The Amazing Quran

[tumbleweed41]

Response: Your challenge makes no sense. Why do you raid caravans and assassinate your opponents? I thought you said you were peaceful?

Exactly

 

[Fatihah]

Exactly

Response: Exactly. Your religion of raiding caravans and assassinating people is unjust and not peaceful. No worries. Allah(swt) will hold you accountable.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Response: Exactly. Your religion of raiding caravans and assassinating people is unjust and not peaceful. No worries. Allah(swt) will hold you accountable.

Yes, I agree,the practice of raiding an unarmed caravan traveling to a holy site is unjust and not peaceful.
Nor is the practice of assassinating a writer critical of this violence in any way peaceful or just.
And most definitely the acts of murder, rape, torture and pillage against those of a different belief are all unjust and most assuredly not to be done by those proclaiming peace.

Glad we can agree.

 

[Fatihah]

Yes, I agree,the practice of raiding an unarmed caravan traveling to a holy site is unjust and not peaceful.
Nor is the practice of assassinating a writer critical of this violence in any way peaceful or just.
And most definitely the acts of murder, rape, torture and pillage against those of a different belief are all unjust and most assuredly not to be done by those proclaiming peace.

Glad we can agree.

Response: Same here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Response: I base my judgement on myself.

But, as I have asked about a dozen times now, how do you know that your judgement is any better than anyone else's? On what basis can you claim that your beliefs are correct and everyone else is in denial?

That is the last time I will let you dodge this question.

As for the discrepancies, you need to explain why they are discrepancies.

I did. I explained that they are contradictory messages. Here they are again:

"For example, in Sura 2:221 the Qur'an forbids Muslims to marry idolators, and in Sura 9:28-33 calls Christians unbelievers and idolators. Yet in 5:5 says a Muslim may marry a Christian or Jewish woman (Qur'an Contradiction: Can a Muslim Man Marry a Christian Woman?). For a simpler discrepancy, in 2:29 Allah made the earth and then the heavens, but then in Sura 79:27-30 it states he made heaven and then the earth (Contradictions in the Qur'an: Heaven or Earth, which was created first?)."

These are contradictions in the Qur'an. Can you refute that claim or not?

Lastly, you've changed the challenge, not me. Can you quote my words saying that I asked for "examples of texts that lead to a revolution in a country". No. So what you are doing is dodging the challenge.

"The challenge is to produce a chapter "like" the qur'an. Therefore, it does not mean to simply write something in arabic and think you've accomplished something. What is the qur'an? Well what is any religous scripture? It is supposed to be inspiration from God. It's purpose is to inspire people to follow its teachings. So to produce a chapter like the qur'an means to produce a chapter as inspirational and as successful as the qur'an."

I have now named examples of four texts which, like the Qur'an, inspired their followers to overthrow a country (or several countries).

Since then, your challenge has changed for "produce a chapter as inspirational as the Qur'an" to "produce a book which inspired people to overthrow a country" to "produce a religious text which inspired people to overthrow a country".

By this point, it is clear that you are in denial. You refuse to accept the fact that you are demonstrably wrong and have made a series of claims with no basis whatsoever. You have done nothing but prove the depths of your delusion and inability to accept reality.

As for proof that the qur'an is a miracle, the proof is in the challenge in which you deny, which only confirms your denial that the qur'an is a miracle. Otherwise, you would have taken on the challenge.

The challenge that was met, changed, met again, then changed again, then changed once more and then finally met.

Yep. That proves it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Response: The difference is that those who created communism did not conquer any nation by inspiring it's followers to conquer a nation with communism.

You're changing the conditions of the challenge again. Now you're saying that it is the people who created the concept who had to overthrow the government - this part has not appeared in the challenge before - you are clearly avoiding the fact that we have successfully met and refuted your challenge several times now.

So your example doesn't work, which again is further evidence for the validity of challenge that the qur'an is from Allah(swt).

Self-affirming ignorance. That's what I've come to expect from you.

Tell you what, here's my challenge to you. I like the Catcher in the Rye by J.D Salinger. I believe that it is the single greatest piece of literature in all of history, and I believe this because it inspired Mark David Chapman to murder John Lennon. Since no other text in history has ever been able to inspire an ordinary many to kill a multi-platinum selling former Beatle, that means that it is the work of God. No other text has ever met this challenge, therefore the Catcher in the Rye was the work of God.

 

[Fatihah]

But, as I have asked about a dozen times now, how do you know that your judgement is any better than anyone else's? On what basis can you claim that your beliefs are correct and everyone else is in denial?

That is the last time I will let you dodge this question.


I did. I explained that they are contradictory messages. Here they are again:

"For example, in Sura 2:221 the Qur'an forbids Muslims to marry idolators, and in Sura 9:28-33 calls Christians unbelievers and idolators. Yet in 5:5 says a Muslim may marry a Christian or Jewish woman (Qur'an Contradiction: Can a Muslim Man Marry a Christian Woman?). For a simpler discrepancy, in 2:29 Allah made the earth and then the heavens, but then in Sura 79:27-30 it states he made heaven and then the earth (Contradictions in the Qur'an: Heaven or Earth, which was created first?)."

These are contradictions in the Qur'an. Can you refute that claim or not?


"The challenge is to produce a chapter "like" the qur'an. Therefore, it does not mean to simply write something in arabic and think you've accomplished something. What is the qur'an? Well what is any religous scripture? It is supposed to be inspiration from God. It's purpose is to inspire people to follow its teachings. So to produce a chapter like the qur'an means to produce a chapter as inspirational and as successful as the qur'an."

I have now named examples of four texts which, like the Qur'an, inspired their followers to overthrow a country (or several countries).

Since then, your challenge has changed for "produce a chapter as inspirational as the Qur'an" to "produce a book which inspired people to overthrow a country" to "produce a religious text which inspired people to overthrow a country".

By this point, it is clear that you are in denial. You refuse to accept the fact that you are demonstrably wrong and have made a series of claims with no basis whatsoever. You have done nothing but prove the depths of your delusion and inability to accept reality.


The challenge that was met, changed, met again, then changed again, then changed once more and then finally met.

Yep. That proves it.

Response: O.K. I see we have a spin artist. As such, it is only necessary to debunk one of your claims, to prove your attempts to display discrepancy on my part, knowing that the denial to the truth is on your part.

So my simple question is this:

Since you claimed that I have changed the challenge to "produce a book which inspired people to overthrow a country" , then quote any of my posts, which says word for word, what you have just stated, if you are truthful.

 

[Fatihah]

You're changing the conditions of the challenge again. Now you're saying that it is the people who created the concept who had to overthrow the government - this part has not appeared in the challenge before - you are clearly avoiding the fact that we have successfully met and refuted your challenge several times now.


Self-affirming ignorance. That's what I've come to expect from you.

Tell you what, here's my challenge to you. I like the Catcher in the Rye by J.D Salinger. I believe that it is the single greatest piece of literature in all of history, and I believe this because it inspired Mark David Chapman to murder John Lennon. Since no other text in history has ever been able to inspire an ordinary many to kill a multi-platinum selling former Beatle, that means that it is the work of God. No other text has ever met this challenge, therefore the Catcher in the Rye was the work of God.

Response: Refer to post 127.

 

[JMorris]

Yes, I agree,the practice of raiding an unarmed caravan traveling to a holy site is unjust and not peaceful.
Nor is the practice of assassinating a writer critical of this violence in any way peaceful or just.
And most definitely the acts of murder, rape, torture and pillage against those of a different belief are all unjust and most assuredly not to be done by those proclaiming peace.

Glad we can agree.

:drool:

 

[YmirGF]

:drool:

It was rather sweet, wasn't it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Response: O.K. I see we have a spin artist. As such, it is only necessary to debunk one of your claims, to prove your attempts to display discrepancy on my part, knowing that the denial to the truth is on your part.

So my simple question is this:

Since you claimed that I have changed the challenge to "produce a book which inspired people to overthrow a country" , then quote any of my posts, which says word for word, what you have just stated, if you are truthful.

How telling that you're only willing to try and debunk just one of my arguments (even though it's a claim that I never made), rather than respond to the rest of my arguments. It's obvious that I was paraphrasing, but nonetheless here you go:

Challenge #1, post 85:
"produce a chapter like the qur'an means to produce a chapter as inspirational and as successful as the qur'an. (...) So to those who claim that this was the act of a man made religion, then why don't you do the same? Why don't you create your own religion and see how far you get? And when you do, you will fail. Not only will you will fail, you will fail miserably. Muhammad conquered Arabia. I guarantee you, you won't even be able to conquer your own neighborhood. And once you fail, you will be forced to ask yourself the question "why was it possible for Muhammad but impossible for me and anyone else?"

Challenge #2, post 89:
"... you've failed to produce a chapter like the qur'an. Instead, you've answered by mentioning the bible, communist manifesto, and Martin Luther. But that's a statement. Where's the proof? Until we see this, then you have no evidence that supports that it is not a miracle, making the challenge still valid, and proof that the qur'an is the true word of Allah(swt)."

Challenge #3, post 94:
"Prove that it is possible for a person/s to create a religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. If communism or Mormons have done so, then prove so."

Challenge #4, posts 105 and 113:
"... neither the Mormons or the Communists actually accomplished the challege posed."
"I'm saying that the communists did not create their own religion and use the religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation."

Challenge #5, post 117:
"The difference is that those who created communism did not conquer any nation by inspiring it's followers to conquer a nation with communism. So your example doesn't work, which again is further evidence for the validity of challenge that the qur'an is from Allah(swt)."

Challenge #6, post 119:
"The conquering mentioned in the challenge is a criteria of truth because the conquest of Muhammad (saw) is miraculous. The criteria mentioned in the challenge also debunks any idea that islam was spread by any other way by Muhammad(saw), other than through the help of Allah (swt), through self-defense, and to establish peace through the most fair and reasonable of ways."

So, a quick rundown of the journey your challenge went on:

1. It started with "produce a chapter as inspirational and as successful as the qur'an".
2. Then, you altered the criteria to include proof that the Qur'an is wrong and that my claims were true.
3. Then, the challenge changed entirely to "Prove that it is possible for a person/s to create a religion (...) to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation."
4. Then you altered the criteria again so that it was the ideology itself, rather than it's followers, that had to conquer a nation.
5. Then, you claimed that the conquest had to be miraculous.

So, it went from "produce a chapter as inspirational and successful to the Qur'an" to "produce a religion that inspired followers to miraculously conquer a nation based solely on it's ideology with specific proof that it is correct and that the Qur'an is wrong".

By the way, you haven't responded to my challenge. Your refusal to do so proves that the Catcher in the Rye is the word of God.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Wait, is this thread anti-Islamic, or is it okay to point out steaming piles of BS? Am I supposed to just step in it? I need guidance.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Wait, is this thread anti-Islamic, or is it okay to point out steaming piles of BS? Am I supposed to just step in it? I need guidance.

By all means, point them out. Just be sure to eat a good meal and get a good night's sleep before you start. The piles of BS left by the Koran apologists are EVERYWHERE!

 

[Fatihah]

In post 127, I asked you the following:

Since you claimed that I have changed the challenge to "produce a book which inspired people to overthrow a country" , then quote any of my posts, which says word for word, what you have just stated, if you are truthful.

So what do you do? You present the following:

How telling that you're only willing to try and debunk just one of my arguments (even though it's a claim that I never made), rather than respond to the rest of my arguments. It's obvious that I was paraphrasing, but nonetheless here you go:

Challenge #1, post 85:
"produce a chapter like the qur'an means to produce a chapter as inspirational and as successful as the qur'an. (...) So to those who claim that this was the act of a man made religion, then why don't you do the same? Why don't you create your own religion and see how far you get? And when you do, you will fail. Not only will you will fail, you will fail miserably. Muhammad conquered Arabia. I guarantee you, you won't even be able to conquer your own neighborhood. And once you fail, you will be forced to ask yourself the question "why was it possible for Muhammad but impossible for me and anyone else?"

Challenge #2, post 89:
"... you've failed to produce a chapter like the qur'an. Instead, you've answered by mentioning the bible, communist manifesto, and Martin Luther. But that's a statement. Where's the proof? Until we see this, then you have no evidence that supports that it is not a miracle, making the challenge still valid, and proof that the qur'an is the true word of Allah(swt)."

Challenge #3, post 94:
"Prove that it is possible for a person/s to create a religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. If communism or Mormons have done so, then prove so."

Challenge #4, posts 105 and 113:
"... neither the Mormons or the Communists actually accomplished the challege posed."
"I'm saying that the communists did not create their own religion and use the religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation."

Challenge #5, post 117:
"The difference is that those who created communism did not conquer any nation by inspiring it's followers to conquer a nation with communism. So your example doesn't work, which again is further evidence for the validity of challenge that the qur'an is from Allah(swt)."

Challenge #6, post 119:
"The conquering mentioned in the challenge is a criteria of truth because the conquest of Muhammad (saw) is miraculous. The criteria mentioned in the challenge also debunks any idea that islam was spread by any other way by Muhammad(saw), other than through the help of Allah (swt), through self-defense, and to establish peace through the most fair and reasonable of ways."

Simply amazing! You quote 6 posts, and absolutely none of them say:

"produce a book which inspired people to overthrow a country".

So we have a problem. Either you can not comprehend simple english, or you are a liar. Tell us, which one is it? You claim the statement was mentioned, quoted 6 posts, and the statement is not there. Simply amazing!

Even worse, you say the following:

"It's obvious that I was paraphrasing, but nonetheless here you go".

Then, if you're paraphrasing, then by your own admission,.............you are changing the challenge! Not me.

So what we can conclude here is either an inability to comprehend simple basic english, or a severe case of denial on your part, that the challenge does in fact prove that the qur'an is the true word of Allah(swt). For the only reason why someone would twist the words of the challenge as you just have is becacause they know that the challenge is valid to begin with. So in an effort to make it seem invalid, they must play with the words, confirming their denial. Thanks for the confirmation.

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.

 

[skydivephil]

Response: Once again, the challenge is dodged. Your refusal to accept the challenge is further evidence that the qur'an is from Allah(swt). The conquering of Mormons and Communist is not the same as the criteria mentioned in the challenge.

The conquering mentioned in the challenge is a criteria of truth because the conquest of Muhammad (saw) is miraculous. The criteria mentioned in the challenge also debunks any idea that islam was spread by any other way by Muhammad(saw), other than through the help of Allah (swt), through self-defense, and to establish peace through the most fair and reasonable of ways.

The conquering in the challenge is a criteria of truth because the conquest of the Israelis is miraculous. The criteria mentioned in the challenge also debunks the idea that Zionism was spread by any other way by the Israelis, other than through the help of Jehovah, through self defense, and to establish peace though the most fair and reasonable of way.

Lol

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Simply amazing! You quote 6 posts, and absolutely none of them say:

"produce a book which inspired people to overthrow a country".

Yes, they do. You're acting as if I was claiming to quote you word for word - I clearly stated that I was paraphrasing, and when you look at the six posts I quoted you'll see that they ask exactly what I say they did.

So we have a problem. Either you can not comprehend simple english, or you are a liar. Tell us, which one is it? You claim the statement was mentioned, quoted 6 posts, and the statement is not there. Simply amazing!

I said it was the terms of the challenge you provided - I did not say it was an exact statement.

What's more, we've refuted every argument and met every challenge you've presented to us so far. So, either you're a liar or you can't comprehend English.

Even worse, you say the following:

"It's obvious that I was paraphrasing, but nonetheless here you go".

Then, if you're paraphrasing, then by your own admission,.............you are changing the challenge! Not me.

But I was not - and I specifically quoted your six posts and in exactly what ways your challenge changed throughout those posts. And you did request what I said that you did. Can you respond to that argument or not?

So what we can conclude here is either an inability to comprehend simple basic english, or a severe case of denial on your part, that the challenge does in fact prove that the qur'an is the true word of Allah(swt). For the only reason why someone would twist the words of the challenge as you just have is becacause they know that the challenge is valid to begin with. So in an effort to make it seem invalid, they must play with the words, confirming their denial. Thanks for the confirmation.

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem.

I just quoted your six posts in which you clearly and intentionally change the conditions of the challenge whenever it is met. Your inability to refute a single part of that post is a clear indication of the fact that your argument is entirely baseless.

Seriously, get some perspective. You're rattling on about the particular phrasing of several words that I said, while I'm systematically shutting down your entire argument so far and showing up your ignorance. It does not look good for you.

Also, you still haven't responded to my challenge. Therefore, Sallinger is God.

 

[Fatihah]

Yes, they do. You're acting as if I was claiming to quote you word for word - I clearly stated that I was paraphrasing, and when you look at the six posts I quoted you'll see that they ask exactly what I say they did.


I said it was the terms of the challenge you provided - I did not say it was an exact statement.

What's more, we've refuted every argument and met every challenge you've presented to us so far. So, either you're a liar or you can't comprehend English.


But I was not - and I specifically quoted your six posts and in exactly what ways your challenge changed throughout those posts. And you did request what I said that you did. Can you respond to that argument or not?


I just quoted your six posts in which you clearly and intentionally change the conditions of the challenge whenever it is met. Your inability to refute a single part of that post is a clear indication of the fact that your argument is entirely baseless.

Seriously, get some perspective. You're rattling on about the particular phrasing of several words that I said, while I'm systematically shutting down your entire argument so far and showing up your ignorance. It does not look good for you.

Also, you still haven't responded to my challenge. Therefore, Sallinger is God.

Response: Post 134 proves to the contrary.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Response: Post 134 proves to the contrary.

Forget it. If you're not going to even try to contest the point there's no point in arguing with you - you're clearly just too headstrong to admit that you're wrong.

But, at least in this thread I have conclusively proven that Allah does not exist - since J.D Sallinger is now officially God. This was proven by you being completely unable to so much as address my challenge.

 

[Fatihah]

Forget it. If you're not going to even try to contest the point there's no point in arguing with you - you're clearly just too headstrong to admit that you're wrong.

But, at least in this thread I have conclusively proven that Allah does not exist - since J.D Sallinger is now officially God. This was proven by you being completely unable to so much as address my challenge.

Response: Yet post 134 proves to the contrary.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Response: Yet post 134 proves to the contrary.

Praise Sallinger.