very simple question:

I did my presentation. Now, it is unto you to refute it not by asking simple or tough questions.

If the Torah routinely 'generationally' curses the Jews in such frightening and unimaginablly opressive style, does this make the Torah Anti-Semitic or NOT?

Torah can be or not Anti-Semitic, Anti-Celtic, Anti-Human…. but I don’t care. My problem is with Quran.

This is a yes/no question. very simple. If you answer by either yes or no, then I promise you I'll answer all your questions without mentioning the Torah or any other book ever again. ONLY Quran. Agreed?

You are not going to get according to your need from me. I answered your question above in my style. Your turn..,

Regards
KF

[debunker]

"You are not going to get according to your need from me. I answered your question above in my style. Your turn..,"

Ok, so I promise you that I will use YOUR style. Your very straightforward style.

[KhaliL]

"You are not going to get according to your need from me. I answered your question above in my style. Your turn..,"

Ok, so I promise you that I will use YOUR style. Your very straightforward style.

Have you ever heard of "Give the devil its due?"

Whatever, I am going to bed; post your refutation here NOT QUESTIONNAIRE. No response is guaranteed if you continue tu quoqueing.

I will see your response later (if you post) and decide whether to answer you or choose to ignore you.

Good night
KF

[debunker]

You said: "I will see your response later (if you post) and decide whether to answer you or choose to ignore you."

Of course, in YOUR case if you ignored me, then it's NOT because you failed, it's CERTAINLY because I'm not worth your time. But if I, for whatever reason, didn't respond to your post then it's because I couldn't last a second with you.

First off, please take my advice and refrain from overuse of phrases like, strawman, red herrings, argumentum ad hominem, tu quoque, etc Using these frequently doesn't help prove that you're a sophisticated strong debater who's winning the debate, in fact, if anything, it weakens your arguments. So try not to hide a lot behind them.

My point of bringing in the Torah was to prove that the curses on the Jews in the Quran are NOT Anti-Semitic just like the generational curses on the Jews in the Torah are NOT Anti-Semitic, because it IS A RIDICULOUS claim to say that the Torah is anti-semitic, don't you think?

So the point I was trying to sarcastically make in my previous posts was that if the Quran was echoing generational curses on the Jews from the Torah, then you cannot say that this is Anti-Semitic! Because, then you'd be saying that the Torah itself is Anti-Semitic which is a silly JOKE!

But you so evasively avoided giving an answer, which is OK with me, I'm not completely heartless.


Anyway, let's go back to the verse in question.

I clearly mentioned that another problem with your translation was the misuse of past/present tense. Clearly, the verse speaks of two Jews (of the past and the present).

Let me write my translation (with corrections in Captial letters) again here for you:

"The Jews SAID (SF): "God's hand is tied up." their hands WERE tied up and they WERE accursed for the (blasphemy) they UTTERED. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He gives and spends (of His bounty) as He pleases. AND WHAT WAS REVEALED to you from your God increases in MANY of them their obstinate rebellion and DISBELIEF. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God doth extinguish it; but they strive to do mischief on earth. And God loves not those who do mischief."

First please let me remind you of my first Arabic language lesson to you before I resume the discussion:
[The Jews said (SF) .... ] means: 1 Jew, 2 Jews, a group of Jews (but never all Jews) said ....


- So, 'some' Jews (in the past) blasphemed (in the past) against God and He cursed them (in the past) for it.

- The revelation to Mohammed increases in many of the Jews (in the present) their disbelief.

- those (the group of Jews whose disbelief in Mohammed just increased after the rerevelation) have been cursed with eternal hatred for each other.

- And they keep trying to wage war and bring destruction (in the present).

Now all you need to do is to define the past and present in these verses.
Obviously, the present was 1400 years ago. (Do you have any objections here?).
The past was? Before 1400 years ago. (How about here, any objections?).

Although the fact that Jews did live in Medina is not in this verse specifically, it's elsewhere in the Quran.

Now put the whole thing togeather:
Some ancient Jews were rebellious and were cursed for it, so were some of the Jews of Medina. The issue with that subgroup of the Jews of Medina is that they were 'increasingly' rebillious to the point of trying to start a war.


Don't get me wrong Khalil. I know that Muslim scholars use the Quran all the time to fuel the hatred for Israel. In fact, it's customary in Arab countries to blame everything on Israel from drought to corruption to terrorism. Muslim leaders routinely use Israel as a target of hate for their people to dissipate their frustrations from all the governmental corruption.

And the term: "Grandchildren of Monkeys and Pigs" has been in Friday prayer preaching ever since I could remember. But was this term invented or was it already in the Quran?

The Quran told of a story of a group of Ancient Jews who repeatedly broke the Sabbath despite warnings from God so He turned those disobedient bunch into Pigs and Monkeys. End of story.

Now Muslim Scholars thought of a creative idea to fuel the hatred even more: Claim that the current Jews are in fact the grandchildren of those pigs and monkeys! But how would humans descend from pigs and monkeys? If anything, they're the decendents of those Ancient Jews who did NOT break the Sabbath in that story, the ones who were Obedient to God. But whatever a Muslim scholar says is believed by his gullible audience. And no one is allowed to go in the opposite direction: grandchildren of prophets and kings, of the the chosen people.



Anyway, I'm loving this Exclusive Room idea. I'm thinking of opening a few more rooms for verses you greatly distorted in the few posts I found for you in this forum (e.g., 9:5 viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1119&start=20#p17520" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Would that be Ok with you?

[KhaliL]

________________________________

Good morning debunker,

You said: "I will see your response later (if you post) and decide whether to answer you or choose to ignore you."

Of course, in YOUR case if you ignored me, then it's NOT because you failed, it's CERTAINLY because I'm not worth your time. But if I, for whatever reason, didn't respond to your post then it's because I couldn't last a second with you.

Why should you translate my words into something that would put you down? You may hang on or not, but do not be so concerned of winning or losing a debate. You are here to discuss things not to win over a certain person or persons. Are you?

First off, please take my advice and refrain from overuse of phrases like, strawman, red herrings, argumentum ad hominem, tu quoque, etc Using these frequently doesn't help prove that you're a sophisticated strong debater who's winning the debate, in fact, if anything, it weakens your arguments. So try not to hide a lot behind them.

So you are my well-wisher trying to upgrade my debating skills? I am not using those words freely and easily. I do use them in appropriate places. If that weakens my position, headache is mine.

My point of bringing in the Torah was to prove that the curses on the Jews in the Quran are NOT Anti-Semitic just like the generational curses on the Jews in the Torah are NOT Anti-Semitic, because it IS A RIDICULOUS claim to say that the Torah is anti-semitic, don't you think?

I sensed your objective and that is why I told you in plain English you are not going to get what you need from me.

Listen you bob; if Torah contains Anti-Jewish elements as you argue, that does not make me skip a nap. I do not consider Torah as a divinely inspired text.I do not either consider it is from cover to cover Pro-Jewish. It is a religious scripture which can be interpreted in many ways. You do interpret it in a way that suits your argument here in this thread. Others will have different ways to do the same but will reach in conclusions that would perhaps contrast to that of yours. An atheist will not give any damn to any of these.

Jews believed in a slaughter that is written on them. It was evident from their actions in Banu Quraiza massacre. To quote Huayy bin Aktab:

‘God’s command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the son of Israel’. Then he (Huayy) sat down and his head was struck off [Ibn Ishaq: 690]

Do you think I am going to justify Banu Quraiza massacre on this pretext and absolve Muhammad off the crime? I beg your pardon for being the wrong person.

Jews had beliefs and superstitions, Torah was written in the milieu of Middle East in a certain context. It must be containing many false notions because the general mood of that time should influence styling of that text.
If there are anti-Semitic verses in it, then it is the problem of Torah, but this shortcoming is not going to absolve Quran from being anti-Semitic. I would rather say both texts are extremely fallacious religious texts.

It can be argued Quran is anti-Muslim. Any doubt? I don’t have any, because I view the book from an independent frame of reference. In Quran Allah says “He has purchased the lives of Muslims so that they will slay and be slain” [9:111] by saying thus, Allah was locking Muslims in an incessant state of war with fellow human beings. It is an Anti-Muslim verse as far as I am concerned. Muslims can disagree but who cares? In my viewpoint this is Anti-Muslim stuff from Allah. He does not let Muslims rest in peace but has doomed them with writing unending war in their destinies.

I was just pointing out if Torah contains Anti-Jewish elements; Quran is no exception from being Anti-Muslim. I do not hold either text as divinely authentic. But since the discussion is on Quran, I would focus on it and will not deflect or let my contester deflect to any other scriptures.

If Quran can be good only because Torah is bad, that means Quran is not good at all. You may get it or not, but it is what we consider fact in a logical setting;

So the point I was trying to sarcastically make in my previous posts was that if the Quran was echoing generational curses on the Jews from the Torah, then you cannot say that this is Anti-Semitic! Because, then you'd be saying that the Torah itself is Anti-Semitic which is a silly JOKE!

Silly joke for whom? For an orthodox Jew? I do not care. If Torah contains curse against Jews which withstands generations, text is anti-Jewish. The belief of a certain group of religionists does not thwart me an atheist from stating this fact. Let religionists disagree.., they always disagreed me because I don’t believe in a god upstairs.

But you so evasively avoided giving an answer, which is OK with me, I'm not completely heartless.

You failed to get it. “Giving the devil its due” I survive on this principle.

Anyway, let's go back to the verse in question.

I clearly mentioned that another problem with your translation was the misuse of past/present tense. Clearly, the verse speaks of two Jews (of the past and the present).

Let me write my translation (with corrections in Captial letters) again here for you:

"The Jews SAID (SF): "God's hand is tied up." their hands WERE tied up and they WERE accursed for the (blasphemy) they UTTERED. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He gives and spends (of His bounty) as He pleases. AND WHAT WAS REVEALED to you from your God increases in MANY of them their obstinate rebellion and DISBELIEF. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God doth extinguish it; but they strive to do mischief on earth. And God loves not those who do mischief."

First please let me remind you of my first Arabic language lesson to you before I resume the discussion:
[The Jews said (SF) .... ] means: 1 Jew, 2 Jews, a group of Jews (but never all Jews) said ....

You did nothing to make this claim 2 Jews or a focus group of Jews were slandering god. If it is “Jews” then it can be more than one. More than one can be few of or the whole of Jews. What good reasons do you have to hold this anomalous “a group of Jews” position?

Forget about Arabic lessons, I know you are not very good in it.

- So, 'some' Jews (in the past) blasphemed (in the past) against God and He cursed them (in the past) for it.

Okay, (I don’t tease you more).

- The revelation to Mohammed increases in many of the Jews (in the present) their disbelief.

Good and more…

- those (the group of Jews whose disbelief in Mohammed just increased after the rerevelation) have been cursed with eternal hatred for each other.

Excellent; and this is what I argue: what made you sweat to reach to this? You echo my assertion dude; Jews who disbelieve in Muhammad are cursed with eternal damnation. That means; present day Jews are cursed by Allah, the god of Islam because they don’t believe in Muhammad. (That is why they are Jews; otherwise they would have been called Muslims. Isn’t it so?)

- And they keep trying to wage war and bring destruction (in the present).

Jews are trying to wage war and bringing destruction to the world? Where in the good world are you my chum?

Now all you need to do is to define the past and present in these verses.
Obviously, the present was 1400 years ago.

How did you go past 1400 years? Aren’t you solely relying on Quran to weave theories? The text does not give you its date of publication. It does not explicate any bibliographic data. Then how does this 1400 years pop up?

I asked you earlier too. Do you refer any other book (take this ‘any other’ in its literal sense) to reach to the time of incidents described in Quran? How did you surmise Quran’s context regress and stops at a certain backdrop (1400 years apart)? Where is it mentioned in Quran?

(Do you have any objections here?).
The past was? Before 1400 years ago. (How about here, any objections?).

I am full of objections and I did express them. Deal with what I brought above.

Although the fact that Jews did live in Medina is not in this verse specifically, it's elsewhere in the Quran.

Bring the verse and argue. “Somewhere in Quran” is not going to work here.

Now put the whole thing togeather:
Some ancient Jews were rebellious and were cursed for it, so were some of the Jews of Medina. The issue with that subgroup of the Jews of Medina is that they were 'increasingly' rebillious to the point of trying to start a war.

You shot on your foot already and there is nothing you can do about it. You reached in the same conclusion I made. That is “Jews rebelled in the past and Allah put hatred and enmity among them till the Day of Judgment”. You asserted ‘these Jews are those who do not believe in Muhammad’. That underpinned my contention ‘present day Jews and their progenies to the end of days are cursed by Allah in Quran".
And do not try to insert interpretations on your own like this. Sometimes they backfire; right now it did.
Or let me ask you: How can Jews avert wars when it is god who wrote them in their affairs? This curse is written on them according to Quran. Isn’t it so?

Don't get me wrong Khalil. I know that Muslim scholars use the Quran all the time to fuel the hatred for Israel. In fact, it's customary in Arab countries to blame everything on Israel from drought to corruption to terrorism. Muslim leaders routinely use Israel as a target of hate for their people to dissipate their frustrations from all the governmental corruption.

I get you 100 percent right; but what are you up to?

Muslims hate (Muslims should hate) Jews because it is how their holy text portrays Jews. You highlight it above by assenting the general mood of Muslim (Arab) countries is Anti-Semitic.

And the term: "Grandchildren of Monkeys and Pigs" has been in Friday prayer preaching ever since I could remember. But was this term invented or was it already in the Quran?

The Quran told of a story of a group of Ancient Jews who repeatedly broke the Sabbath despite warnings from God so He turned those disobedient bunch into Pigs and Monkeys. End of story.

Now Muslim Scholars thought of a creative idea to fuel the hatred even more: Claim that the current Jews are in fact the grandchildren of those pigs and monkeys! But how would humans descend from pigs and monkeys? If anything, they're the decendents of those Ancient Jews who did NOT break the Sabbath in that story, the ones who were Obedient to God. But whatever a Muslim scholar says is believed by his gullible audience. And no one is allowed to go in the opposite direction: grandchildren of prophets and kings, of the the chosen people.

This was not in any of my posts in this thread. (I mean Jews are being apes and pigs.) I did not bring it out at any juncture, so no comment on the above. (Fuel is precious for me)

Anyway, I'm loving this Exclusive Room idea. I'm thinking of opening a few more rooms for verses you greatly distorted in the few posts I found for you in this forum (e.g., 9:5 viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1119&start=20#p17520).

Would that be Ok with you?

Okay buddy…, I will do more mistranslations if you are dying to address. (Like you were dying to debate with me) After all, you offer me an online Arabic tuition for free though I am not willing to pay heed to it.

Regards
KF