Page 2 of 2

Re: Mesmorial vs Skynightblaze- Abrogation in the quran

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 6:43 am
by skynightblaze
Mesmorial wrote:Of course it will be your last try because I provided a solid sensible interpretation which because it does not agree with tafsir (which does your thinking for you) stumps you. You are a hypocrite in what you say. You are not punished for your thoughts. You are punished for concealing the truth. Read 2:284 in context of 2:283.


Stop lying! 2:284 says you will be punished for bad thoughts! LEts see 2:283 and 2:284 together.

[002:283]
If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, Let the trustee (Faithfully) discharge His trust, and let him fear his Lord. Conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it,- His heart is tainted with sin. And God Knoweth all that ye do.

2:283 says that you shouldnt conceal the evidence and 2:284 further says whether you conceal or not you would still be punished for bearing bad thoughts.

[002:284]
To God belongeth all that is in the heavens and on earth. Whether ye show what is in your minds or conceal it, God Calleth you to account for it. He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and punisheth whom He pleaseth, for God hath power over all things.

2:284 doesn’t say that God punishes you only for concealing truth. Look at the language used. IT says God punishes you irrespective of whether you conceal or not. So it means if you have bad thoughts then whether you conceal or reveal them it would make no difference i.e you would still be punished. This is obviously unfair because we all are human beings and we are prone to bad thoughts at least once in our life times.

Mesmorial wrote:You do not understand. If you think dirty thoughts then you pray or banish them before you act on them.


This may be true however it doesnt change the fact that you are punished for bad thoughts in 2:284.

Mesmorial wrote:Obviously everyone has such thoughts (see sura 114……………) You are not held to account for bad thoughts, but you are held to account if you do not banish them (because if you let yourself think things and do no fight them, how can you remain a good muslim??).


None bears bad thoughts deliberately because they are fond of bearing them.Its human nature!. Sometimes it happens that you simply cant give up and that’s why the verse 2:286 came to replace 2:284.

Mesmorial wrote:There is no contradiction. You are trying to tell me that Allah (SWT) replace a verse on the whim of humans.


Correction. Muhammad replaced a verse on the whim of some other human. This is on cards if quran is a fraud but you seem to consider only 1 possibility that is quran is from GOd and hence such thought.

Mesmorial wrote:No, 2:286 is a clarification for people who cannot comprehend 2:284, but this does not mean 2:286 was revealed specifically for that purpose.


Both these verses are diametrically opposite. One talks of punishing people for mere thoughts and other talks of punishing people for their actions or whatever they earn and not mere thoughts.

Mesmorial wrote: It actually hints at what I am saying. Thoughts lead to intention and action. 2:284 is actually talking about deception, but either way I am all over this and you cannot respond.


Its not always necessary that mere thoughts lead to actions and hence one shouldn’t be punished for mere thoughts even if the person doesn’t banish his thoughts. For e,g I fall in love with neighbors wife and I know that I cant stop loving her. Its beyond my control so should I be punished for the same even when I haven’t acted upon those intentions and commit any crime? The answer is ofcourse no!

Re: Mesmorial vs Skynightblaze- Abrogation in the quran

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 7:05 am
by skynightblaze
Anyway this is was my last reply in this thread. I think I have said enough.You claim that I am changing the topic of discussion i,e abrogation. I have provided proofs that if we dont have abrogation then you have other problem called as contradiction and this would mean your original premise is false since its creating a lot of problems.

Finally inspite of all the arguments if you claim that I didnt prove the original topic of the thread still you lose more than me. My loss is not comparable to your loss. If I lose then so you lose even more than me .At the max it would mean I didnt prove abrogation but it would mean that I proved contradiction which would mean quran is not the word of GOd.Who loses more because of that ? Its obviously you and not me. I am happy if i lose but end up proving quran cannot be a word of God.

Re: Mesmorial vs Skynightblaze- Abrogation in the quran

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 9:47 am
by MesMorial
It doesnt say that .It says disbelievers believed that muhammad was taught by some foreign personality.


Yes and they only did that after supposed “abrogation”. What is it about the style of abrogation that makes them point to this person hmm? It is not a new charge, if you read.

Enough of stupidity dear friend. Language of the quran was never different.Quran itself says that quran is purely in arabic while the the man whom the disbelievers think of helping muhammad has a foreign tongue .so enough of building on straws.


Dear friend, do not be ignorant. What is it about the style of abrogation that makes them point to that source? If the abrogating verse was to establish those who believe (16:102,), why does the Qur’an say that if it were from other than Allah (SWT) then many discrepancies would be found? It is the end of your silly belief, is it not?

You simply dont understand what is being said . I never claimed that muhammad was speaking arabic because he was taught by some individual. What I said is disbelievers were accusing muhammad of parroting what the stranger taught in the quran.


But they only thought he was forging after abrogating verses? You simply do no speak clearly.

Obviously the disbelievers are disbelieving in the whole thing.Even I dont believe in the quran as a whole and yet claim muhammad abrogated one verse with other so considering these 2 statements alone, how does that automatically mean that I am accusing muhammad of forging from previous scriptures? That is a stupid conclusion.

Secondly what has those who believe got to do with abrogation? These verses were clearly directed at people who disbelieve.


But only when abrogating verses appear? Were they believing before? Why do they point to the “forger” if their disbelief is because of abrogation, and not because the message is simply replacing their old beliefs or old scriptures? You cannot have it both ways dear friend!

so we are not even supposed verify what quran says . We are supposed to accept what quran says just because quran says so


Um, no point in verifying what you don’t believe if you don’t believe in what is supposed to be verified by the scripture. Qur’an is its own proof, not previous scriptures. Please bring the verse where it says that previous scriptures are the only proof, and then I will bring other verses to refute you once more.

Why do you change the subject? We are talking about abrogation, not your willingness to ignore whatever the Qur’an says. Please behave.

If that criteria isnt possible today why in the hell put it as a criteria ? That's stupidity especially when you are claiming that the book is for whole mankind.! You still have the nerves to say that I haven't seen any error in the quran. Its right in front staring at you but obviously you are not going to see because by hook or crook quran has to be true. When such is the mentality of a person he is never going to see things beyond that stupid book of 7th century.

Btw what signs has quran shown in the universe so that we can believe it today?


It is a criterion in that if we find a Jew or Christian who believes in the original Message, then that will confirm. 3:199 says there were some, but that does not mean there have to be any today. Again you miss the point that it is the basic message of one god and the precepts of “being good” which are obvious which confirm the WAY OF LIFE as juxtaposed to polytheism etc. The rest is a matter of observation and not simply trying to find another Qur’an to confirm that the Qur’an verifies previous scriptures (which it does in the way I described). Besides, the other scriptures were not preserved and no proof that the paperback Bibles of today are authentic or that they were like the old ones or the originals etc.

If I tell you something you will simply come up with an excuse or another interpretation to justify yourself. It is only for those who see that it is not an error. How about the prophecy of the Roman conquest?

Correction AS you saw and not "we saw" .


Me and everyone else with a brain.

If bukhari was putting words in mouth of Umar then muslims of that time would have surely realized that he was fabricating. How would they promote the book of Bukhari for 1400 years? Would you muslims of today do the same ??? More ever earlhy ahadith did exist. This is a question that you can never answer. Its not that Bukhari pulled everything out of his arse.Your own thug i.e muhamamd said that umar was knowledgeable person.Finally umar was one of the compilers of quran so if he was dishonest or didnt understand quran properly then there is no reason to believe in the quran.


You are hopeless. He may have put someone else’s words in his mouth and one word against another’s. Besides, Umar was not God and his interpretation may have been off/taken out of context. Stop using ahadith, boy. Be a scribe is different to interpreting.


There were difference of opinions over some abrogated verses but that doesnt mean that they never ever agreed on abrogation. There are plenty of verses which were abrogated on which all of them agreed.

Add one more hahahha because these same people were supposed to be compilers of quran and neither can you prove that Bukhari faked these words.

Just because you disbelieve in them, doesnt mean they are all lies.


Sadly you have found no example, and please stop snuffing your own facts whilst being unable to prove anything. Onus of proof is on you to prove they were not faked. You are unreal. Secondly, your examples of abrogation prove you only copy and paste and have no brain of your own.

Hahahaha. That is at your inability.

Taking care for 4 months ATLEAST implies its ok if they don’t take care after 4 months. It means mandatory is only 4 months and after that its optional.

Now 2:240 says family must take care for 1 year.

Let us assume that wife is a stubborn creature. She refuses to move out after 4 months. Now the family will say they don't owe anything to her after 4 months 10 days because as per 2:234 the family the least mandatory period is only 4 months 10 days after which they don't owe any obligation as after that its optional and not mandatory however wife being stubborn points to 2:240 and says that family must support or take her care for 1 year and not 4 months. so which one of the above verses should the family refer to?


It is mandatory to look after them for four months. However if they choose to stay then they have to be looked after until a year has passed. You interpret “no blame on what they do for themselves” as “you do not have to look after them even if they choose to stay”. That is obviously false. It does not say that, so accept it.

I am sure anyone can see there is no contradiction.

Stop lying! 2:284 says you will be punished for bad thoughts! LEts see 2:283 and 2:284 together.

[002:283]
If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, Let the trustee (Faithfully) discharge His trust, and let him fear his Lord. Conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it,- His heart is tainted with sin. And God Knoweth all that ye do.

2:283 says that you shouldnt conceal the evidence and 2:284 further says whether you conceal or not you would still be punished for bearing bad thoughts.

[002:284]
To God belongeth all that is in the heavens and on earth. Whether ye show what is in your minds or conceal it, God Calleth you to account for it. He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and punisheth whom He pleaseth, for God hath power over all things.

2:284 doesn’t say that God punishes you only for concealing truth. Look at the language used. IT says God punishes you irrespective of whether you conceal or not. So it means if you have bad thoughts then whether you conceal or reveal them it would make no difference i.e you would still be punished. This is obviously unfair because we all are human beings and we are prone to bad thoughts at least once in our life times.


Stop whining! 2:284 says whether you manifest what is in your soul or not, you will be held account. This refers to the knowledge of your bad deeds, not to bad thoughts. Bad thoughts are only punishable if you do not dispel them and thus let them “whisper into your soul” (114). How can people be blamed for their thoughts? If you intentionally think bad thoughts, you will get rid of them by praying. If you keep thinking bad thoughts, then how will you remain Muslim? You are not being sincere, and the DELIBERATENESS of not being sincere and guarding your thoughts may be considered an action. In that case it is talking about intention which is definitely related to 2:283. You say that 2:283 says don’t conceal a will and that 2:284 says if you have intention to do so but you don’t you will be held accountable! How would the person not conceal if they sincerely intended to? Thoughts lead to action. The thought is not meant to make you need forgiveness, but you are to seek refuge from it and if you have bad intention which is thwarted you should ask forgiveness as if you had done it.

Please stop complaining and grow up.


This may be true however it doesnt change the fact that you are punished for bad thoughts in 2:284.


Not true. Thoughts are only one stage of action. 2:284 is talking about deception and the knowledge of it (2:283).

None bears bad thoughts deliberately because they are fond of bearing them.Its human nature!. Sometimes it happens that you simply cant give up and that’s why the verse 2:286 came to replace 2:284.


If only your interpretation of 2:284 were logical, then yes! But unfortunately it is not.

Correction. Muhammad replaced a verse on the whim of some other human. This is on cards if quran is a fraud but you seem to consider only 1 possibility that is quran is from GOd and hence such thought.


You seem to forget who you are debating.

Both these verses are diametrically opposite. One talks of punishing people for mere thoughts and other talks of punishing people for their actions or whatever they earn and not mere thoughts.


Where does 2:284 mention THOUGHTS??????????????????????????
What does the context of 2:283 suggest?????????????

Get over it.

Its not always necessary that mere thoughts lead to actions and hence one shouldn’t be punished for mere thoughts even if the person doesn’t banish his thoughts. For e,g I fall in love with neighbors wife and I know that I cant stop loving her. Its beyond my control so should I be punished for the same even when I haven’t acted upon those intentions and commit any crime? The answer is ofcourse no!


Glad you are trying to think deep. According to Qur’an you will not be punished for having feelings. See my above explanations.

Anyway this is was my last reply in this thread. I think I have said enough.You claim that I am changing the topic of discussion i,e abrogation. I have provided proofs that if we dont have abrogation then you have other problem called as contradiction and this would mean your original premise is false since its creating a lot of problems.

Finally inspite of all the arguments if you claim that I didnt prove the original topic of the thread still you lose more than me. My loss is not comparable to your loss. If I lose then so you lose even more than me .At the max it would mean I didnt prove abrogation but it would mean that I proved contradiction which would mean quran is not the word of GOd.Who loses more because of that ? Its obviously you and not me. I am happy if i lose but end up proving quran cannot be a word of God.


You have provided absolutely no proof and you of course know it. You did not address 4:82 and thus that is a flat out defeat.

No contradiction.

Thank you.

Re: Mesmorial vs Skynightblaze- Abrogation in the quran

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:39 pm
by ringmaster
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.




Actually you lose. The koran says that Muhammad was a thief (verse 8-41). 20% of the loot from aggressive warfare allocated to Muhammad makes him a common thief by any definition.

Furthermore, the koran tells you that you have to follow Muhammad's teachings and example, which teachings and example disclose very clearly what a disgustingly evil man he was.

Re: Mesmorial vs Skynightblaze- Abrogation in the quran

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:33 pm
by Idesigner
ringmaster wrote:
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.




Actually you lose. The koran says that Muhammad was a thief (verse 8-41). 20% of the loot from aggressive warfare allocated to Muhammad makes him a common thief by any definition.

Furthermore, the koran tells you that you have to follow Muhammad's teachings and example, which teachings and example disclose very clearly what a disgustingly evil man he was.


According to Koran only muslims verse 8:41 means that Mohemmed was distributing wealth among poor muslims. He collected on behaf of Allah ( 10% for Allah, 10% for Mohmmed and his growing harem)and later gave it away to widows and orphans, ofcourse they were all muslims but still noble act I guess! :sly:

Some have argued that the word for worldy goods in 8:41 actually means Mohemmed took all sins instead of burdening other muslim warriors with sins. In Arabic meaning of word booty means sin also. :cool:

Re: Mesmorial vs Skynightblaze- Abrogation in the quran

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:31 am
by ringmaster
Idesigner wrote:
ringmaster wrote:
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.




Actually you lose. The koran says that Muhammad was a thief (verse 8-41). 20% of the loot from aggressive warfare allocated to Muhammad makes him a common thief by any definition.

Furthermore, the koran tells you that you have to follow Muhammad's teachings and example, which teachings and example disclose very clearly what a disgustingly evil man he was.


According to Koran only muslims verse 8:41 means that Mohemmed was distributing wealth among poor muslims. He collected on behaf of Allah ( 10% for Allah, 10% for Mohmmed and his growing harem)and later gave it away to widows and orphans, ofcourse they were all muslims but still noble act I guess! :sly:

Some have argued that the word for worldy goods in 8:41 actually means Mohemmed took all sins instead of burdening other muslim warriors with sins. In Arabic meaning of word booty means sin also. :cool:



The Tafsir of Al Jalalayn refers to the distribution of loot taken away from infidels "by force". I call that theft. Whoremaster Mo helped himself to 20% of that loot, which means he was a thief.....

Case closed.

Re: Mesmorial vs Skynightblaze- Abrogation in the quran

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:58 am
by MesMorial
Hello RM; I thought there was a smell.

Furthermore, the koran tells you that you have to follow Muhammad's teachings and example, which teachings and example disclose very clearly what a disgustingly evil man he was.


That is an out-of-date and completely debunked statement. If you mean in the Qur'an, then it is routine to take apart your interpretation (to realise there is no point to your claim, except your opinion). This forum seems to lose all debates on social issues. It is not something I suppose will change.

Otherwise, you contribute to intellectual pollution.

Cheers.

Re: Mesmorial vs Skynightblaze- Abrogation in the quran

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:00 pm
by ringmaster
MesMorial wrote:Hello RM; I thought there was a smell.

Furthermore, the koran tells you that you have to follow Muhammad's teachings and example, which teachings and example disclose very clearly what a disgustingly evil man he was.


That is an out-of-date and completely debunked statement. If you mean in the Qur'an, then it is routine to take apart your interpretation (to realise there is no point to your claim, except your opinion). This forum seems to lose all debates on social issues. It is not something I suppose will change.

Otherwise, you contribute to intellectual pollution.

Cheers.



The ugly smell is from the koran and hadith. The intellectual pollution would be the intellectual gymnastics like yours that try to persuade and deceive the infidel into believing that the koran says something other than what it says.

There is nothing "out of date" about what I said about the koran's commands to obey the prophet. It is not out of date to say that the prophet was a thief. None of this is out of date because that stuff is in the koran (along with abrogation), despite your efforts to rewrite it.

Re: Mesmorial vs Skynightblaze- Abrogation in the quran

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:15 am
by MesMorial
Your argument is floppy, like your cause.

You will not get it up.