What Soora 2:23 really says to SFE Talk?

Debmey

Good, start a new thread.

Fuzzman

Originally posted by OnEdge at 2005-3-14 04:00 PM:
yes sir...call your witnesses then...heh.

So where is your beloved Truthy? I know how hard you must be PM-ing Truthy forcing Truthy to take the fall for you. The thing is will Truthy go thru with the "witness issue" that will only serve to humiliate and make lose credibility for Truthy if Truthy supports you Hickory Dickory Dock comparison. I suspect Truthy will ask you to come up with something more credible to save Truthy face if your plan backfires [which it will]?

Bring on Truthy.

ARI FUZZMAN

Debmey

First you gotta accept a negative result if Truth rule against the Quran. Wil you abandon Islam if Truth says so?

Fuzzman

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-3-25 02:18 AM:
First you gotta accept a negative result if Truth rule against the Quran. Wil you abandon Islam if Truth says so?

On your Hickory Dickory Dock Comparative? Truthy ain't that big a fool you make Truthy out to be? ..unless of course Truthy is you in another multinick? If you aren't multinicking as Truth, then you must be seen as trying to insult whatever intelligence that might be housed between Truthy's both ears?

By putting up Truthy as a witness, you have ultimately moved over to the objectivity of the 2:23 without knowing it? Why put yourself through the motions if you do not believe the 2:23 carries the objective criteria hunted down by you?

ARI FUZZMAN

Debmey

Truth is the judge, not the objective criteria.
You can't even tell judge from objective criteria for teh challenge, how can you be qualified to discuss the sura challenge? Ahahahahahahahahahaha...................

Fuzzman

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-3-25 02:39 AM:
Truth is the judge, not the objective criteria.
You can't even tell judge from objective criteria for teh challenge, how can you be qualified to discuss the sura challenge? Ahahahahahahahahahaha. ...

Hahaha yourself puttycat. If Truthy shows up means you are meeting the criteria of the 2:23. After all you already provided the objective by putting up your Hickory Dickory nonsense. So get Truthy into here pronto, so we can get on with your childish play. I want to see Truthy exercising his right of speech after this post. No more of your heckling if you're dead serious.

ARI FUZZMAN

Debmey

Ahahahahaha........ can't even tell judge from objcetive criteria, thats funny.

cheers

Fuzzman

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-3-25 02:52 AM:
Ahahahahaha........ can't even tell judge from objcetive criteria, thats funny.
cheers

Hahahaha have you forgotten that your so-called "judge" comes into play only "when in doubt"? Remember or are you having a bout of Alzheimer's?

ARI FUZZMAN

Fuzzman

Debmey cannot take on the 2:23 no matter what. To make matters even worser off, Debmey's having a hard time trying to rope in Truth as his "star witness" over the tons and tons of PM-ing going between them with Debmey pleading really hard in salvaging Debmey's sinking credibility. My advice to Debmey is none other than to just keep on trying harder and even harder!

ARI FUZZMAN

Debmey

I've already taken on and beaten the Quran and yu have no reply to it except denial.

peace

Fuzzman

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-4-7 09:29 PM:
I've already taken on and beaten the Quran and yu have no reply to it except denial. peace

Beaten the Quran you say? Funny. So how is it that if you've truly "beaten" the Quran, Truthy ain't on the scene as your "witness"? Could it be that Truthy had placed Truthy's self under a witness protection programme safe away from you? LOL

ARI FUZZMAN

Fuzzman

Debmey failed the following:-

Point 1.
Debmey failed in rebuking my presentation that the soora 2:23 in itself is a perfect OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.

Point Two.
Debmey failed in providing hard proofs to show that soora 2:23 actually issues a defiant challenge to any doubtors in an aggressive manner.

Point Three.
Debmey has failed in recruting Truth to be his fallguy witness. Maybe it's because Truth prefers a witness protection programme instead? LOL

Point Four.
Debmey does not touch this thread as he is officially LOST FOR WORDS!

ARI FUZZMAN

Fuzzman

See this link, like Debmey they too can't put up a really strong case against the 2:23.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Miracle/baretruth.html

                                               Producing a Sura

    And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides God, if your (doubts) are true.

    -- Qur'an 2:23 (trans. A. Yusuf Ali)

Although as a Christian I certainly can't claim to be impartial in matters of religion, I have always been a little put off by the challenge in Qur'an 2:23.

A minor objection is that aesthetics can never be a measure of truth. Although truth can certainly be beautiful, so can lies. On the other hand, truth can sometimes be unattractive - like an uncut diamond, or a boring sermon.

Still, I'm not sure that's a major obstacle. It could plausibly be argued that Allah was not making beauty the measure of truth, so much as he was making the Qur'an's beauty a sign to doubters. It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's valid - not unlike Moses besting the sorcerers of Egypt with his miracles. Miracles never became the standard of truth in a logical sense (most of us have probably heard of "lying wonders"), but Moses's miracles were a sign that Allah was with him.

So the inappropriateness of aesthetics as an arbiter of truth is not my major objection. The real problem is much graver. In particular, I believe that the main problem is that this is not a legitimate challenge at all, because the deck is heavily stacked in favor of the Qur'an.

There is a subtle but very real circularity for believing Muslims. The circularity goes like this: If you're an orthodox Muslim, you believe that the entire Qur'an is the very word of God, and is therefore inerrant. As an implication of this, he or she also believes that there is no other writing as eloquent as the Qur'an. Therefore, any attempt to "produce a Sura like thereunto" must fail - thus verifying that the Qur'an is the very word of God and inerrant. In fact, the verse following the challenge affirms the impossibility of producing such a Sura, and threatens disbelievers with the Fire whose fuel is men and stones:

    But if ye cannot - and of a surety ye cannot - then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.

    -- Qur'an 2.24 (trans. A. Yusuf Ali)

It is no surprise, then, that Muslims have found no sura equal to the Qur'an. The surprise would be if they had, since even admitting the possibility of a better Sura contradicts 2:24, which says "of a surety ye cannot," hence being a sign of disbelief.

When I see a challenge like this it does not convince me of the Qur'an's truth. It does rather the opposite, making me suspect that the message is false. (By the way, I mean no offense to any Muslims who may read this. I just couldn't think of any inoffensive way to say this.)

It seems to me that the real test of truth is how well it stands up when stripped of eloquence:

    When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

    -- 1 Corinthians 2:1-5

Eloquence is a good thing, a powerful servant of truth. But it is also fickle, serving falsehood as eagerly as truth.

So, how well do the messages of Islam and Christianity stand up on their own merits? Now that's a question worth debating.

Faruq al-Dhimmi

Debmey

Thanks for posting this stuff Fuzzy. It does prove that not only is the Quran false, the challenge by sura 2 is not a valid one. The logic is clear, the sura like it challenge is dishonest.

cheers

[ Last edited by Debmey on 27-6-2005 at 10:05 AM ]

Fuzzman

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-6-27 10:02 AM:
Thanks for posting this stuff Fuzzy. It does prove that not only is the Quran false, the challenge by sura 2 is not a valid one. The logic is clear, the sura like it challenge is dishonest.cheers ...

Wrong dude. The Christian author, Faruq al-Dhimmi who wrote this piece only managed putting up lame excuses with no hard facts backing him. Something that you too are very "fluent and fluid" in. Just show me in any one passage of what your prized author wrote carries any weight in rebuttal at all. Just one!

ARI FUZZMAN

Debmey

The hard facts of Faruq al-Dhimmi's position are within the quran itself. There are no objective criteria, no judges, and the Quran predetermines the outcome even before the competition.

The sura like it challenge is therefore silly and invalid. Muslims like Fuzzy are dishonest.

Fuzzman

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-6-28 10:32 AM:
The hard facts of Faruq al-Dhimmi's position are within the quran itself. There are no objective criteria, no judges, and the Quran predetermines the outcome even before the competition.
The sura like it challenge is therefore silly and invalid. Muslims like Fuzzy are dishonest.  

"Hard facts" from Faruq you say? Then how is it that you cannot put justice to even one sentence; let alone a whole paragraph from Faruq's piece floating in Answering Islam?

The objective criteria rings through clear in that the criteria is to produce only when in doubt. You know that very well indeed dontcha? Quran doesn't "predetermine" nor supercede the 2:23. Quran is miraculous because Quran doesn't predetermine the mindset of the doubtor with 2:24, but rather the capability to prove the Quran being false. Get that right.

Soora 2:23 is not silly or invalid. It is people like you who are. You cannot even begin to explain with "hard facts" that the verse of the soora 2:23 does not contain the perfect Objective Criteria as so accused. So you choose to remain dishonest by exibiting glaring ignorance right into page 26 here. Page 26 and you cannot make your stand and you dare say Fuzzman is dishonest? What nerve you have. You should be ashamed of yourself for you are nothing but a failed missionary or priest, whatever you might want to describe yourself.

C'mon Debmey show me just one part of Faruq's piece that has merit. Just one. Cheers my fren!

ARI FUZZMAN

[ Last edited by Fuzzman on 29-6-2005 at 12:56 AM ]

anti_aktivis

Originally posted by Debmey at 28-6-2005 10:32 AM:
The hard facts of Faruq al-Dhimmi's position are within the quran itself. There are no objective criteria, no judges, and the Quran predetermines the outcome even before the competition.

The su ...

When a liar talk about honest , chaos. Debmey Debmey. So my other fellow friends , if u want to know  who is debmey  visit this link . Pls take note all Debmey statement. Does he in the right position to question others honesty?Judge ur self

http://forum.cari.com.my/viewthread.php?tid=163308&fpage=2

Off topic a bit , sorry fuzzman.

sonny~~

good lord!  this thread still up n bout  :

wira_melayu

Originally posted by sonny~~ at 30-6-2005 09:19 AM:
good lord!  this thread still up n bout  :

Hi Sonny,nice to see you after so long!Still forumming in the other side with Tommy?:solute: