Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

[charleslemartel]

I would like Ishraqiyun to add his comments on the topic to understand how he now perceives his family, ancestors and friends who have not yet converted to Islam.

[sum]

Hello charleslemartel

I think that this is the verse that you are referring to -
Koran 58:22
You, O Muhammad, will not find any people who believe in Allâh and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), even though they were their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred (people). For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Rûh (proofs, light and true guidance) from Himself. And We will admit them to Gardens ( Paradise ) under which rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever). Allâh is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allâh. Verily, it is the Party of Allâh that will be the successful.

sum

[Pragmatist]

BALLS knows the Exclusive Room is set up but he is running scared he knows KahiL will wipe the floor with him.

[ygalg]

Pragmatist correct. he is no match to KhaliL.
he is for one thing and one thing only. trolling.

[Pragmatist]

Pragmatist correct. he is no match to KhaliL.
he is for one thing and one thing only. trolling.

He is already backpedalling as fast as he can on another thread on the Gaza War where he is also being soundly spanked.

[ygalg]

I'm in opinion he is into sado-masochism

[Pragmatist]

I'm in opinion he is into sado-masochism

Well well big surprise BALLS actually turned up but is already out of his depth with just one post so no doubt he thinks he is winning.

[charleslemartel]

@ BOT1,

Can my Muslim please define what is evil? I brought a verse in what I see Jews are saying something against god and they are being cursed by your Allah. Does evil mean saying something against Allah? If I say “your Allah is a brothel keeper” does that mean I am an evil person? In what sense..?

You underpin the contention in Islam anything that is evil means disobeying god and prophet. Paedophilia, genocide, rape, banditry… none of these are evils because all these acts are committed by Islam’s prophet and a prophet can not do any evil deeds. Isn’t it so Muslim?

Then the only thing that is evil is saying something against Allah. It is what Jews did in the verses I brought and they are cursed for it. Moreover a highly retributive Allah is not going to let Jews off the hook but the curse is extended to the end of times. That means, Jews have to bear the curse of Allah until heat death..!

We are about to witness the Muslims' sense of morality and ethics if BOT decides to respond to this part. Great Job, KhaliL; this is bound to expose yet another Muslim yet another time.

[Pragmatist]

@ BOT1,

Can my Muslim please define what is evil? I brought a verse in what I see Jews are saying something against god and they are being cursed by your Allah. Does evil mean saying something against Allah? If I say “your Allah is a brothel keeper” does that mean I am an evil person? In what sense..?

You underpin the contention in Islam anything that is evil means disobeying god and prophet. Paedophilia, genocide, rape, banditry… none of these are evils because all these acts are committed by Islam’s prophet and a prophet can not do any evil deeds. Isn’t it so Muslim?

Then the only thing that is evil is saying something against Allah. It is what Jews did in the verses I brought and they are cursed for it. Moreover a highly retributive Allah is not going to let Jews off the hook but the curse is extended to the end of times. That means, Jews have to bear the curse of Allah until heat death..!

We are about to witness the Muslims' sense of morality and ethics if BOT decides to respond to this part. Great Job, KhaliL; this is bound to expose yet another Muslim yet another time.

Seems like the big mouthed Mohammedan BALLS is on the run either that or he is frantically trying to get help to respond to KahiL.

[Pragmatist]

Having just read BALLS's pathetic attempt to respond to KahiL it is very clear this very one sided 'debate' is not going to last very long at all. BOT is just full of the usual bluff and bluster but no actual content at all except of course for preparing the ground for his RUNAWAY which he is already doing in only his second posting. What a joke this guy BOT1 is. Full of Mohammedan pride but as usual no substance whatsoever.

[charleslemartel]

Having just read BALLS's pathetic attempt to respond to KahiL it is very clear this very one sided 'debate' is not going to last very long at all. BOT is just full of the usual bluff and bluster but no actual content at all except of course for preparing the ground for his RUNAWAY which he is already doing in only his second posting. What a joke this guy BOT1 is. Full of Mohammedan pride but as usual no substance whatsoever.

Exactly. He has already prepared the excuses to run away from the debate

So now we know that he is going to run away, but let us enjoy the show while it lasts.

[Pragmatist]

I have just read what must be the biggest load of steaming BS and self centered crap ever seen on this forum from BOT1 on the thread. I think this must go down as one of the biggest Mohammedan cop outs we have ever seen. BOT1 is a disgrace both to himself and to his CULT.

[Pragmatist]

Having just read BALLS's pathetic attempt to respond to KahiL it is very clear this very one sided 'debate' is not going to last very long at all. BOT is just full of the usual bluff and bluster but no actual content at all except of course for preparing the ground for his RUNAWAY which he is already doing in only his second posting. What a joke this guy BOT1 is. Full of Mohammedan pride but as usual no substance whatsoever.

Exactly. He has already prepared the excuses to run away from the debate

So now we know that he is going to run away, but let us enjoy the show while it lasts.

Didn't last long did it the coward has made such a fool of himself in his last post that he has no option but to run away.

[charleslemartel]

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. 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. 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.

Some one tell this Muslim: telling the truth is no offense. If we see Islam as a false religion, we shall call it false. If we see Muhammad as a pedophile, we shall call him a pedophile. If we see the belief that Allah sent Jibril to convey verses of Quran to Muhammad as ridiculous and superstition, we shall call it so.

BOT1, that you get agitated is quite understandable. But you should keep one thing in mind, that If I call Muhammad a pedophile for example, it is an assertion and you have every right to ask for evidence for my assertion and I am obliged to respond to your demand.

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.

Are these statements really scathing? It was you who invoked the issue of evil, then KhaliL asked you to define evil and you defined it as per your understanding. Now while refuting your definition, he has to give examples of deeds he thinks as evil. Since you are a Muslim, he gave you examples from the life of Muhammad. Therefore, KhaliL is perfectly justified in what he said. Too bad if it riles you no end.

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.

You would be right if KhaliL attacks one of your beliefs which have no bearing on the issue at hand - for example, if he ridiculed you on the scientific errors in Quran. But you talked of evil, and he too talked of acts of Muhammad which he thinks of as evil.

You are acting like an overblown balloon which goes phut at the slightest touch.

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?

Would you please list all the adjectives KhaliL needs to avoid in order to prevent you from throwing the tantrum? If "nonsense" is the only adjective you have objection to, I would request KhaliL to avoid this word. He may hit CTRL+F to search for the word in his post and remove it.

BOT1, you may not agree to this, but you are behaving like a person who is desperately looking for an excuse to terminate the debate. If you wish, I can request KhaliL to terminate it; he might be gracious enough to let go without saying anything. Stop acting like a cry baby if you really wish to continue the debate.

[Balls_of_Titanium_1]

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. 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. 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.

Some one tell this Muslim: telling the truth is no offense. If we see Islam as a false religion, we shall call it false. If we see Muhammad as a pedophile, we shall call him a pedophile. If we see the belief that Allah sent Jibril to convey verses of Quran to Muhammad as ridiculous and superstition, we shall call it so.

What you may consider truth is none of my business.

What we are here to debate for, is.

So saying the above things unnecessarily is an attempt to cause offence to Muslims. The motive is to have the opponent get angry and therefore to hamper the smooth functioning of the debate.

Actually employing such tactic shows the cowardly nature of the maker of such an attack.

BOT1, that you get agitated is quite understandable. But you should keep one thing in mind, that If I call Muhammad a pedophile for example, it is an assertion and you have every right to ask for evidence for my assertion and I am obliged to respond to your demand.

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.

Are these statements really scathing? It was you who invoked the issue of evil, then KhaliL asked you to define evil and you defined it as per your understanding. Now while refuting your definition, he has to give examples of deeds he thinks as evil. Since you are a Muslim, he gave you examples from the life of Muhammad. Therefore, KhaliL is perfectly justified in what he said. Too bad if it riles you no end.

The central issue is not about evil, or what is its definition in Islam or whether the definition is perfect or otherwise.

The central issue is how it touches upon the topic at hand.

KhaliL objection to this defintion in the above is then a form of unncessary offence.

If KhaliL accepts that he has been unable to prove his contention in the manner he initially decided to, and accept defeat, then we may decide to debate about the definition of evil in Islam.

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.

You would be right if KhaliL attacks one of your beliefs which have no bearing on the issue at hand - for example, if he ridiculed you on the scientific errors in Quran. But you talked of evil, and he too talked of acts of Muhammad which he thinks of as evil.

The topic was not about discussing any acts of Muhammad (p). The topic was about Jews and Islam.

When KhaliL was on the verge of being discredited in this regard, he tried to shift his issue with Islam from that of hatred and call to massacre against Jews to the concept of evil in Islam.

If he wants that shifting, he should officially end the current debate in the right manner, right?

You are acting like an overblown balloon which goes phut at the slightest touch.

You should have known me by now. I have been debating you all in many threads and the one who ends up with the last comment in most cases is me.

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?

Would you please list all the adjectives KhaliL needs to avoid in order to prevent you from throwing the tantrum? If "nonsense" is the only adjective you have objection to, I would request KhaliL to avoid this word. He may hit CTRL+F to search for the word in his post and remove it.

This is not funny.

You may have realized the bad etiquette (a word KhaliL dared used) in this word, but KhaliL doesn't. Thus my last warning to him.

Read his latest round of postings to me (before my latest response).

You may not have read it all, I have.

He said that he cannot resist calling my beliefs "nonsense".

This shows to me a person who can't control himself.

Therefore, the above warning is last.

[qutoe]

BOT1, you may not agree to this, but you are behaving like a person who is desperately looking for an excuse to terminate the debate. If you wish, I can request KhaliL to terminate it; he might be gracious enough to let go without saying anything. Stop acting like a cry baby if you really wish to continue the debate.

No, cry victory all you want. It doesn't matter to me. I am not here to play games, I am here to have intellectual exchanges.

All is not lost. If KhaliL replies in a positive manner to my latest post, or if we are eventually able to reach an agreement on the terms and conditions that would govern this debate, I would return to the actual content of debate at the earliest.

I am eager to intellectually demolish his latest round of posting. Can you understand that?

[KhaliL]

No, cry victory all you want. It doesn't matter to me. I am not here to play games, I am here to have intellectual exchanges.

All is not lost. If KhaliL replies in a positive manner to my latest post, or if we are eventually able to reach an agreement on the terms and conditions that would govern this debate, I would return to the actual content of debate at the earliest.

I am eager to intellectually demolish his latest round of posting. Can you understand that?

I have answered it and the rule of the debate is "NO LOGICAL FALLACIES". It is the generally accepted the rule of logical debates. I am already implemented it and it is high time for you to answer my relevant posts. Embark the thread and go on refuting me. I will catch your posts later as I feel like taking a nap now.

And to that last past of your post which I bolded in red: Do first and trumpet later.

Rgds
KF

[charleslemartel]

Some one tell this Muslim: telling the truth is no offense. If we see Islam as a false religion, we shall call it false. If we see Muhammad as a pedophile, we shall call him a pedophile. If we see the belief that Allah sent Jibril to convey verses of Quran to Muhammad as ridiculous and superstition, we shall call it so.

What you may consider truth is none of my business.

What we are here to debate for, is.

So saying the above things unnecessarily is an attempt to cause offence to Muslims. The motive is to have the opponent get angry and therefore to hamper the smooth functioning of the debate.

Actually employing such tactic shows the cowardly nature of the maker of such an attack.

You will be right if such things are said unnecessarily, but as I pointed out, the issue of evil was invoked by you. KhaliL asked you for its definition as per Islam and you defined it. KhaliL then proceeded to demonstrate to you that the Islamic definition of evil was flawed. He showed you what actual evil is.

He was only responding to you.

The central issue is not about evil, or what is its definition in Islam or whether the definition is perfect or otherwise.

Right. But see the first part of my post.

The central issue is how it touches upon the topic at hand.

Right.

KhaliL objection to this defintion in the above is then a form of unncessary offence.

And you invoking the issue of evil first is not? As I said, he was only responding to you.

If KhaliL accepts that he has been unable to prove his contention in the manner he initially decided to, and accept defeat, then we may decide to debate about the definition of evil in Islam.

How you wish!!!

He has proved his contention perfectly which was the central issue. You, on the other hand, could not defend your contention properly. Your rebuttal was the usual Muslim apologetics with no real substance in it.

You would be right if KhaliL attacks one of your beliefs which have no bearing on the issue at hand - for example, if he ridiculed you on the scientific errors in Quran. But you talked of evil, and he too talked of acts of Muhammad which he thinks of as evil.

The topic was not about discussing any acts of Muhammad (p). The topic was about Jews and Islam.

I know, as does anyone following the debate. The fact is, Muhammad's acts are bound to come up when you discuss Jews and Islam. The central issue is not about Israel and Palestinian Muslims which is a current affair. But discuss Jews and Islam in the light of Quran or Allah, and Muhammad is bound to pop up. He is inextricably linked to the issue.

When KhaliL was on the verge of being discredited in this regard, he tried to shift his issue with Islam from that of hatred and call to massacre against Jews to the concept of evil in Islam.

Please. Such protestations of yours are insulting to intelligence. Isn't hatred and call to massacre against Jewish people evil?

If he wants that shifting, he should officially end the current debate in the right manner, right?

Can you feel the eagerness in your heart for the termination of this debate?

You are acting like an overblown balloon which goes phut at the slightest touch.

You should have known me by now. I have been debating you all in many threads and the one who ends up with the last comment in most cases is me.

Having the last comment only proves your indefatigability; it does not prove you right, right?

Would you please list all the adjectives KhaliL needs to avoid in order to prevent you from throwing the tantrum? If "nonsense" is the only adjective you have objection to, I would request KhaliL to avoid this word. He may hit CTRL+F to search for the word in his post and remove it.

This is not funny.

It IS, believe me. What if he calls your beliefs ridiculous or childish or superstitious or funny?

You may have realized the bad etiquette (a word KhaliL dared used) in this word, but KhaliL doesn't. Thus my last warning to him.

Read his latest round of postings to me (before my latest response).

You may not have read it all, I have.

He said that he cannot resist calling my beliefs "nonsense".

This shows to me a person who can't control himself.

Therefore, the above warning is last.

You need not warn again and again. If you could really refute him, you might well have chosen to ignore the extraneous issues and demolished his contention. KhaliL is confident that he will win, that is why he decided to ignore your personal attacks and focused on the meat of the issue in his later rebuttal.

BOT1, you may not agree to this, but you are behaving like a person who is desperately looking for an excuse to terminate the debate. If you wish, I can request KhaliL to terminate it; he might be gracious enough to let go without saying anything. Stop acting like a cry baby if you really wish to continue the debate.

No, cry victory all you want. It doesn't matter to me. I am not here to play games, I am here to have intellectual exchanges.

All is not lost. If KhaliL replies in a positive manner to my latest post, or if we are eventually able to reach an agreement on the terms and conditions that would govern this debate, I would return to the actual content of debate at the earliest.

I am eager to intellectually demolish his latest round of posting. Can you understand that?

You certainly do not seem eager to "demolish" his arguments. Remember, it is you who has been talking of quitting right since the first or second post, not KhaliL. Your eagerness to quit is showing, sorry.

[charleslemartel]

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.

It might take you some time to discuss the terms and conditions? Some time? LOL. The way your sense of principles has become super sensitive after reading KhaliL's posts, I think it is going to take forever to discuss terms and conditions for the ongoing debate.

Your ruse is too transparent, BOT!.

[Balls_of_Titanium_1]

Some one tell this Muslim: telling the truth is no offense. If we see Islam as a false religion, we shall call it false. If we see Muhammad as a pedophile, we shall call him a pedophile. If we see the belief that Allah sent Jibril to convey verses of Quran to Muhammad as ridiculous and superstition, we shall call it so.

What you may consider truth is none of my business.

What we are here to debate for, is.

So saying the above things unnecessarily is an attempt to cause offence to Muslims. The motive is to have the opponent get angry and therefore to hamper the smooth functioning of the debate.

Actually employing such tactic shows the cowardly nature of the maker of such an attack.

You will be right if such things are said unnecessarily, but as I pointed out, the issue of evil was invoked by you. KhaliL asked you for its definition as per Islam and you defined it. KhaliL then proceeded to demonstrate to you that the Islamic definition of evil was flawed. He showed you what actual evil is.

But I am not interested what actual evil is to him or whether he sees that Islamic definition of evil is imperfect.

This was not a debate topic. If he wants to shift the debate, as I already said, he then needs to start another debate. Which would demand that he admits that he has stopped arguing on the basis of what he started his argument.

Repeating thus that my prophet was this and that, is considered inappropriate form of attack.

He was only responding to you.

Did response dictate him making any kind of attacks aganist my figures? Whatever he raised amounts to accusations each of which merit a separate discussion.

Then isn't his hurling of that stuff just like that is a form of offence that is unnecessary?

The central issue is not about evil, or what is its definition in Islam or whether the definition is perfect or otherwise.

Right. But see the first part of my post.

And see my response to it.

The central issue is how it touches upon the topic at hand.

Right.

Glad you agree.

KhaliL objection to this defintion in the above is then a form of unncessary offence.

And you invoking the issue of evil first is not? As I said, he was only responding to you.

Yes, I used this concept to explain something which KhaliL objected to.

However, they way he then proceeded to attack that concept in Islam was uncalled for, because it didn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Let me be very clear. Even if a Islam advocated cannibalism, it would not be related to the topic of Islam and its teachings on Jews.

KhaliL could not have logically said "Since Islam advocates cannibalism, some of the eaten ones would include Jews, thus Islam advocates massacre of Jews!". This argument would amount to nothing, as actually it does nothing to prove his contention that Islam advocates massacre against Jews as a whole.

Then how does his diversion from the topic and unnecessary attacks on the basis of this not constitute an offence to debate etiquette? Had he just committed this fallacy, I would point it out in an official response. But the unnecessary offence is something that needs a priori addressing.

Can you understand that?

If KhaliL accepts that he has been unable to prove his contention in the manner he initially decided to, and accept defeat, then we may decide to debate about the definition of evil in Islam.

How you wish!!!

You may construe that as a wish, however, this is a logical line of thought.

He has proved his contention perfectly which was the central issue.

We disagree on this. But the debate is still pending.

You, on the other hand, could not defend your contention properly. Your rebuttal was the usual Muslim apologetics with no real substance in it.

We disagree on this again.

The primary difference of KhaliL's take on Islam and those of usual critics, is his employment of his psychological expertise in the process of proving Islam lethal on many issues, including the one we discussed. I have responded to his argument on the same wavelength. Thus my response contained more ideas, than sources. However, there were necessary material.

You would be right if KhaliL attacks one of your beliefs which have no bearing on the issue at hand - for example, if he ridiculed you on the scientific errors in Quran. But you talked of evil, and he too talked of acts of Muhammad which he thinks of as evil.

The topic was not about discussing any acts of Muhammad (p). The topic was about Jews and Islam.

I know, as does anyone following the debate. The fact is, Muhammad's acts are bound to come up when you discuss Jews and Islam. The central issue is not about Israel and Palestinian Muslims which is a current affair. But discuss Jews and Islam in the light of Quran or Allah, and Muhammad is bound to pop up. He is inextricably linked to the issue.

You have established that no where.

However, this diversion is not of primary concern, unnecessary offence on this basis is.

See above.

When KhaliL was on the verge of being discredited in this regard, he tried to shift his issue with Islam from that of hatred and call to massacre against Jews to the concept of evil in Islam.

Please. Such protestations of yours are insulting to intelligence. Isn't hatred and call to massacre against Jewish people evil?

You did not get my point.

KhaliL primary contention against Islam in that debate was (and is) that Islam advocates lethal hatred towards Jews, which indirectly call upon Muslims to massacre Jews, and create such a mindset in Muslims.

This is evil were it true.

However, he tried to shift the debate topic from the above to that of evil in Islam (that is, concept of evil in Islam).

I will point all this out, when the debate terms adn conditions are clarified.

I am so eager for it!

If he wants that shifting, he should officially end the current debate in the right manner, right?

Can you feel the eagerness in your heart for the termination of this debate?

No.

You are acting like an overblown balloon which goes phut at the slightest touch.

You should have known me by now. I have been debating you all in many threads and the one who ends up with the last comment in most cases is me.

Having the last comment only proves your indefatigability; it does not prove you right, right?

I will use this argument if KhaliL closes the thread with making the last comment.

Would you please list all the adjectives KhaliL needs to avoid in order to prevent you from throwing the tantrum? If "nonsense" is the only adjective you have objection to, I would request KhaliL to avoid this word. He may hit CTRL+F to search for the word in his post and remove it.

This is not funny.

It IS, believe me. What if he calls your beliefs ridiculous or childish or superstitious or funny?

That is a mild form of unnecessary offence. Do you see that in formal, live debates?

You may have realized the bad etiquette (a word KhaliL dared used) in this word, but KhaliL doesn't. Thus my last warning to him.

Read his latest round of postings to me (before my latest response).

You may not have read it all, I have.

He said that he cannot resist calling my beliefs "nonsense".

This shows to me a person who can't control himself.

Therefore, the above warning is last.

You need not warn again and again. If you could really refute him, you might well have chosen to ignore the extraneous issues and demolished his contention. KhaliL is confident that he will win, that is why he decided to ignore your personal attacks and focused on the meat of the issue in his later rebuttal.

You want me to ignore it, but I can't because I want to make this debate scholarly.

BOT1, you may not agree to this, but you are behaving like a person who is desperately looking for an excuse to terminate the debate. If you wish, I can request KhaliL to terminate it; he might be gracious enough to let go without saying anything. Stop acting like a cry baby if you really wish to continue the debate.

No, cry victory all you want. It doesn't matter to me. I am not here to play games, I am here to have intellectual exchanges.

All is not lost. If KhaliL replies in a positive manner to my latest post, or if we are eventually able to reach an agreement on the terms and conditions that would govern this debate, I would return to the actual content of debate at the earliest.

I am eager to intellectually demolish his latest round of posting. Can you understand that?

You certainly do not seem eager to "demolish" his arguments. Remember, it is you who has been talking of quitting right since the first or second post, not KhaliL. Your eagerness to quit is showing, sorry.

Well, you may say so. Of course, I would not demostrate any eagerness, but will IMMEDIATELY leave the debate if the desired terms and conditions are not agreed.

There is no disemebling on my part.

[kuffar1]

First of all, let us see what Quran says about Jews in general. This is excerpt from one of my articles which is highly relevant here:

Jews are an accursed lot according to Quran. Allah cursed them not once but many times. Allah cursed Iblis (Satan) only on a single occasion, but never hesitated to renew his curse in the case of Jews. It doesn't confine the curse to a past generation of Jews. The curse is with them until the resurrection day. See Quran:

The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He give and spends (of His bounty) as He pleases. But the revelation that cometh to thee from Allah increases in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loves not those who do mischief. [Quran Chapter 5: 64]

It is about those Jews who say "Allah's hand is tied up" that is those Jews who go against God.

If the Quran meant to say "those Jews who go against God" then it would have stated so. But it doesn't, does it?
It says of those Jews that say "Allah's hand is tied up." You are attributing something to Allah that Allah never said. Is that virtuous?

Can someone point to any Jew that ever said "Allah's hand is tied up"? Does that sound like something a Jew would say?

It seems to me that Mohammed attributes all Jews as saying "Allah's hand is tied up." Therefore your argument on this falls flat.