Status: Age: 39 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 69 Location: Canada
Post subject:
Brother AhmedBahgat you are doing a good job.
Regarding Thul Qarnayn. What was in the well was not the sun, but Thul Qarnayn himself.
حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ
Until, when he reached sunset,
وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ
He found it going away
فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ
in a spring of murky water
It's not the sun that is in the murky water. It is Thul Qarnayn and from there he sees the sun going away.
To clarify my point even more, here is an equal restructuring of the verse;
حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ
Until, when he reached sunset,
فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ
at a spring of murky water
وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ
He found it going away
What the verse means is that when Thul Qarnayn reached at a well of murky water at sunset, he saw the sun going away.
What supports my stance even more is the verses that follow it which illustrate Thul Qarnayn's journey even more. Thul Qarnayn could not have continued his journey and found other peoples if the sun was "setting on earth" like those hateful ignorant scum want us to believe. It must have burnt them.
Posted:
Sun 26 Oct, 2008 10:56 am
Windsor Pawn
Status: Age: 39 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 69 Location: Canada
Post subject:
Quote:
Now those who had been dismissed by him knows that he cannot answer their posts so they remained: dismissed!!
Is this true brother AhmedBahgat? I know that those hateful ignorants lie through their teeth, but is this true? And what arguments is that arrogant scumbag referring to?
Posted:
Sun 26 Oct, 2008 11:02 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Windsor wrote:
Brother AhmedBahgat you are doing a good job.
Regarding Thul Qarnayn. What was in the well was not the sun, but Thul Qarnayn himself.
حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ
Until, when he reached sunset,
وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ
He found it going away
فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ
in a spring of murky water
It's not the sun that is in the murky water. It is Thul Qarnayn and from there he sees the sun going away.
To clarify my point even more, here is an equal restructuring of the verse;
حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ
Until, when he reached sunset,
فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ
at a spring of murky water
وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ
He found it going away
What the verse means is that when Thul Qarnayn reached at a well of murky water at sunset, he saw the sun going away.
What supports my stance even more is the verses that follow it which illustrate Thul Qarnayn's journey even more. Thul Qarnayn could not have continued his journey and found other peoples if the sun was "setting on earth" like those hateful ignorant scum want us to believe. It must have burnt them.
Salam mate
Very good point that you have raised, in fact the Quran is full of such technique where some words come after other words while it is also ok that the words come first before these words, however what you said at the last paragraph:
What supports my stance even more is the verses that follow it which illustrate Thul Qarnayn's journey even more. Thul Qarnayn could not have continued his journey and found other peoples if the sun was "setting on earth" like those hateful ignorant scum want us to believe. It must have burnt them.
That is a killer of a refute, dear brother, thank you
Cheers
Posted:
Tue 28 Oct, 2008 6:55 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Quote:
Now those who had been dismissed by him knows that he cannot answer their posts so they remained: dismissed!!
Windsor wrote:
Is this true brother AhmedBahgat?
Sorry mate, i did not see your comment, I was actually made aware of your question by the goons on FFI web site,
You should know me better mate, of course it is in no where near the truth, those who have been dismissed, have been so based on strong merit yet I am reserving my right to reply to them any time I wish, indeed I did in this show by replying to the life dismissal piss, these people are like our seceterian brothers, they will attack you personally when you corner them and they end up having nothing to say but defame you, I see it all the times, that is why I have created the dismissing rules to control such freaks who keep on harassing me trying hard to distort what I am saying
Windsor wrote:
I know that those hateful ignorants lie through their teeth, but is this true?
Of course not
Windsor wrote:
And what arguments is that arrogant scumbag referring to?
I really do not know man, here is a link to the thread and see for yourself, they suppose to have replied to you too btw, in page 8 or 9
Status: Age: 39 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 69 Location: Canada
Post subject:
Quote:
Sorry mate, i did not see your comment, I was actually made aware of your question by the goons on FFI web site,
Are they monitoring this thread?
Quote:
You should know me better mate, of course it is in no where near the truth, those who have been dismissed, have been so based on strong merit yet I am reserving my right to reply to them any time I wish, indeed I did in this show by replying to the life dismissal piss, these people are like our seceterian brothers, they will attack you personally when you corner them and they end up having nothing to say but defame you, I see it all the times, that is why I have created the dismissing rules to control such freaks who keep on harassing me trying hard to distort what I am saying
I understand brother. You should not debate hateful arrogant ignorants. People watching may not know the difference!
Quote:
Of course not
That's what I thought too.
Quote:
I really do not know man, here is a link to the thread and see for yourself, they suppose to have replied to you too btw, in page 8 or 9
I am sorry brother AhmedBahgat but I do not visit hate sites. So if you would please copy and paste their "replies" to me here it would be very kind of you and I would very much appreciate it.
Also please keep us updated with their "replies" as well so we can keep up with refuting them point by point.
Peace.
Posted:
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 12:29 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Windsor wrote:
I am sorry brother AhmedBahgat but I do not visit hate sites. So if you would please copy and paste their "replies" to me here it would be very kind of you and I would very much appreciate it.
Also please keep us updated with their "replies" as well so we can keep up with refuting them point by point.
Peace.
I do understand mate, in fact what you are doing by avoiding such web sites is not bad at all, i wish I can do the same, however I decided to go down to their level and yet I still beat them hard at such
I will copy of their commenst to you mate, they actually invited you to come and join them, but I support you in your decision not to visit such web sites
Take care
Posted:
Fri 31 Oct, 2008 10:01 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Here is one mate:
Zorasta_Russ of FFI said:
Ahmed isn't back with an answer yet but read this
Windsor wrote:
Brother AhmedBahgat you are doing a good job.
Regarding Thul Qarnayn. What was in the well was not the sun, but Thul Qarnayn himself.
حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ
Until, when he reached sunset,
وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ
He found it going away
فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ
in a spring of murky water
It's not the sun that is in the murky water. It is Thul Qarnayn and from there he sees the sun going away.
To clarify my point even more, here is an equal restructuring of the verse;
حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ
Until, when he reached sunset,
فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ
at a spring of murky water
وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ
He found it going away
What the verse means is that when Thul Qarnayn reached at a well of murky water at sunset, he saw the sun going away.
What supports my stance even more is the verses that follow it which illustrate Thul Qarnayn's journey even more. Thul Qarnayn could not have continued his journey and found other peoples if the sun was "setting on earth" like those hateful ignorant scum want us to believe. It must have burnt them.
Notice what Windsor wrote. He wrote that "What was in the well was not the sun, but Thul Qarnayn himself". When did Zul Qarnain stand in the well? At sunset? If he was standing in the well at sunset and looking up would he see the sun?
Now who is changing Allah's word to get out of an absurdity? We who are the kuffar or this Muslim named Windsor? Notice from the quote above "To clarify my point even more, here is an equal restructuring of the verse;". Why would anyone have to restructure a verse? We who are the kuffar don't have to restructure any verse.
Notice how Ahmed pats his little buddy Windsor on the back.
Ahmed Bahgat wrote:
Salam mate
Very good point that you have raised, in fact the Quran is full of such technique where some words come after other words while it is also ok that the words come first before these words, however what you said at the last paragraph:
What supports my stance even more is the verses that follow it which illustrate Thul Qarnayn's journey even more. Thul Qarnayn could not have continued his journey and found other peoples if the sun was "setting on earth" like those hateful ignorant scum want us to believe. It must have burnt them.
That is a killer of a refute, dear brother, thank you
Cheers
Muslims believe that the fictional story of Zul Qarnain in the Qur'an is historically true. How sad for them. Is this a killer of a refute from Ahmed and company?
Now to get back to my question: If Zul Qarnain was standinding in a well at sunset and looking up would he see the sun? I'm not going to answer the question because I want eveyone to watch the following video.
Status: Age: 39 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 69 Location: Canada
Post subject:
Quote:
I do understand mate, in fact what you are doing by avoiding such web sites is not bad at all, i wish I can do the same, however I decided to go down to their level and yet I still beat them hard at such
Yes. Sometimes you become like forced to reply to arrogance and ignorance.
Quote:
I will copy of their commenst to you mate, they actually invited you to come and join them, but I support you in your decision not to visit such web sites
Take care
I despise such hate sites. Some arrogant and ignorant scumbags talking hate and expressing their pyschological and social complexities. I never visit them.
Peace.
Posted:
Sat 01 Nov, 2008 5:48 am
Windsor Pawn
Status: Age: 39 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 69 Location: Canada
Post subject:
Quote:
Notice what Windsor wrote. He wrote that "What was in the well was not the sun, but Thul Qarnayn himself". When did Zul Qarnain stand in the well? At sunset?
Yes, you guessed it. You must be a genius!
Quote:
If he was standing in the well at sunset and looking up would he see the sun?
Yes. Also the Quran said he "found it", not he "looked up to it". What exactly is the problem here? And what would be the problem if it said he "looked up to it"? Have you never seen the sun in its red/orange colour at sunset? You are either stupid, or playing the stupid.
Quote:
Now who is changing Allah's word to get out of an absurdity? We who are the kuffar or this Muslim named Windsor?
I am not changing God's word and there is no absurdity whatsoever as I explained above. You who miscontextualize and misinterpret God's word to feel "good" and "big" about your complex self are the fraud who change god's word.
The title "kuffar" usually refers to criminals, not non-Muslims. You must be proud!
Quote:
Notice how Ahmed pats his little buddy Windsor on the back.
I am not anyone's little buddy with all due respect to brother AhmedBahgat who is a dear friend to me. An ignorant scumbag like you will never understand this.
Quote:
Muslims believe that the fictional story of Zul Qarnain in the Qur'an is historically true. How sad for them. Is this a killer of a refute from Ahmed and company?
Early on I said you were either stupid or playing the stupid. Now I can say that you are really stupid along with the rest of your buddies over there.
My post was not intended at all to discuss the historicity of Thul Qarnayn. It only dealt with the sun-earth relationship in the Holy Quran.
Regarding the story of Thul Qarnayn. It was certainly a historical event, but we do not have evidence for it in historical records because it happened in prehistoric times. It predates the story of Adam and Eve.
Quote:
Now to get back to my question: If Zul Qarnain was standinding in a well at sunset and looking up would he see the sun? I'm not going to answer the question because I want eveyone to watch the following video.
Does this ignorant think that Thul Qarnayn was literally standing inside a well full of murky water? Please do not tell me that!
Obviously what the verse means is that he was standing at that well, and "at" is one of the meanings of the word "في" or "fi".
Posted:
Sat 01 Nov, 2008 6:32 am
Windsor Pawn
Status: Age: 39 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 69 Location: Canada
Post subject:
Keep us updated with their "replies" mate.
Posted:
Sat 01 Nov, 2008 6:40 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Ok. Now for the next slam dunk.
Zorasta Russ wrote:
الارض ليست كروية في القرآن، هي مسطحة
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Translation: The earth is not spherical in the Qur'an, it is flat.
Prove Zorasta Russ wrong.
AhmedBahgat wrote:
what the hell was that?
are you confused, drunk and manipukated (Not a typo)?
which verse no is that?
Zorasta Russ wrote:
According to the Qur'an the earth is flat
In response to the quote above Windsor wrote:
The Holy Quran never said the earth is flat. There are clear verses in the Holy Quran saying that the earth is a sphere.
Zorasta Russ wrote:
Then show us the clear verses in the Holy Quran saying that the earth is a sphere.
I'll be waiting. I have to go to work. When I return I will show flat earth Qur'anic verses.
Great, so when you come back, you will be greeted with slam dunk # 22
The Quran never directly said the earth is a ball, this is because the people wrong understanding then was that it is flat, and because the Quran is not a scientific book that was sent to prove the earth is a ball, the Quran message cold have never been jeopardized by discussing something that is not part of the message about Allah and the JD
However, the Quran has given us many signs that the earth is a ball, here is the most clear an obvious one that indirectly says, the earth is a ball:, but I will bring the most three common tranlsators, then prove them all wrong first:
YUSUFALI: He created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): He makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night: He has subjected the sun and the moon (to His law): Each one follows a course for a time appointed. Is not He the Exalted in Power - He Who forgives again and again?
PICKTHAL: He hath created the heavens and the earth with truth. He maketh night to succeed day, and He maketh day to succeed night, and He constraineth the sun and the moon to give service, each running on for an appointed term. Is not He the Mighty, the Forgiver?
SHAKIR: He has created the heavens and the earth with the truth; He makes the night cover the day and makes the day overtake the night, and He has made the sun and the moon subservient; each one runs on to an assigned term; now surely He is the Mighty, the great Forgiver. [The Quran ; 39:5]
خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بِالْحَقِّ ۖ يُكَوِّرُ اللَّيْلَ عَلَى النَّهَارِ وَيُكَوِّرُ النَّهَارَ عَلَى اللَّيْلِ ۖ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ ۖ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ۗ أَلَا هُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْغَفَّارُ (5)
-> The key word in the Arabiv verse which is repeated twice is: َيُكَوِّرُ, Yukawir, all three tranlsators above are wrong in trnslating the word, I do understand however that the word is very tough to be translated, therefore I am not surprised that all three are wrong.
-> First of all, the word: َيُكَوِّرُ, Yukawir is a verb, and to undersstand the meaning of such verb we have to look at the noun form of it which is:
كرة , Kurah, a very common Arabic word which means a ball if you look at Google translation to this word you will notice that it is translated as football:
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.
Which is certainly wrong, football in Arabic is two words as follow:
كرة القدم , Kurrah Al-Qadam, literally means The ball of the foot:
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.
However the street language in such Arabic countries use just the word Kurah to refer to football ignorantly, not strangely that Google translation uses such street language, Google translation ignorance will be exposed if we add AL which means The to the word Kurah, i.e. Al-Kurah, which should mean The Ball:
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.
The bottm line is this:
The Arabic word كرة , Kurah means one thing only which is a ball which is generic for any ball.
If we want to explicitly refer to a specific ball then we have to use a second word with the word كرة , Kurah to explicitly inform the listener of which ball we are talking about, I have shown an example of the football word in which I stated it should be in Arabic as follow:
كرة القدم , Kurrah Al-Qadam, i.e. two words to mean football, i.e. foot-ball (literally)
Another example is the Earth, if I want to refer explicitly refer to it (using professional Arabic of course), then I have to use a second word with the word Al-Kurah as follow:
الكرة الارضية , Al-Kurrah Al-Arddiah, i.e. two words to mean the Earth, i.e. the earth-ball (literally) , Google translation will see it as The Globe:
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.
This means the verb َيُكَوِّرُ, Yukawir must mean to make something into a ball, I would say the best suited translation should be to warp around, if you can think of another and more suitable English word, I would welcome your feedback because I must take care of all such tough issues in my translation.
Now we have understood the meaning of the word َيُكَوِّرُ , Yukawir, letÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s look at a more accurate translation than the three above to verse 39:5,
He has created the heavens and the earth with the truth; He wraps around the night over the day and wraps around the day over the night, and He has subjected the sun and the moon; each one runs to an appointed term. Unquestionably, He is the Mighty, the Forgiver. [The Quran ; 39:5]
خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بِالْحَقِّ ۖ يُكَوِّرُ اللَّيْلَ عَلَى النَّهَارِ وَيُكَوِّرُ النَّهَارَ عَلَى اللَّيْلِ ۖ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ ۖ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ۗ أَلَا هُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْغَفَّارُ (5)
-> Now, if the day and night are wrapped around each other, and because we are talking about the day and night on earth, then the verse indirectly and unquestionably means that the earth is wrapped around itself, i.e. the earth is a ball.
In fact if you look at your own words in your Barbie argument, you have used another form of the word Yukawir, to refer to the shape of the earth as a ball:
Zorasta Russ wrote:
الارض ليست كروية في القرآن، هي مسطحة
The first three words in what you said above are pronounced as follow: Al-Ard Laisat Karwiah, i.e. the earth is not a ball
Now, compare the word you have used Karawiah (adjective), and the word that is used in verse 39:5 Yukawir (verb), you should recognize that Yukawir must mean to wrap around
And this should constitute slam dunk # 22:
# 22
Posted:
Sat 01 Nov, 2008 11:50 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
This is how Ahmed Bahgat translated the following Qur'anic verse.
[39:5] He has created the heavens and the earth with the truth; He wraps around the night over the day and wraps around the day over the night, and He has subjected the sun and the moon; each one runs to an appointed term. Unquestionably, He is the Mighty, the Forgiver.
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Since when does wrapping night and day on eachother show that the earth is spherical?
Did you read my comment, or you are just acting dumb after been taken by surprise?
The day is the day on earth
The night is the night on earth
The day and night will never exist without a location on a planet you fool
Therefore the day of the earth means the earth, and the night of the earth means the earth
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
There is no mention of the earth rotating in any Qur'anic verse.
Of course the Quran indirectly told us that the earth swims in an orbit, as well the Quran indirectly told us that the earth rotates around itself, this will be the subject of a double slams that will be added to this thread inshaallah
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Secondly night is not an object
Of course, it is, this is because the night won�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t exist or even be defined unless we have a physical location on any planet, are you that dumb or what?
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
that can be wrapped over day
Of course it is wrapped around the day, this is because on one side of the earth there is night and the other side is day, i.e. the night of earth wraps around the day of earth and vise versa
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
and day is not an object
Of course, it is, this is because the day won�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t exist or even be defined unless we have a physical location on any planet, are you that dumb or what?
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
that can be wrapped over the night.
Of course it is wrapped around the night, this is because on one side of the earth there is night and the other side is day, i.e. the night of earth wraps around the day of earth and vise versa
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Night is a result of the absence of sunlight on the side of the rotating earth facing away from the sun and day is the result of sunlight on the side of the rotating earth facing the sun.
See, you fool, you could not define night unless you say:
Quote:
on the side of the rotating earth facing away from the sun and day is the result of sunlight on the side of the rotating earth facing the sun.
I.e. you need to mention a location on any planet to be able to define the day and night on such planet, i.e. the day and night on any planet is indeed the object of that location on that planet
Hahahah, that must be a self slam, I must make an animation for that
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
Another way to examine meaning of words in an Arabic Qur'an is to find another verse with another derivative of the root of that word. Another word close to "kurah" in Al Qur'an is كُوِّرَتْ kuwwarat, translated as covered up, folded up, overthrown.
The word Kuwirat is a verb you ignorant, and it means exactly as Yukawir but in a past tense, i.e. made into a ball, or wrapped around
Zorasta_Russ wrote:
إِذَا الشَّمْسُ كُوِّرَتْ
[Shakir 81:1] When the sun is covered,
[Yusufali 81:1] When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up;
[Pickthal 81:1] When the sun is overthrown,
I will take Y A translation as the most close to accurate one, this is because folded up, can means wrapped around, i.e. made into a ball,
However we have no issue regarding the sun, this is because the people can already see it with the naked eye that it is a ball, or at least round
The issue in hand is earth, and as I said many times, the people back then understood wrong that the earth is flat, the Quran however was not sent to directly fix their scientific ignorance, the Quran was only sent to fix their ignorance about God, therefore the message could not be jeopardized by talking about the round earth while no one back then can prove it, do you get it, mister smart?
Posted:
Sun 02 Nov, 2008 7:42 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
Today you will witness the first Bulk Slam Dunk
A confused freak on FFI raised the following Tom and Jerry argument:
sun wrote:
What did the Quran says about the possibility of having a son without a consort ?
Quote:
6:101 Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth;
How can He have a son when He has no consort?
He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.
sun wrote:
Here Allah says in the Quran, its NOT POSSIBLE to have a son without a consort, but ............
Allah contradict himself in his Quran by back tracking in Sura 19, when Mary asked how she could have a son without a consort ?
Quote:
He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. Sura 19:19-21 Pickthall
sun wrote:
In other words, Mary asks: How can I have a son when I had no consort? Her question, "How can this be?", receives Allah's answer: This is EASY for me! (19:21)
sun wrote:
On on hand Allah say it is not possible (6:101), but at the same time he says it is easy (19:21).
Ahmed says:
Hahahaha, what a stupid kafir he is. He is not the only stupid kafir on such thread though, look at what other stupid kafirs from FFI said in reply to the above crap:
skynightblaze wrote:
piscohot wrote:
That's a good one, sun. Now we have to wait for Ahmed to come and make up a story of why the words in arabic would mean that Allah was right on both accounts.
charleslemartel wrote:
, On a serious note, this raises another interesting question:
Is Allah really the almighty if he cannot have a son without a consort? Seems like Christian God is far more powerful
Islamis_Tashit wrote:
This is clearly Muhammad's own sense of reasoning at work. To him, it made no sense to be able to have a son without a consort and in the verse he asks the same question that he asked himself when Christians taught him the Gospels. I always found it odd that Muhammad decided to call a Jesus a mere man and yet did not decide to reject the virgin birth of this mere man. It seems to me like it's got to be one or the other. Either Jesus was a mere man or he was born of a virgin birth. I don't see how one can call someone born of a virgin birth to be a regular human being like you and me and Muhammad. And then, of course, Muhammad does contradict himself later. Mary can have a son without a consort, but Allah cannot. So something that is not possible for Allah is possible for Mary. Perhaps Muhammad didn't or couldn't remember everything he said, so occasionally, he would accidentally contradict himself like he did here.
sum wrote:
Hello IAT
I have to hand it to you - you always seem to hit the nail on the head.
sum
chingachgook wrote:
There is one other thing that Allah cannot do, inspite of his powers and abilities, and that is to be "3-in-1" and "1-in-3"
Allah also need angels to record the goods and bads of human probably because he has poor memories to memorize the goods and bads of billions of people. )
Haik Monsieur wrote:
Excellent pick by sun. Thank you dear. I always encourage all to read Quran again and again so that more of its flaws will be revealed on course.
Allah can not have a son because he hasn't got a cohort, but Mariam can without cohort. Clearly Allah shot on his own foot here asking "How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort"
A quality addition to Quran's inconsistencies and Allah's failings; I would request to all keep working on Quran so that more will be unearthed.
Well, I am not surprised how stupid all those freaks are, they always resort to the Tuty Fruity fallacy, you know the fallacy when you compare Apples with Oranges and say, oh yeh, they are the same.
Let me prove to you how stupid all those FFI freaks are, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s look at the first verse:
The incomparable Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a child when He has no female companion, and He created everything, and He is with everything all-Knowing.
-> The above translation is the proper translation by Free Islam, the verse is telling us the following: أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُنْ لَهُ صَاحِبَةٌ , Anna Yakun Lahu Walad Wa Lam Takun Lahu [b]SAHIBAH[/b], i.e. How could He have a child when He has no female companion, see the underlined word, Sahibah, i.e. a female companion, this is very important because the message for us is simply this:
We know of no human born on earth that did not come from inside a woman, i.e. a woman must carry such child for 9 months first, so for us (the humans), it is impossible for another human to be born on earth without been carried inside a woman for 9 month
To translate the word Sahibah, as consort is so stupipd by anyone because Sahibah is very explicit to mean a female companion
Even with Jesus, we know well that he lived a few months inside Mary before he was born.
We can not include Adam and his female companion because they were never born on earth
Let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s now look at the second verse that suppose to contradict 6:101
19: He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.,
20: She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me neither have I been unchaste?
21: He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained [The Quran ; 19:19-22]
قَالَ إِنَّمَا أَنَا رَسُولُ رَبِّكِ لِأَهَبَ لَكِ غُلَامًا زَكِيًّا (19)
قَالَتْ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لِي غُلَامٌ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ وَلَمْ أَكُ بَغِيًّا (20)
قَالَ كَذَلِكِ قَالَ رَبُّكِ هُوَ عَلَيَّ هَيِّنٌ وَلِنَجْعَلَهُ آيَةً لِلنَّاسِ وَرَحْمَةً مِّنَّا وَكَانَ أَمْرًا مَّقْضِيًّا (21)
فَحَمَلَتْهُ فَانتَبَذَتْ بِهِ مَكَانًا قَصِيًّا (22)
-> See, totally something else, this time, Mary is wondering that how come she may have a child while a man never touched her, in another word, how come she will carry a child for 9 months while no man touches her
Here is the fallacy of the confused goons of FFI explained:
1) They compare Allah with Mary, a God with a female human
2) The first verse 6:101 is telling us, how a God can have a child while He had no female companion to carry the child, while verse 19:20 is telling us how a female human will carry a child while no male human touched her
I.e they compare Apples with Oranges then concluding that both are the same, this will take us to the first Bulk Slam Dunk which is also slam dunk # 23
Posted:
Tue 04 Nov, 2008 10:28 pm
Windsor Pawn
Status: Age: 39 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 69 Location: Canada
Post subject:
Peace brother AhmedBahgat
Here is a video that clearly explains how the Quran says the earth is a sphere.
I will get back to that God Maryam argument tomorrow as I have to leave the library now. Again those retards in that hate site prove their stupidity and ignorance.
Posted:
Wed 05 Nov, 2008 8:35 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Thanks mate, I will have a look at it and let you know my feedback, I am sure the FFI goons watched it alread, and possibly I did, but I will let you know
Windsor wrote:
I will get back to that God Maryam argument tomorrow as I have to leave the library now. Again those retards in that hate site prove their stupidity and ignorance.
Great mate, please add as much valid info as you can, here is more info that I posted in there in reply to further questions regarding the same issue:
---------------------
charleslemartel wrote:
OK, so here it is for you to read:
Quote:
Criticism of the idiom
Various scholars have questioned the premise of the incomparable nature of apples and oranges, both in serious publications and in weblogs and spoofs (see below). These criticisms of the idiom, however, tend to assume that "you cannot compare apples and oranges" is a descriptive statement capable of logical or scientific counter-example, without addressing the possibility of interpreting the idiom as a normative statement (meaning something such as "it's not fair to judge apples and oranges by the same criteria").
[edit] "Legal" criticism and "mathematical" interpretation
Law professor Eugene Volokh argues that the idiom is inappropriate, because "we compare apples and oranges all the time! We compare them by price, by how much we like the taste, by likely sweetness and ripeness, by how well they'll go in a tasty fruit cocktail, and so on. In fact, every time we go to the store and buy apples rather than oranges �?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? or vice versa �?????�????�???�??�?�¢?? we are necessarily (if implicitly) comparing apples and oranges". He suggested that a better idiom would involve "two items that really are radically dissimilar" like "apples and democracy" or "oranges and the multiplication table". He believes that such "comparisons really would be hard to conduct". One of Volokh's readers noted that even such radically dissimilar nouns as apples and the multiplication table can be compared fairly easily, as when one compares the number of syllables in each word or the relative age at which children learn each concept; another reader noted that the idiom was still relevant in situations where someone criticized oranges for not being good apples.[1] Alexander "Sasha" Volokh argued that mathematically, only the properties of apples and oranges can be compared; the fruits themselves cannot be. Mathematically astute bloggers and readers forced him to partially retract his analysis, however.[2] Also, in his blog, Volokh admitted that his argument "was a joke".[3]
[edit] "Scientific" criticism
Oranges, like apples, grow on trees.At least two tongue-in-cheek scientific studies have been conducted on the subject, each of which concluded that apples can be compared to oranges fairly easily and on a low budget and the two fruits are quite similar. The first study, conducted by Scott A. Sandford of the NASA Ames Research Center, used spectrometry to analyze both apples and oranges. The study, which was published in the Annals of Improbable Research, concluded: "[...] the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future."[4]
A second study, written by Stamford Hospital's surgeon-in-chief James Barone and published in the British Medical Journal, noted that the phrase "apples and oranges" was appearing with increasing frequency in the medical literature, with some notable articles comparing "Desflurane and propofol" and "Salmeterol and ipratropium" to "apples and oranges". The study also found that both apples and oranges were sweet, similar in size, weight, and shape, that both are grown in orchards, and both may be eaten, juiced, and so on. The only significant differences found were in terms of seeds (the study used seedless oranges), the involvement of Johnny Appleseed, and color.[5]
The Annals rejoined that its "earlier investigation was done with more depth, more rigour, and, most importantly, more expensive equipment" than the British Medical Journal study.[5]
Far our Charles, do you really think that I will bloody spend any time reading the above crap that Apples are like Oranges?
Think not, pal
Apples are not like Oranges. Period
when we say something LIKE something, THEN WE HAVE TO MEAN LIKE IT IN ALL ASPECTS, not just one aspect that both are fruit, haha,
Look sir, it is like Sura LIKE IT
i.e. we need a sura like it in all aspects for us to consider it from the first place
The idiots however think that sura like means an Arabic text like the Arabic text of the Quran, hahahahah
We need a sura like it IN ALL APSECTS
one important aspect must be, IT HAS TO BE FROM A GOD, like the Quran is claimed to be from a God
Ahmed wrote:
But are they the same?
charleslemartel wrote:
Whoever said that apples and oranges are same? Or that Allah and Mary are the same?
Well, try to use some of the IQ points you have, you only need 5 IQ points to understand the stupidity of the life dismissal kafir who raised such claim
the life dismissal kafir claimed that Allah contradicted Himself if we read verses 6:101 & 19:19-22
Now, after walking through the verses, I proved that the two verses are talking about totally different things
1) 6:101 is raising a very strong argument against the confused humans who attributed to Allah something that is too human, that thing that He has a child
Now we (the humans) know of no CHILD in the whole creation that was born without living first in a female human for some month,
So Allah had successfully cornered such confused humans, by telling them indirectly the following:
How come you say that I had a CHILD, while I do not have a female partner to carry such child for me?
I.e. Allah is using a humanly argument against the humans who attributed a human activity to Allah
2) verses 19:19-22 are talking about totally something else, they are talking about Mary question the messenger sent to her that how come she will carry a son while no MAN touched her
The answer that came next, is not the answer from Allah, rather the answer from the messenger, i.e. the one who said "IT IS EASY ON ME........." was the messenger sent, i.e. Allah made it easy for him to deliver to her what she needs to be pregnant, as Allah made it easy for all His messengers to do extraordinary things, like making it easy for Moses to split the sea or making easy for Jesus to heal the sick
So Allah made it easy for His messenger (an angel who was disguised in a human shape) to make Mary pregnant
Quote:
Mary did not have the miraculous child on her own, you stupid, it was Allah Who sent a messenger to her in the shape of a human to make her pregnant
charleslemartel wrote:
Surely you do not mean to say that the messenger had a sexual intercourse with Mary?
I never said so, and I won't speculate it either because the Quran never discussed such issue, the Quran only told us that an angel in the shape of a human was sent to her to make her pregnant
Certainly it can be achieved by many possible ways, in fact the humans can make other women pregnant while they never had intercourse, so why it will be hard on an angel who is supported by Allah?
charleslemartel wrote:
Allah has clearly said that he cannot have a son without a female companion. This raises serious question about the so called almighty.
No you idiot, Allah \is asking the confused humans, HOW HE CAN HAVE A CHILD WHILE HE HAS NO FEMALE COMPANION
on the other hand you try to manipulated to redeem your embarrassment of supporting such idiotic claim by such life dismissal kafir
Allah never said what you claim that He cannot have a child without having a female companion, again, He is only cornering the confused humans who attributed something that so human to Him, by raising a human argument against them, this is because for the humans, THEY KNOW OF NO CHILD THAT IS BORN WITOUT BEING INSIDE A FEMALE COMPANION FOR A FEW MONTHS
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 10 Hours Ported for PHP-Nuke by nukemods.com
)
