MesMorial wrote:Firstly “Skynightblaze”’s distinction between “Message” and “ayah” is itself without distinction. He predicts I will assert that it refers to previous scriptures, and indeed I will. However the point was never entire scriptures, but rather specific ayat which are not contextual.
MesMorial wrote: That is to say, many verses of the Qur’an are contextual and examples derived from the specific circumstances (e.g. 66:1-5). The Qur’an is a book of examples (17:89) and so this is not surprising.
MesMorial wrote:My point in saying this is that 16:101 refers to the abrogation of one scripture by another scripture, but not in the instance of Message (i.e. belief in One God etc.).
MesMorial wrote:The Qur’an does not replace entire scriptures but actually it confirms them.
MesMorial wrote: 16:101 refers to specific ayat in one scripture abrogating specific ayat in another scripture. An example:
“Say: I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden for an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine-- for that surely is unclean-- or that which is a transgression, other than (the name of) Allah having been invoked on it; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.”
6:145
“And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones: this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.”
6:146
The above is an exact example of what 16:101 is saying, and it demonstrates that the word “ayatan” in no way mandates the abrogation of the Qur’an by the Qur’an. 16:102 drives his claim to the edge of credibility, but because he has so far provided no proof we will save that for later and move to his “example of abrogation”:
MesMorial wrote:“O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.”
8:65
This ayah implies that one Muslim will defeat ten opposing soldiers.
“For the present Allah has made light your burden, and He knows that there is weakness in you; so if there are a hundred patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand they shall overcome two thousand by Allah's permission, and Allah is with the patient.”
8:66
This is a silly example from “Skynightblaze” since the key words in 8:66 are “for the present”. This is therefore not abrogation, but rather an attempt at demonstrating contradiction. When taken together, the verses say that the Prophet (SAW) should urge his followers to battle against the unbelievers of Sura 8, and that under normal circumstances they would inflict ten times the damage which they receive. However, at the present time of that ayah they are not fully “urged to war”, and thus they will inflict only twice the damage which they receive. In short, the believers are not fully roused for battle and they are weak (relatively), thus Allah (SWT) has made their task easier (e.g. the enemy may not be attacking or may be weaker). Due to their not being fully roused for battle, they will not inflict as much damage on the enemy and so Allah (SWT) tells Muhammad (SAW) to motivate them.“Skynightblaze” is back to square one. Or should we say, back to beginners’ school.
MesMorial wrote:Realising the poor quality of his debate, “Skynightblaze” has posted another question before I could submit my response:
2:4 just confirms that the Qur’an confirms the Message of the previous scriptures. It is another method of expressing this idea:
MesMorial wrote: “Say: We believe in Allah and (in) that which had been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Musa and Isa, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.”
2:136
“Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people.”
5:68
Obviously belief in the previous Messengers is a part of being Muslim, and a part of believing in the Messengers is belief in the Messages they brought…… Islam thus encompasses belief in other scriptures also.
Relegation.
Mesmorial wrote:Skynightblaze” attempts to stand up to me by saying he does not wish to listen to my personal opinions. If he is able to read he will realise I mentioned that he had no proof and thus I did not need to do more than point out his whole point is a personal opinion.
Mesmorial wrote: Where does the Qur’an say that 16:101 was referring to specific non-contextual ayat?? Firstly that is “Skynightblaze”’s own point (i.e. he tried to say I believed it referred to entire scriptures)! How can he ask for proof of something on which is own point relies?
Mesmorial wrote:Secondly we both agree it refers to specific ayat!
Mesmorial wrote:Thirdly they cannot possibly be contextual ayat because that is not abrogation but rather decision-making for specific circumstances. He tried to bring an example of contextual abrogation, but it fell flat and soon we will address the worm that won’t die.
Mesmorial wrote:He agrees that the Qur’ans says it substitutes some ayat for others, and thus the debate is over. When something gets substituted, it is replaced. Therefore any “abrogated verse” in the Qur’an will not be in the Qur’an today.
Mesmorial wrote: Rather 16:101 is referring to ayat as part of one scripture replacing the scriptural authority of ayat from another scripture. At the same time we know that the Message is itself preserved, and thus what “Skynightblaze” deems as “irrelevant” is actually a courtesy for readers:
Mesmorial wrote:“And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.”
16:101
The substitution spoken of here is concerned with one of two possible things:
a) The substitution of a scripture in place of previous ones.
b) The substitution of an ayah or legislation within a scripture with another in a subsequent scripture.
e know that more than one scripture has been seen through history:
“And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed.”
5:48
We also know that the second meaning is true. For example we are told in 2:187 that sexual intercourse between married couples during the nights of the fasting month was made lawful, while it was prohibited previously.
The evidence for this meaning is given within the same ayah (16:101):
“You are only a forger.”
Now here we must stop and ask: who is likely to tell the Messenger “You are only a forger”, and why? For sure it cannot be his followers (they would not say that). It has to be those who do not believe in him, i.e. the followers of previous scriptures who feared that their scripture was in danger of being “abrogated” by the Qur’an. Jews and Christians would not care if some verses of the Qur’an abrogated other verses of the Qur’an. The matter is laid to rest by 16:102 (placing it in context):
“Say: The Holy spirit has revealed it from your Lord with the truth, that it may establish those who believe and as a guidance and good news for those who submit.”
Mesmorial wrote:What is the guidance and good news (2:97, 2,2:13, 2:119, 4:165, 5:21, 6:48, 7:188, 11:2, 12:96, 16:89, 17:8, 17:105, 18:2, 18:56, 19:97, 27:2, 33:45, 34:28, 35:24, 41:4, 42:23, 46:12, 48:8)? The Qur’an is the guidance and good news, and thus it is the components of the Qur’an abrogating components of other scriptures. It is a “new criterion”:
“And there does not come to them a new reminder from the Beneficent Allah but they turn aside from it.”
26:5
The fact that there are “new” reminders implies that abrogation is concerned with scriptures, not internal verses.
Mesmorial wrote:Finally, why is there not one instance in the Qur’an where Allah (SWT) actually specifies that abrogation is taking place?
Mesmorial wrote: Where in the ahadith did Muhammad (SAW) ever talk about abrogation?
Mesmorial wrote: I must quote this for everyone to see:skynightblaze wrote: “ Secondly quran does talk about belief in 1 God but it opposes the claim of bible that Jesus was a God so quran does contradict the previous scriptures with regards to message of God. It agrees that GOd is 1 but there is a dispute over who that God is and this makes a huge difference! You cant therefore make statements like quran confirms previous scriptures.
Firstly we do not know which parts of the Bible are authentic and not innovative (well to the people who accept the Qur’an some are obviously obvious), and secondly the Qur’an nowhere confirms that the previous scriptures said such a thing. The argument is irrelevant and circular (and desperate):
“The Messiah, son of Marium was but a messenger; messengers before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.”
5:75
Can “Skynightblaze” explain just how Jesus (SAW) was God at one point, and then in hindsight he was not?
Mesmorial wrote: He then questions how 16:101 can refer to 6:145 when they are so far apart, but he maintains that 16:101 is general and thus should include everything!
Mesmorial wrote: “Skynightblaze” says that he expected a stupid comment from me. It is surprising that he included the 8:65 example because as I said it was a stupid example to bring. He said he forgot to explain why it was not stupid, so let us see:He seems to interpret the verse as saying that one Muslim MUST kill ten non-Muslims and the next verse as saying that one Muslim MUST kill two non-Muslims. The verses do not convey that. It is talking about the ability of Muslims compared to non-Muslims, not about a killing quota!
The explanation of why his example is not stupid suddenly makes it look even stupider. This is priceless. I write these things to demonstrate the stupidity that makes the world what it is, and I think everyone can see that the complicated problems really have simple solutions.
Absolutely every translator of 8:65 has rendered “yaghlibu” as “will overcome”, not “MUST overcome”. Once again it is talking about the ABILITY of Muslims with Allah’s (SWT) help, not a killing quota. When “Skynightblaze” goes back to school and learns English, he will see how “stupid” my “stupid comment” really is.I was tempted to write “hahahaha”.
Mesmorial wrote:I thought that the 2:4 example was even better, but with his explanation I do not know anymore.
Let us have a class in basic logic:
“(This Book is a guide for those)...who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the hereafter.”
2:4
So a Muslim is one who accepts all of the scriptures because they have the same Message (5:48, 35:42-43). Therefore Islam is comprised of belief in all scriptures.
“And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.”
3:85
Now since we know that Islam is comprised of belief in all scriptures, those who desire a religion other than Islam are obviously those who do not believe in all scriptures! “Skynightblaze” calls me dishonest, but if anyone is reading this can they please explain where the contradiction is between 2:4 and 3:85?
Mesmorial wrote:Skynightblaze” needs to re-read my last response and explain how abrogation can exist in the Qur’an when “substitute” means to replace, not override. The substitution of verses means that one verse would disappear and the other takes its place, making it impossible for abrogation to be present inside the Qur’an itself.
I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place."
Mesmorial wrote: As I have explained, we are talking about the substitution of verses, not the laws of the verses. 16:101 does not talk about laws, which is what “Skynightblaze” wants to prove.
Mesmorial wrote:We know that the Qur’an contains the same Message, but it if a new scripture containing new laws (in cases) and thus new ayat carrying specific laws REPLACE old verses containing other laws. Moreover, scriptures themselves are composed of verses and so to bring new verses could well mean to bring complete scriptures (replacing the old). There is still no real evidence that 16:101 does not refer to entire scriptures (since scriptures are composed of verses). Thus “Skynightblaze”’s insistence on the “personal opinion” argument simply shows that he is not answering the issue.
Mesmorial wrote:He defends himself a little, suggesting that he is only here to save face. He claims again that 8:65 is an abrogated verse, but we will get to that. Why is it that the burden-of-proof is always on me? I have noticed that with Islamophobes. They cannot bring evidence so everyone else is guilty until proven innocent.
Mesmorial wrote:So we get to the pith and “Skynightblaze” (just like “Muhammad bin Lyin”) must start using scholars to hold his case.
Mesmorial wrote:He asserts that the people who call Muhammad (SAW) a forger could be pagans. That is true, but just like the people who jeered when the qiblah was changed, it is because the Muslims are not following the rulings of previous scriptures. It makes no difference whether it is the People of the Book or pagans, because it is the replacement of scripture which in their eyes made Islam look incompatible and weak. Moreover, the pagans call him a forger when referring to their fathers’ faith:
So you see, they expected Islam to be in conformity with the religions that already existed. Whenever the notion of “forgery” comes up, it is always in the context of people who already had their own ideas.
To answer fully “Skynightblaze”’s case, the fact that new Revelation is sent down would cause any disbeliever (regardless of their ideas) to say “You are a forger!”, and thus it makes no difference. They might not believe in any of the previous scriptures either, but it actually makes no differences because it is a new Revelation replacing older ones regardless of what they believe.
Mesmorial wrote:A new Revelation was sent down – i.e, the Qur’an – and regardless of who 16:101-102 refers to, the context is indicating they are denying the scripture and the religion because it does not agree with their ideas, not because of an instance of “abrogation”.
Mesmorial wrote: Why would they label Muhammad (SAW) a forger only after an “abrogating” verse, and not before? His only defence is that some people might say it after an “abrogating” verse brings a clear contradiction, but firstly “Skynightblaze” has brought no example and secondly he cannot explain how substituted and substituting verses can exist within the same scripture. That is to say, there is definitely no abrogation in the Qur’an of today. If “Skynightblaze” is so convinced of himself, can he explain why Allah (SWT) never announced individual instances of abrogation in the Qur’an?
Mesmorial wrote:“Do they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.”
4:82???
Mesmorial wrote:We know that the new Revelation is the Revelation comprising the Qur’an, and because verses comprise scriptures, there is no reason why it cannot be referring to the gradual replacement of entire scriptures by the complete Qur’an. There is also good reason to believe that it refers to the substitution of one law-carrying ayah in one scripture with another law-carrying ayah in the new Reminder. It does not matter whether the accusers are People of the Book or pagans, because it is the inconsistency either in the eyes of “spectators”/People of the Book between previous scriptures and the new one, or the fact that a new reminder (21:2) has been given which so happens to replace whatever else Allah (SWT) revealed in the past.
I am unsure how “Skynightblaze” can possibly say that a “new Reminder” is only a “new Reminder” because it contradicts the beliefs of the pagans. If the pagans were not following a divine scripture then they cannot have had an old reminder unless it confirms my point that they were commentators on the incongruity between certain aspects of Islam, and prior scriptures.
Mesmorial wrote:The Qur’an is the truth and it is the best interpretation of both itself (12:111, 75:19) and existence. There are no other sources required for us to be Muslims. The Qur’an explains everything and it is better than any hadith.
Mesmorial wrote:Spoiler! :
Mesmorial wrote:Spoiler! :
Mesmorial wrote:Skynightblaze wrote:“Btw this is a command for muslims and not a futuristic statement because the verse 8:66 says GOD HAS LIGHTENED YOUR TASK!! . Why would it say GOd has lightened your task if it was merely pointing to the ability of muslims to do something??
If he had bothered to look at what I wrote in Round 1 I would not have to repeat myself here. I said that Allah (SWT) had indeed lightened their task by either making sure the enemies did not attack or making the enemy weaker. If Allah (SWT) can give or take the strength of Muslims then he can do so to that of non-Muslims. I also explained that Allah (SWT) was urging Muhammad (SAW) to motivate the Muslims as once motivated they would have the ability to fight ten times their number. However, at that present moment they would only be able to handle twice their number. Due to the weakness or tiredness of the Muslims, Allah (SWT) made sure that the enemies would not attack or that they would be weaker than usual (or some such other thing).
“Skynightblaze” must explain how Allah’s (SWT) lightening of their situation (“task” is not in the Arabic, if he reads) means the “ability to fight” becomes a “kill-quota”.
Mesmorial wrote:He seems to quote-mine me. According to basic Islamic theology (something “Skynightblaze” has never researched) everything that conspires does so according to the will of Allah (SWT). Every success is with the leave of Allah (SWT), but the reason I refer to Allah (SWT) as “helping” the Muslims in 8:65 is that he is making sure that the Muslims (when restored to strength) will be able to tackle ten-times their number. I use the word “help” since the Muslims would prefer there to have victory above defeat. “Skynightblaze” is welcome to insert another word in the place of “help”. Indeed, Allah (SWT) could have made sure that the Muslims could fight a million times their number (or more), but then there would be little point in testing people’s belief because things would become too obvious, would they not?
Mesmorial wrote:
The average Islamophobe will never acknowledge its errors and will attempt to cover them up by ridiculing in any way possible. It is off topic and so I will not elaborate, but there is no contradiction for a Muslim. 5:75 clearly says that Jesus (SAW) was never God. According to my reading, there is no reason to say that the Bible of today is one of the unadulterated scriptures referred to in the Qur’an. “Skynightblaze” must kindly provide some arguments before spewing venom.
For personal interest, readers can browse this article:
http://www.mostmerciful.com/quran-does- ... s-true.htm
I agree that substitution means replacement and hence you are correct to say that if verses of quran were substituted by new ones then the old ones should disappear however my claim is that inspite of this being true we still have verses in the quran which were meant to be substituted along with the substituted verses . Now I have given an example of 8:65 and 8:66. My claim is 8:66 cancels 8:65 which proves abrogation. Ideally 8:66 substitutes 8:65 in law and and hence 8:65 shouldn’t exist in the quran but yet it does. This is the problem of the compilers of quran . Here is ahadith from Sahih Bukhari which would explain what I am trying to say..
Anyway you may not believe in it. I brought the ahadith to tell you my position.Its just for you to understand what I am saying. The problem lies with quran because it included abrogated verses which were meant to be substituted. This is another verse..
[013:039]
Allah abolishes, and confirms, what He wants! He has the real authority.
This verse talks about cancellation which would further support my case of 8:66 nullifying 8:65.
Verses contain laws and hence substitution of verses would mean substitution of laws. It’s that simple.AS I said Muhammad or compilers of quran were stupid enough to keep verses in the quran even after their abrogation. 8:65 was abrogated by 8:66 and yet its present in the quran so until I am done with that issue you cant say verses cannot be present in the quran when abrogated.
I don’t understand, what are you trying to say here? I said I just guessed that you were talking about quran replacing the entire scripture because that’s the favorite muslim argument. I don’t believe that the verse in question is talking about entire scriptures.
Its common sense that burden of proof lies on you because you are trying to exclude quran from that verse but then why quran should be excluded hasn’t been explained by you. It’s a generalized verse which says we substitute revelation/verses with the other. Since its not mentioned here specifically as to which scripture quran is talking about it’s a generalized verse which would be applicable to every single scripture that Allah has revealed and hence it should include quran too . Nevertheless I should also bring proof to make a case and hence I brought 8:66 example.
Excuse me I didn’t use a tafsir to make a case. I even said that since you don’t believe in tafsir lets put that out of the equation. I brought a tafsir to show that I am not pulling things out of my arse. Tafsirs back me but I didn’t use them in the debate to force a conclusion. I said you don’t have a strong case since it could well be referring to pagans.Anyway I have excluded your comments on tafsirs here to avoid unnecessary debate. I can only say one thing that you seem to selectively pick up. If you trust Ibn Hanbal then you should also trust his works but sadly you dont because you are a hypocrite.
I have skipped the verses you brought for sake of reducing length. Anyway so the point that you want to convey here is that it doesn’t matter whether it’s talking about pagans or Christians or jews as it would simply be pointing to the beliefs of pagans rather than abrogation of its own scripture.
16:101 isn’t talking about BELIEFS OF PAGANS. It uses the word “verses/signs” and not BELIEFS (I made a mistake in assuming this). Now if the word “verses” is used then it talking about a scripture and not a belief. Do you see where I am going with this? Now as far as my knowledge pre Islamic pagans never had any scripture so the fact is that 16:101 can’t be talking about beliefs of pagans but of some verses which form a part of the scripture. That scripture obviously can be the quran because it would make sense for pagans to accuse Muhammad of forgery when they saw him substituting one verse for the other but however since I cant prove that this verse is indeed talking about pagans then we need to look at the quran alone.All I am saying is this is a possibility and hence you cant make a solid case that its talking only about jews and Christians alone.
I repeat the verse is a generalized verse. It talks about revelations or verses which Allah reveals which will include therefore by default quran also along with other scriptures. There is no good reason as to why quran is excluded from that verse. Anyway my example of 8:66 abrogating 8:65 will demonstrate that quran does indeed abrogate itself and will serve as a backing to 16:101.One more thing I did make a mistake about 16:102 which I have explained below..
I have answered this above. Quran talks about verses and not beliefs and hence it necessarily refers to some scripture which can be very well quran. Now lets see what you wrote in continuation..
I have brought an example which is yet in the process of reaching a final conclusion. Once we settle the issue of 8:65 and 66 then you make comments like I have brought no example. Secondly its possible that pagans would label Muhammad as a forger when they saw his substituting one verse from the quran with other. That would explain why they called him a forger.
Lastly you claim that I don’t explain as to how substituted and substituting verses can exist in the same scripture. I explained that above.IT only shows the the compilers of quran were fools who kept the abrogated verses as they are even after receiving new revelations were received by muhammad .If you consult sources other than quran you can see that the meccan verses were abrogated by medinan verses and yet both are present in the quran. So my job is to show the existence of substituted verse and and its substituting exist at the same time in the quran. How they make sense is the question that you should ask yourself because you believe in such a book.
Well I find a lot of discrepancy in the quran so are you telling me that If I find discrepancies in the quran I can claim quran abrogates itself? I can show 'n' number of internal contradictions in the quran.
to be continued...
Actually I made a mistake in interpreting 16:102 and I do acknowledge it. Here is the verse…
Say, “The Holy Spirit (Angel Gibra’eel) brings the absolute truth from your Lord, in order to consolidate those who believe. It is the guidance and the glad tiding for the obedient.”
The verse says that Holy spirit brings the truth to those who believe. Certainly pagans were not among the people who believed in islam and hence this verse can’t be talking about a reminder to pagans about their belief but nevertheless it doesn’t disprove the fact that this verse could have been addressed to pagans and not jews and Christians. Now how does this make sense? I have explained that above.
You are certainly a dishonest person. In the other thread you used sources other than quran to talk about wives of the prophet and here you are claiming that quran is better than any ahadith and it explains EVERYTHING. If quran explains everything then why the hell did you require other sources?
Well my dear friend do you understand the implications of what you are saying? What you said means that Allah abrogated the verses which he issued before . AT the max it would mean quran doesn’t contain them but it still exposes the fact that an all knowing God shouldn’t is required to cancel the verses in the quran.Since we see that Allah didn't get the verses right in the first place we can safely conclude that quran is not the word of God.I am surprised you even bothered to write such things here. It only exposes your fraud god Allah.
You simply didnt understand as to why this verse was abrogated.
Read this for understanding why the verse was abrogated..
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=7545
The summary is the companions of muhammad were afraid that they cant control what comes to their heart and hence they would be punished as per 2:284 while 2:286 abrogated 2:284 by saying that Allah punishes for your acts and not what comes to your mind and that's why this is an abrogation. Read the tafsir for details.
Ok let me explain how lightened their situation means kill quota. Now we have 2 cases:
1) Either Allah reduced the target of muslims from 10 to 2 therby lightened the burden of muslims(my claim)
2) Allah weakened the disbelievers and thereby relieved the muslims of the burden (your claim)
Now all I have to do is prove that case 2 cannot be the possibility which would mean case 1 is the correct answer.
With the decrease in strength of the enemy 1 muslim should be able to attain full strength or more than full strength i.e 1 muslim should be able to kill now more than 10 or at-least 10. How in the world can the ability of the muslims reduce with the decrease in strength of the enemy??
First of all , if Allah weakened the enemies of muslims then the muslims should be gaining full strength of what was proposed i.e. 1 muslim killing 10 disbelievers. There is a fundamental problem with the argument that Allah could have made the enemy weak. I showed you above. Secondly why would an all knowing God take a test? Tests are taken to determine something that is unknown and not to know something which is already known. Allah being all knowing God doesn’t need to take tests so the question is very much valid as to why Allah himself didn’t destroy the enemy or make 1 muslim fight millions of non muslims. Weak muslim army shouldn’t be a barrier to anyone when an all powerful God is on their side.
So finally we are back to my example . 8:66 was a command and not just mention of an ability and hence I am correct in claiming that 8:66 abrogates 8:65.
You simply don’t understand what people say. Your book tells you to believe in the previous scriptures which means its endorses their content.i.e quran is endorsing the fact for e.g that jesus was the son of God but at the same time it says in its scripture that he wasn’t. Quran contradicts itself hopelessly in that case. Now I had a discussion with Ygalg regarding mention of Jesus as God in the bible. HE claims that there is a dispute amongst christians about this..I trust him and to add more to it I am unfamiliar with previous scriptures so I would take this a a feed back from Ygalg and change my argument that Jesus was the son of God as per quran but not as per bible.Now the crux of my argument is your book contradicts the previous scriptures.
Secondly you claim “ There is no reason as to why bible of today in unadulterated” Then similarly why cant it be the other way i.e quran is adulterated today?
Lastly assuming that bible of today is corrupted you must show us the uncorrupted versions of bible. You may ask why I am asking you to show them to me? They are required because your quran says we came to confirm the previous scriptures so anyone who wishes to verify this claim of quran needs the unadulterated copies of bible. So where are they? 6:92 of quran also asks the believers of quran to verify the previous scriptures and then warn the the mother of all towns but to warn then they need previous scriptures so that they can confirm with quran and then warn others so show us where are the uncorrupted versions of previous scriptures or else accept that quran is in error here.
MesMorial wrote:Could you tell me which verse abrogates 2:240? I am curious. If it is 2:234, interesting how a prior verse abrogates a later! It is sad for the world when it cannot be seen that 2:234 never says that women have to stay in the home for 4 months. It simply states they cannot be married for 4 months. Of course they may prefer to stay in the hourse during the "waiting period", and that is a "given". 2:240 says they should get a year's maintenance and should not be turned out (though they can travel as they wish). No contradiction.
Ibn Abu Hatim also related that `Ali bin Abu Talhah stated that Ibn `Abbas said, "When a man died and left behind a widow, she used to remain in his house for a year for her `Iddah, all the while receiving her provisions during this time. Thereafter, Allah revealed this Ayah:
(And those of you who die and leave wives behind them, they (the wives) shall wait (as regards their marriage) for four months and ten days.) (2:234)
So, this is the `Iddah of the widow, unless she was pregnant, for her `Iddah then ends when she gives birth. Allah also said:
MesMorial wrote: [013:039]
Allah abolishes, and confirms, what He wants! He has the real authority.
This verse talks about cancellation which would further support my case of 8:66 nullifying 8:65 “Allah makes to pass away and establishes what He pleases, and with Him is the basis of the Book.”
13:39
Examine it in its context:
“And thus have We revealed it, a true judgment in Arabic, and if you follow their low desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you shall not have against Allah any guardian or a protector. And certainly We sent Messengers before you and gave them wives and children, and it is not in (the power of) a Messenger to bring a sign except by Allah’s permission; for every term there is an appointment. Allah makes to pass away and establishes what He pleases, and with Him is the basis of the Book.”
13:37-39
It states that Allah (SWT) establishes what He pleases, and with him is the mother/source/backbone of the Book. Allah (SWT) writes the Book (the Qur’an) and blots out what He wishes (of the previous Messengers’ Messages (13:38)). The word is “eliminate” or “blot out”, thus it does not refer to a verse that remains in the Qur’an. If the Qur’an is a true judgement (13:37), how then could it be decisive if some verses abrogated others? Furthermore, how can the “basis of the Book” (3:7, 13:39) be a basis if it changes within itself?
MesMorial wrote:“…it is not in (the power of) ANY messenger to bring a sign except by Allah’s permission; FOR EVERY TERM THERE IS AN APPOINTMENT.”
13:38
It is referencing every scripture (“any Messenger”), and not just the Qur’an. If it refers to any scripture then why would it be talking about individual verses (laws) within scriptures that are no longer relevant (in and of themselves since the Qur’an has since them been revealed)? It is not logical since Muslims would not care about “abrogation” in the Bible and nor would Christians care about it in the Qur’an. Allah (SWT) is making a valid point that He establishes things for appointed terms (e.g. see 30:8), and that He has always done this. There is no relevance to individual Qur’anic verses abrogating Qur’anic verses (i.e. things inside one term abrogating things within that same term). Finally, it does not refer specifically to ayat but to things (including signs) in general.
MesMorial wrote:I explained the example. You misinterpreted it in the first 3 rounds and you have not corrected yourself in this epilogue. See my last comment about the pagans. No proof they are pagans and if they are, no proof they are not commenting for reasons I specified.
MesMorial wrote:When you use conjecture to attack Qur’an and ask me to prove, then I can bring the like. If you use the Qur’an to attack the Qur’an, you get nowhere because it is all based on possibility. That is to say if we use Qur’an alone then I always win because Qur’an says Muhammad (SAW) was good person. I did not say the Qur’an explains everything. It explains everything for guideance (2:159, 16:89, 45:6). You put dishonest words in my mouth and call me dishonest.
MesMorial wrote:You simply didnt understand as to why this verse was abrogated.
Read this for understanding why the verse was abrogated..
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=7545
The summary is the companions of muhammad were afraid that they cant control what comes to their heart and hence they would be punished as per 2:284 while 2:286 abrogated 2:284 by saying that Allah punishes for your acts and not what comes to your mind and that's why this is an abrogation. Read the tafsir for details.
If you replace the word “clarification” for “abrogation” then of course you are right. It does not make it abrogation though. I explained why 2:286 is compatible with and a clarification of 2:284. It is you who does not understand my explanation, and refuses to. I cannot argue against blindness.
MesMorial wrote:If any of your argument in this debate were to start holding water, it would be now because you attempt to explain your core at last. Nevertheless, it is an overlarge red herring. You claim case 1 which is not supported by the language of the Qur’an. Thus is it is false. You say that Allah (SWT) never said he made the disbelievers weak, but that is a red herring because it does not matter as making the disbelievers weak is one of many ways. E.g. if the Muslims were tired, so too would be the non-Muslims. First of the three main paragraphs is irrelevant.
MesMorial wrote:With the decrease in strength of the enemy 1 muslim should be able to attain full strength or more than full strength i.e 1 muslim should be able to kill now more than 10 or at-least 10. How in the world can the ability of the muslims reduce with the decrease in strength of the enemy??
Red herring. If the Muslims were outnumbered then they would be more tired than the non-Muslims. Hence they could not kill as many non-Muslims if they had to. You assume there is a proportional relationship between the strength of the two sides, but that 2-D assumption is without base. 8:9, 8:42-44 show that the Muslims were outnumbered. The rest of your rebuttal is therefore worthless. You ask why Allah (SWT) “made those specific adjustments”. Allah (SWT) does what he wants and does not place a burden on believers (whom are tested) beyond what they can take (2:286 etc.). You should know that.
MesMorial wrote:You repeated the argument I just debunked. You raise the test again. Your supposedly intellectual rebuttal relies on an underhand tactic which could be presented to anyone of any faith. Allah (SWT) knows what people will do, but He created Man so that Man might have the opportunity to avail himself of His reward (being with/getting close to God). Allah (SWT) allows Man freewill, but he knows what choices they will take. This is their own doing, but everything that Allah (SWT) allows to happen is said to be by His will (since he has power over everything).
MesMorial wrote:I am glad that after a long discussion you agree that the Qur’an says what it says. It would have been easier if you just studied my response. You have to prove that the previous scriptures in the Qur’an are the “Bible” and “Torah” of today. They were not preserved at least from the time of the Qur’an.
MesMorial wrote:Secondly you claim “ There is no reason as to why bible of today in unadulterated” Then similarly why cant it be the other way i.e quran is adulterated today?
Off topic again.
MesMorial wrote:Another red herring. Qur’an never says the scriptures were preserved. It accuses Jews of rewriting the Book whilst sometimes asking believers to confirm with them. This does not mean the books of today are spick and span.
MesMorial wrote:Finally, what Ibn Umar said is not relevant because it was Bukhari who wrote it 200 years later. Secondly if Umar got the idea of internal abrogation from somewhere it does not make it a divine saying. Does it say “abrogation” in Arabic? What did Umar mean by it? Why would Allah (SWT) change His mind TO ACCOMMODATE humans? Ahadith are not-verbatim and to expect me to accept such arguments is dishonest. You have provided no evidence of internal abrogation, and you have had a long time.
Mesmorial wrote:It makes no sense to be talking about verses in the Qur’an because the body of the new Revelations is Arabic (16:103). The Qur’an distinguishes the Arabic of the Qur’an from the source which they think it is coming from. I.e., the Qur’an is distinguishing the entire Qur’an from anther source which they allude to. Why would they allude to another source unless there was something about the Qur’an that made them think about it? We know it is not the Qur’an’s message that makes them think about this (unless it were referring to the Qur'an replacing other scriptures as a whole or bit by bit - and what else would it be?) because they only start thinking when a “new ayah” is revealed. Unless SKB wants to say that the unbelievers here only suspect someone of teaching him when abrogation occurs and not when it is normally being revealed (in which case he must explain exactly why abrogation points them to that source), he must conclude that the new revelation is the revelation of the Qur’an as a whole, replacing old scriptures verse by verse or scripture by scripture
I am not going to reply to every argument of yours as I think I have said what I wanted to on 16:101.16:101 is a generalized verse and hence by default it will include quran but I must provide examples and hence I will provide them. All I have to do is show you the contradictions and you lose the case . if you refuse to accept abrogation then its internal contradiction so chose either of them . The outcome is always going to be the same i,e quran is not from any God.
You would claim that this is a fine argument and I ignored because I couldnt answer you. So I would reply to this You are asking perhaps as to why the people were alluding to a source other than quran ? You have this verse in mind I suppose.
[016:103]
We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.
You hereby conclude that this must be talking of previous scriptures.Quran is refuting here the charges made against it .The first charge is seen in 16:101 and now this is a new charge made by disbelievers.This new charge is talking about language and not the scripture itself and hence it cant be alluding to previous scripture. The disbelievers are claiming that muhammad learns something from some foreign personality(not scripture) and is parroting the same in the quran. This is no reference to a scripture as you badly want to believe it. AS far as I understand 16:101 is one charge and the other charge against quran is muhammad is parroting whatever he learns from some foreign guy.These are 2 separate charges and have no interconnection.
Now quran refutes them by saying that the man doesn't speak arabic but he speaks some foreign language so how could quran be parroting what the man teaches muhammad?
Btw its not true that disbelievers accused muhammad only when new ayah came.16:103 is totally altogether a separate charge made by disbelievers. Quran doesnt say that when we substitute one verse with the other the disbelivers claim "some foreign guy teaches muhammad" otherwise you would have a point.
Frankly speaking the 16:101 -103 are too vague to draw any specific conclusion and hence by default they include everything or else you need to accept that your book is not clear( another reason for not being from God.)
2:239
If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait concerning themselves four months and ten days: When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just and reasonable manner. And God is well acquainted with what ye do.
The verse 2:239 says there is no blame on the husband’s family if the widows dispose themselves in a just manner after 4 months so the negation would mean that there will be blame of husband’s famiy if they(the wives) do to themselves anything before 4 months. Why do you think the husband's family would be blamed if the women did whatever they want before 4 months? Doesn’t that mean the family has to care of women for 4 months and after that they are free? So husband’s family is free after 4 months according to 2:234 while 2:240 says husband’s family isn’t free till 12 months.
So here lies the contradiction.
2:240
Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence; but if they leave (The residence), there is no blame on you for what they do with themselves, provided it is reasonable. And God is Exalted in Power, Wise.
Now as far order of the verses is concerned if you are cross questioning the tafsirs or ahadith then you need to see what they said about the order. They claim that 2:234 was revealed after 2:240. The verses of quran are not properly organized in that case. This is possible because quran was finally compiled by humans.
Its you who believe quran is the basis of book. I as a disbeliever know that your quran is a piece of sh!t. These arguments will work with those who believe. Of course I also don't believe it’s a decisive book but rather a word of illiterate desert thug who had absolutely no connection with wisdom .Every liar makes tall claims that he is the most reliable person but he isn’t so as I dont consider quran to be authentic and hence these questions wont convince me. If quran was a fraud then its very much possible that there is abrogation inspite of it calling itself basis of book and all crap.
???? Can you explain what you said above again. ITs not clear to me at all.
It doesn’t matter which people are referred. One thing is clear that it makes no mention of any scripture and hence by default it means all the scriptures of Allah and not just Torah and the bible. I am not going to repeat myself again and that’s why I have ignored your previous arguments because I think I have said enough on the issue of 16:101. You tried some arguments to explain how 16:101 talks about previous scripture in your last posts but I didnt find them convincing . I dont think they were worth responding so I leave for others to decide.Btw just above you said that pagans would not be interested in commenting over bible or vice versa. In short what you said contradicts what you said here.
Muhammad was a thief. Its proven using the quran but oh yes I forgot if someone distributes wealth among his family members by taking non muslims property he doesn’t become a thief.. Yes I also agree that if Muhammad was a criminal then he would have said so in the quran and since he didnt say in the quran he musn't be a criminal. Its common sense that no criminal would sing bad things about in a book which he himself writes.
Now if you can use sources other than quran to find about wives of muhammad i.e not for guidance then why cant anyone dig in sources other than quran understand the character of muhammad? Certainly they are not referring to those sources for guidance. Your hypocrisy has no bounds.
I think this is going to be my last reply for this argument as well because I don’t see a point in carrying out conversation with a person who simply wont accept anything other than what he believes.
Are you punished for your thoughts or are you punished for the actual actions? There was a debate over this. 2:284 says Allah will punish even for bad thoughts. 2:286 says you will be punished for actions and not bad thoughts. There is the contradiction. People cant control what comes to their mind or heart but however one can control his/her actions and this is what the companions of muhammad said to him and hence the abrogation. This is one more example of abrogation or else its simply a contradiction thereby proving quran cannot be a word of God. Bear in mind this is my 2nd example of abrogation in the quran. Forget about tafsirs I am using quran here to make a case out of 2:284 and 286.. If there was no abrogation then there is contradiction and hence quran cannot be a word of God.Period!
Finally even if we accept your argument that its clarification and not abrogation you still lose. This means that quran was not written perfectly in the first place and hence the need to clarify which means author of quran is not God.
Red herring means deviating from the point. You said Allah could have weakened the disbelievers. Now telling you that quran doesn’t say so you is red herring?
You simply don’t understand a simple fact that tiredness of muslims cannot be the excuse. The inequality or disparity that existed between non muslims and muslims because of numbers shouldn’t matter when Allah is on muslim side and especially when he is helping muslims. If Allah really helped then the muslims should be able to achieve full strength /ability or else its stupid to say Allah helped them.What good is Allah’s help if its making the muslims underperform rather than making helping the muslims to fight to their potential best? Enough of crap now . This is my last reply to you regarding this.
Again the effect of being outnumbered should be nullified in case Allah is helping. When Allah helps muslims how in the world can the ability of the muslims reduce from 10 to 2? Allah is making adjustments to disbelievers and hence no excuse is valid.
If even inspite of Allah’s help muslims cant reach their full potential it means Allah is a useless God. He isn’t any all powerful God. In short you have shot yourself in foot by making this argument.
regarding this.
Quran on plenty of occasions says that Allah tests to find out who is good and who isn’t. It doesn’t say it tests men so that men would know earn their rewards so you a re making an rubbish attempt . We will preserve that topic for later so for the time being I am ignoring this topic but however it doesn’t answer as to why how abilities of muslims will reduce if Allah is helping them.
This no way answers my question. If you claim bible and torah are corrupted how is anyone supposed to see whether they confirm quran or not? 6:92 says that quran came to confirm previous scriptures so that people can warn mother of cities.Now before muslims warn the mother of cities they should confirm quran with the previous scriptures.How can muslims warn without confirming quran with the previous scriptures? Now if bible and Torah are corrupted today how is anyone supposed to verify what quran is asking them to do ? You need to have copies of uncorrupted bible and torah or else you cant verify and hence it renders a problem to quranic verses.
Please solve that issue . I repeat how in the world are we supposed to confirm quran by looking at previous scriptures especially when we dont have the uncorrupted copies of bible and torah?
You claimed there is no reason as to why anyone should consider bible as uncorrupted. Now either of the scripture is corrupted I,e quran or bible because they contradict each other. Why cant anyone consider the possibility that quran is corrupted? This isn’t offtopic because you claimed that those books are corrupted and I merely told you the other possibility.
That is not the question I asked. How can we confirm what quran says unless we have the uncorrupt bible and torah? Quran asks the believers to do that. So the claim of quran is invalid in that case and hence quran cant be the word of God.
The ahadith clearly mentions the word Abrogate. Stop playing games here now.I guess Umar knew better than you because he was the one who spend time with muhammad.You are never going to accept any evidence presented to you. 8:66 is one of them and the other one is 2:284 and 2:286, 2:234&2:240. Now I don’t need ahadith to show you the contradiction. These verses contradict each other and hence if you claim there is no abrogation then you have to accept a contradiction. Either ways quran cant be a word of God.
Mesmorial wrote:Firstly it is not a new charge. It refers to the same people. It is talking about how the Qur’an cannot be from the source they say because the language is different.
Mesmorial wrote: It would make no sense for people to claim “forger” based on abrogation because the language is different, and thus it must be the nature of the message that leads them to point to the source (saying it is parroted from someone is the same as saying “forger!”!).
Mesmorial wrote:Abrogation has nothing to do with the actual Message itself. SKB says they accuse him of parroting something from another source. That is true, but it is the fact that what he allegedly parrots is different that makes them do it. Regardless of whether they are “separate charges”, it is quite clear that they are disbelieving in the whole thing and not just verses which abrogate. SKB cannot claim that Muhammad (SAW) is only able to speak Arabic because someone taught him!
Mesmorial wrote:The same disbelievers in these verses only begin to disbelieve when “abrogation” occurs (according to SKB and tafsirs) but 16:103 shows they are disbelieving the whole thing. If they already disbelieved before “abrogation” then it is not establishing those who believe! The Qur’an establishes who believes, not abrogation!
Mesmorial wrote:The Qur’an DOES say it can be used to confirm by asking those who were given the Book! That was for that time! Some people still followed the Message (3:199). It does not mean they are preserved today! You are asking that if the paperbacks called Bible and Torah today are not authentic, how could they be used to confirm the Qur’an at the time! That is ignoring 1400 years as well as the fact the Qur’an never said they were preserved at the time. SKB says that if we assume the Bible is corrupt, then we can never confirm the Qur’an. That is not relevant to the debate but is another squiggly complaint. If we cannot “confirm” with other scriptures then we look at the arguments of the Qur’an itself, which is what the Qur’an says to do a million times.
Mesmorial wrote: That is to say, we look at the Qur’an and not just the Qur’an! E.g. if there are any actual errors that can be verified, then I have not seen them. The basic Message of one God is the same, and that is the point (35:42-43). The Qur’an is enough to make one believe:
“We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth.”
41:53
We simply go with the best evidence. The criterion for believing the Qur’an is not just confirming with previous scriptures. It was simply one way which may not be feasible today. If it is the only criterion, SKB will solve the problem and bring the verse.
Mesmorial wrote:8:66 no example. You failed to prove. 2:286 no example, you failed to prove. 2:234 no example as we saw.
Mesmorial wrote:You can provide no evidence where Allah (SWT) OR Muhammad (SAW) mentioned abrogation, so you had best take your claims elsewhere. Umar was no divine and had trouble interpreting some words. Also hadith written by Bukhari not Umar.
Mesmorial wrote:2:184 is considered by Ibn 'Umar as having been abrogated while Ibn 'Abbas says it was not (Bu.); 2:240 was abrogated according to Ibn Zubair while Mujahid says it was not.
Hahahaha.
I think readers can see we need not continue.
Mesmorial wrote:Firstly it is 2:234 and not 2:239. There is no contradiction because we know that 2:234 hints that family should not turn them out before four months at least. It seems that the family has to look after them, and this does not necessarily mean keep them in the house anyway. It just means accommodate such that if the person left it would be “disposing of themselves”.
Return to Exclusive Rooms - One-on-One-Debates
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests