The Koran is the Word of God? How do we know this?

[MSizer]

You have not proven that the koran could not have been created by humans.
Let alone that is was not created by humans.


You must have the most asinine, self serving definition of the word "proof" known to all mankind.

You're getting a frubal for that.

 

[Fatihah]

You have not proven that the koran could not have been created by humans.
Let alone that is was not created by humans.


You must have the most asinine, self serving definition of the word "proof" known to all mankind.

Response: Likewise.

 

[McBell]

Response: Likewise.

I so love when you feel you have been cornered.

You reply with "likewise" or "there's a statement, where's the proof?"

OASN:
I am still waiting for a Muslim with at least a double digit IQ to show up in the thread.

 

[Fatihah]

I so love when you feel you have been cornered.

You reply with "likewise" or "there's a statement, where's the proof?"

OASN:
I am still waiting for a Muslim with at least a double digit IQ to show up in the thread.

Response: A double digit IQ is pointless to a non-muslim with no IQ.

 

[McBell]

Response: A double digit IQ is pointless to a non-muslim with no IQ.

But there is not a non-Muslim with no IQ in this thread.

So you are either attempting to be insulting, which failed miserably, or you are merely spouting more nonsense for lack of having anything better to say.

 

[MSizer]

But there is not a non-Muslim with no IQ in this thread.

So you are either attempting to be insulting, which failed miserably, or you are merely spouting more nonsense for lack of having anything better to say.

Mestemia, you can back away if you like, with the comfort of knowing that others like you recognize the utter absurdity of Fatihah's statements. They are so vacant that I hear crickets while I read them.

 

[Fatihah]

Mestemia, you can back away if you like, with the comfort of knowing that others like you recognize the utter absurdity of Fatihah's statements. They are so vacant that I hear crickets while I read them.

Response: The pot calls the kettle black.

 

[McBell]

Response: The pot calls the kettle black.

response: there's a statement, where's the proof?




Oh yeah, you refuse to present any proof....

 

[Fatihah]

response: there's a statement, where's the proof?




Oh yeah, you refuse to present any proof....

Response: Still trolling?

 

[McBell]

Response: Still trolling?

Nope.
Just asking for you to actually back up your claims with something other than asinine non-sense.

Of course, since you are unable to actually comprehend what trolling is and rely so heavily on your humpty-dumptyism, I do not expect you to do anything other than what you have done thus far: Spout asinine non-sense, then revert to your classic sayings when asked to actually present.


Though it is rather entertaining to watch.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think Fatihah's real problem is the fact that he asks a question, and if he doesn't get the answer he's expecting, he claims his question wasn't answered.

He's asked us to produce a chapter like the Qur'an. I'm thus far the only one who has done so, and I've been more or less ignored. I have a feeling he's not really reading our posts, if not skipping posts altogether.

I've also noticed that he seems to be under the impression that we're trying to prove the Qur'an is not the word of God. I don't know about others here, I know that's not something I'm trying to do.

 

[McBell]

I think Fatihah's real problem is the fact that he asks a question, and if he doesn't get the answer he's expecting, he claims his question wasn't answered.

He's asked us to produce a chapter like the Qur'an. I'm thus far the only one who has done so, and I've been more or less ignored. I have a feeling he's not really reading our posts, if not skipping posts altogether.

I've also noticed that he seems to be under the impression that we're trying to prove the Qur'an is not the word of God. I don't know about others here, I know that's not something I'm trying to do.

I have actually wondered if perhaps Fatihah is a bot.

 

[Fatihah]

I think Fatihah's real problem is the fact that he asks a question, and if he doesn't get the answer he's expecting, he claims his question wasn't answered.

He's asked us to produce a chapter like the Qur'an. I'm thus far the only one who has done so, and I've been more or less ignored. I have a feeling he's not really reading our posts, if not skipping posts altogether.

I've also noticed that he seems to be under the impression that we're trying to prove the Qur'an is not the word of God. I don't know about others here, I know that's not something I'm trying to do.

Response: I haven't ignored you. I don't expect any answer either so that statement is not correct. You may answer however you like. It does not matter to me nor does it make or break me.

You say you have produced a chapter like the qur'an? Where is it? If I didn't address it, it's because I must have overlooked it, not ignored it. So where is the chapter in which you've produced like the qur'an?

 

[Willamena]

I think Fatihah's real problem is the fact that he asks a question, and if he doesn't get the answer he's expecting, he claims his question wasn't answered.

It's the posts that are ad hominem that he refers to as "trolling" (for an emotional response).

If he didn't get an answer to the question he asked, I suspect that the question that was answered wasn't the question he intended.

 

[Fatihah]

It's the posts that are ad hominem that he refers to as "trolling" (for an emotional response).

If he didn't get an answer to the question he asked, I suspect that the question that was answered wasn't the question he intended.

Thank You.

 

[McBell]

It's the posts that are ad hominem that he refers to as "trolling" (for an emotional response).

However when one looks at the posts he uses the "trolling" response to, one sees that there are several posts he uses this reply that are not ad hominem.

So even though he is likely to jump on your comment as his reason, it is clear that the reasoning you present is not the reason he replies with "trolling".

 

[Willamena]

However when one looks at the posts he uses the "trolling" response to, one sees that there are several posts he uses this reply that are not ad hominem.

True; some are simply statements about him, rather than arguments. The effect is the same.

 

[Willamena]

Allah is the only true agency (Wahdut - ul - Wujud | Suite101.com). If any book is the word of Allah, all books are.

 

[Riverwolf]

Response: I haven't ignored you. I don't expect any answer either so that statement is not correct. You may answer however you like. It does not matter to me nor does it make or break me.

You say you have produced a chapter like the qur'an? Where is it? If I didn't address it, it's because I must have overlooked it, not ignored it. So where is the chapter in which you've produced like the qur'an?

I've directed you towards two entire books, neither of which are the word of God, but are better than the Qur'an in my opinion. It is your responsibility to pick them up from your local library and read them yourself, as at least one of them should be readily available. (I don't have it with me, and I can't type out a portion of it for a couple of reasons: One, copyright laws, I don't know if I can legally do so, and two: the best parts of the book come near the end, and I don't want to spoil it; Jurassic Park is a novel, after all.)


...OH, wait!! I get it. The challenge is to produce a "remake" or a "sequal" to the Qur'an. (Or just a plain rip-off.) Is that right?

 

[Willamena]

Has anyone thought to just ask what "surpass" entails in Islam?