debunker wrote:hello Khalil, I missed you!
You missed everything about me, and you are going to get the real taste a very tough atheist; Wait...
debunker wrote:Here's my brief response.
1- You said: "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."
--ANS: I'm sorry but I thought that I made it clear that I was refuting the claim that the verse "..the Jews said God's hand is tied, etc" was an evidence as an instruction to Muslims to hate all Jews for eternity. Now, where does it say in this very verse I'm discussing with you that any Jews were massacred?
First of all, this forum has a quote option. You can quote my post without copy pasting them and writing “You said” “My Mama said….” Just highlight the portion and click the quote button.
And to answer your question: “did you forget my words “give the devil its due?” Dude…, I did not give any damn to you from the very beginning. And this response does not mean I am giving you any bloody damn. I just want to engage with someone lest I will bore to death. Sometimes I consider even trolls if there is no other option. If your dyslexic brain could not get it, have it in plain English: I considered you as a troll from the very beginning.
Now, I brought the Banu Quraiza massacre story not because I found a great chance or relevance to it in this. But it was an analogy. Have you ever heard of this word? In debates, we use it but be careful!! when you use it I am sure it will fall in the category of false analogy. Because logic is not your forte; it never was the forte of trolls.
I brought Banu Quraiza incident and Jew Huayy bin Aktab’s testimony as an analogy to alert readers (NOT YOU) there were many superstitious beliefs among Jews in the past and still they must be preserving many since no religion is devoid of superstitious beliefs. So, you do not want to cudgel your brain (if you have any) over it.
Finally, quote me in context if you want to argue. I mean in context because that gives a genuine argument of mine. All you did above is extracted a certain piece from my post and tried to use it as a straw man. Again, do not get panic because I used a term that is not within your comprehension. Go learn some basics;
debunker wrote:2- You said: "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. "
--ANS: I'll add this verse 9:111 to my list of verses I want to debate you about. And No, the Quran cannot be considered anti-Muslims at all. In fact, the accusation is that the Quran is ridiculously pro-Muslims. But you said you don't care about the point views of others so your point of view is the only way to prove your argument, you're the boss!
Just because you say Quran can not be considered anti-Muslim at all is not going to make it so. Like if you say “Your Mama can fly,” that does not make your Mama fly. You have to refute me using logical arguments. Yes, I used the word “I do not freakin’ care what a Muslim believes”. Because focus on the word “I”. Means a lot to me. I am bringing my arguments, I am bringing my points, then I can not help being not in the pivot. IF that itches you to the level of calling me a names, yes I am the boss. I am the master of my fate.
debunker wrote:3- You said: "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."
--ANS: You just used a Hadith book I even never heard of (Ibn Ishaq). And while I'm a lenient person, I'll still have to demand that you stick to your own rules. Note: scripture means religious text. Quran and Hadith are two different religious texts. And while I read ALL the Quran many times over, I can never claim that I read all Hadith. How many pages are there in Hadith anyway? 20,000? How many Hadith books are there? And which is recognized by which Muslim sect? Maybe you know the answers to all of these questions about Hadith (you're the expert), but I wasn't discussing Hadith. I was discussing a single verse in the Quran.
Again, I don’t give a damn to your Quran or the hadiths but the excerpt I brought was not from hadiths but from Sirah. Or call it Maghazi. I am not obliged to answer you how many hadiths are there or how many verses your god upstairs revealed to a man in desert. It is your entire burden, and do not shift the burden on an atheist’s shoulders. Do you know of the fallacy called “shifting the burden of proof?” Oops.., stupid question. You obviously haven’t heard of “Logic” then how are you going to know of a logical fallacy..!!??
And my reason to bring an excerpt from Sirah is explained above. Go through it 12 times if that does not hit your brain easily. If you still fail, consult an experienced psychiatrist.
debunker wrote:4- You 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. "
--ANS: You "KNOW" I'm not good in Arabic Huh? Well I hoped you'd at least concede to the fact that the past/present tense in that silly translation of yours was screwed up.
Answered already; I did not ever give you a damn.
debunker wrote:And how about I bore you still with little more details added to that particular lesson? I'll discuss a third verb form to hopfully explain things to you a little. (this might be of interest to you "Winston" if you're reading this)
Nothing but those will be erased mercilessly by me. Like your god mercilessly roast some human beings in his hell; Ah… you are supposed to be with those virgins.., Ghosh…!!!
debunker wrote:Anyway, regardless of all of this you said you KNOW I'm not good at Arabic. So it's your word against mine (a pathetic tactic to diffuse my 2 arguements, the present/past tense screwed up + the verbal form argument). What can I say, your the boss.
I do care NOT.
debunker wrote:5- You said: "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?) "
--ANS: my beloved, the verse clearly was talking about those Jews whose disbelief/defiance "increased". All Jews in Medina rejected Mohammed as a prophet and that was NOT the problem. The problem is that a group of them were increasingly defiant to the point of trying to kindle the fire of war repeatedly against Muslims (only a subgroup of Jews).
First prove a Medina from your book, and then prove the Jews in the verses were the inhabitants of that town.
Next, quote me in context. Your argument is dealt and dealt very well in my previous post. Bring the whole of it and try to refute if you are a troll with at least some guts.
Besides, where is your refutation for my question “your god putting hatred and enmity among them till the day of resurrection?”
debunker wrote:6- You said: "Jews are trying to wage war and bringing destruction to the world? Where in the good world are you my chum? "
--ANS: Listen, chum. Don't put words in my mouth. Ok?
This is what you wrote:
“And they keep trying to wage war and bring destruction (in the present).”
What the freakin these words mean?
Or if it means something ambiguous like what your Quran always is? Have you also become too ambiguous after affecting with Quran? Sorry troll, speak English and do not speak Qunglish.
debunker wrote:7- You said: "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?"
--ANS: This is by far the most desperate tactic you employed in your rebuttal. So, my definition of the present as being 1400 ago is pointless, huh? Ok, how about this definition:
The present in that verse was the time of Mohammed. (Million years ago, 2 days ago, you make your pick!)
Using desperate, sour, bad, worse is not going to help you at all to escape from the label troll which you earned within the span of a few posts. I am not desperate nor I am overjoyed because I don’t rejoice pulverizing a troll’s arguments.
You started with Quran only and it is there in your first post. You are not supposed to use any Sira, hadiths, then you can not go past 1400 years. If you do; it is a fallacy because your Quran that decrepit manual is not mentioning its publication date not to say it does not even give us any bibliographic details. So, first make up your mind whether you are with Quran alone or are you in need of additional sources to at least make sense of a Muhammad. From Quran alone, you can not even counter an argument “Muhammad was a bastard”. Wanna try?
debunker wrote:8- You said: "Bring the verse and argue. “Somewhere in Quran” is not going to work here."
--ANS. Unlike you, I do read Quran cover to cover quite frequently, but I don't write down verses numbers and I admit, i'll always have a hard time looking up verses by numbers. However, you brilliant, by citing that Hadith of yours you ALREADY acknowledge that you believed that there were Jews in Medina. Or did I confuse something here? the events of that Hadith you cited as events that took place on Mars, for example?
But unlike you, I read not only Quran, but almost all available materials. That is what makes me a freethinker and you brain dead. I can quote from your sources instantly because I know them. You are stranded clueless here when I asked where you find Jews of Medina in Quran. Pathetic…,!!
Ah.. and do not worry if I bring pieces from Sirahs and Hadiths if you do not accept them. I accept them as historical records so I bring them but you can not rely on what I bring if you do not approve their authenticity. And basing your arguments on what I bring from sources which you do not approve makes you even more pathetic..,
debunker wrote:9- You said: "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?"
--ANS: No. It is you who claims that this is how it is. And any argument I use, you diffuse by turning the whole thing to: my word vs. yours to kill the argument.
That was very legitimate argument or tell me what is fallacious in it? I asked you the question on the basis of Quranic verses and I asked you a believer who believes a seventh century hate manual is god’s words. I am not claiming anything here, but your Quran does. And it counts. Got it?
debunker wrote:To summerize what you did:
- Anti-Jewish argument --> my word vs. yours.
- Arabic lessons argument --> my word vs. yours.
- Time frame argument --> my word vs. yours.
- Location argument --> my word vs. yours
Wash your mouth and learn some basics of logical discussions. Start from fallacy files, you troll.
debunker wrote:Bravo khalil! You win! I concede defeat in this thread. And by the way, winning a debate online (behind a nickname) is hardly something I view worth anything...
Hey… hey… hey… why are you so concerned of losing to someone? If I am a nobody, so you should not strive this much hard at all. Either you win or lose, that does not matter since this is a debate online. Isn’t it?
Dear chunk, why did you come to this place then? To troll? It is a bannable offense in this forum.
debunker wrote:I'm only seeking the pleasure that comes with exposing someone who presents himself as know-it-all, when they're truly clueless.
Really…,, I seem to have lost all credibility now in this forum, what a pity. A troll you exposing me.., Man… this is not your seventh century Arabia. Wake up and smell the coffee.
debunker wrote:As far as debaters go, you're an illusionist, all you do is play silly tricks of smoke and mirrors.
But it works.., I am a “nobody” but you are skinned in broad daylight. You can call me illusionist but you got skinned by an illusionist. And that is your penury, not mine.
debunker wrote:And to answer your question as to why I'm debating you: I enjoy watching your show, Master Khalil. If intelligent debating is what I'm dying for, I would have begged Aksel to debate me, not you...
I think you should revert to that Harvard ranker whom you exposed so easily. FYI, Daniel Pipes is still running the forum even after you bloodily beating him. So, go back to the forum and demolish him once again you Don Quixote.
debunker wrote:you, I regard as my entertainer (one more reason why I wanted to keep this for weekends only).
Anyway, let's start afresh, in a new exclusive room, the title will be Debunker vs. Khalil on Satanic Verses. I have no prbolem keeping conceding one defeat after another to you. I already said I enjoy watching you deploying your silly desperate tricks.
And I beg your pardon, just have a look at our member ixolite’s signature. It is meant to remind me of persons like you. I ignored it for a brief period, but I am going to implement it. Do not try to engage with me again you TROLL; I have a life outside this forum. Troll somewhere else, good luck;