"My question is, even though the Qur'an is eternal, why Allah (SWT) aborgated thsese verses? Does this verse make any sense? Can All-Wise god reveal such verses?"
There are 3 types of abrogation: generalization, specialization, and contradiction. Only contradiction is problematic and proves the Quran wrong. There is no problem with the the first 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)-> link for abrogation. The link explains the Aisha verse.
I recommend posting the question on r/Muslim for another opinion
Most of what you said is not even necessary to the discussion. Please keep it short. Quoting random bible verses that have nothing to do with the argument does not help. Thanks
"So Allah lied when he said that he likes those who clean themselves. Allah didnt mean that. Allah doesnt like them." - Allah can't lie because there is no point in believing him then. Allah says such things for the betterment of people. Not himself. That's the difference.
""It also says he doesn't have emotions. So what can we deduce from here?""
"That Quran contradicts itself?" - metaphors and generalizations are not contradictions.
"Did you know that pigs are protected animals in the Quran? Its banned to eat them. Allah protects his kind."
- Pigs are Najis. They are ritually unclean. It doesn't mean they are dirty. You can sleep with a bed filled with pigs if you like. It's okay in Islam.
Mate, you said this is an act of blasphemy. Do you think critique and blasphemy are the same thing?
"but you could say that it's only an interpretation of your own idea of the bible or the quran at least.." - it's the definition of blasphemy. I'm not interpreting here.
"In fact, there are verses against the idea of who is superior to who or who is inferior to who." - No Quran says that believers (not Muslims) are superior to disbelievers.
"which are simply a comparison of superiority, specifically moral superiority in this situation." - right. Quran believes that both Jesus and Muhammad were moral. Bible does not. If the Bible believed everyone was equal it wouldn't send immoral people to hell.
"especially the act of ranking moral superiority between two individuals (which was performed in this debate" - I understand your point. But you are being pedantic. The premise is not the most accurate. But again, Christians interpret that the Bible does not accept Muhamad.
"The debate is directly a blasphemy against both sacred items.. if you have read the topic and description, you might've understood what I had meant by "this whole debate in conclusion considered an offensive act against Christianity and Islam" - Again there is no offense because there is no blasphemy. Muslims themselves criticized Muhammad. Some believe he was infallible (i.e perfect). Some believe he was infallible in only delivering the message and could make mistakes.
"In addition to "offensive act", since the writing itself alone is simply a blasphemy itself, it can be written as an "offensive act" because it is also considered a blasphemy.. which is also what is going on here in general." Muslims have been critiquing Islam and Quran for centuries. Christians as well. They called Muhammad a magician and such. Criticism is allowed in Islam. Not blasphemy.
I was unaware that you pinged me. So I feel obliged to reply. Let me clarify further so you understand where we are coming from.
1. "I think that this whole debate is very much an act of blasphemy towards both sacred items of which is the bible and the Quran..." - Blasphemy: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk. PRO did not blaspheme or insult. He is criticizing Muhammad. Criticism is good. PRO was respectful too.
2. "Nowhere in the bible or the Quran says that Jesus is morally superior to Mohammed." - Yes it doesn't say that in the Bible or Quran. But Christians and Muslims also focus on interpretation not just translation. If the Bible says X is immoral or they interpret it from their scholars, then they will argue it.
3. "his debate in conclusion is considered an offensive act against Christianity and Islam." - There is no offense because there is no blasphemy.
And just one further clarification for the voters. When i said, " If PRO gave such arguments like it's wrong because it could hurt her or X, Y, Z. At least then PRO's argument would hold more ground."
I meant: when PRO argued that child marriage is wrong because it hurts. He asserted it without backing it up. Evidence shows such a marriage did not have that effect. Thanks
"I think that this whole debate is very much an act of blasphemy towards both sacred items of which is the bible and the quran.."
Yes, what's the problem. It's a debate of opposing sides.
"Nowhere in the bible or the quran says that Jesus is morally superior to Mohammed." Yes. But Christians don't accept Muhammad as a prophet so this is one of the points they dispute
"I believe that neither of you are qualified professionals to even create such conclusions based on religious materials that are also incorrectly informed."
What does qualified professional mean? How do you know we are not qualified?
"Maybe for your first debate, you shouldn't have yapped so much without being a bit more humble about having those conclusions made which are greatly irrelevant to the point you're trying to reach.. instead the conclusion that you made is more against you than it is to be with you as one..:"
The topic is Islam vs. Christanity, the assumption is that God exists. How is discussing two people Muhammad and Jesus is irrelevant to that discussion?
Obviosuly if you are an atheist all religion is nonsense to you. So I don't understand why your contention. Would you agree Morphinekid77?
No I am not talking to you. I said
"Idk why people ping you and then block you. I am referring to the last comment by Phenenas."
He commented and I couldn't reply back so I am replying to you because he blocked me. I don't know this person or why they are so triggered.
Just so that it is there, we did agree that we reach a common topic and I get do decide the policies, correct? This is for the record to prove I'm not being intellectually dishonest.
Idk why people ping you and then block you. I am referring to the last comment by Phenenas.
yes, I am too lazy to read hundreds of words explaining one simple thing. What's the problem?
"get your Islamic seal of approval?" - Interesting, so by that logic I said Wikipedia is good. Is Wikipedia approved by Islamic scholars? No. I don't agree with everything on there as well. The religion of peace has been disproved by many Islamic scholars mainly because it is a biased source. Wikipedia is mainly unbiased.
One thing, don't make appeal to emotions. Don't quote anti-islamic websites (like the religion of peace). It's better if you use Wikipedia, or a valid source. Make short arguments and don't go on paragraphs trying to explain something that can be done simply. It's just a headache.
Sure. Do you know how to make a debate? Since you are the instigator, you have to start it. A few things
- Make the word count at least 10,000 and the timeline 1 week.
"Tauhid vs Trinity"
- Since I'm already discussing that, lets skip for now
"Muhammad vs Jesus"
- Sure
"Quran vs Bible"
- Too broad and covers too many topics.
I believe we both accept the 2nd claim so we don't have to discuss it. Also for the first point I made, how does Christianity answer the question: how can God be both the creator and created? Is that not contradictory?
Sure. The same points were repeated in the arguments anyway. I would just like to say to the voters: The contender changed the argument (straw-man): "If one country does X (let's say circumcision) and another doesn't but both achieve the same goal (i.e healthiest countries) then is X necessary?" But my argument was not X is healthy (or necessary for health). My argument was its good because the benefits outweigh the risk.
You don't have to debate in comments. You can answer the comment in your argument. I mistakingly limited the word count so I can't explain all my points in the arguments page.
"Also, most of the healthiest countries dont circumcise.
But most of the unhealthiest shitholes do, especially muslim shit holes."
Sure. But circumcision is not the reason these countries are unhealthy as I explained before. Most unhealthiest countries are in Africa and mostly Christian. You are thinking pragmatically - you believe the truth of ideas comes from success in practicality. Which is not a logical way of thinking.
For the 2nd point: The health benefits are correlated with circumcision. But I never claimed they were the cause of it. One healthy country does X the other ones doesn't do X. Therefore, we can't judge that X is bad based off that.
Word count is too short. Make it around 100,000 because I am quoting sources. Apparently that's what you get points for (remember your vote) lol
"My question is, even though the Qur'an is eternal, why Allah (SWT) aborgated thsese verses? Does this verse make any sense? Can All-Wise god reveal such verses?"
There are 3 types of abrogation: generalization, specialization, and contradiction. Only contradiction is problematic and proves the Quran wrong. There is no problem with the the first 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)-> link for abrogation. The link explains the Aisha verse.
I recommend posting the question on r/Muslim for another opinion
Most of what you said is not even necessary to the discussion. Please keep it short. Quoting random bible verses that have nothing to do with the argument does not help. Thanks
"So he lied to make things better. That means he didnt lie. Understood." Yes according to you He is a liar so I believe a liar.
I enjoy how triggered you are by other people who are confident in their beliefs. I'll leave it at that.
You call yourself logicalDebater but all I see is preaching lol
"So Allah lied when he said that he likes those who clean themselves. Allah didnt mean that. Allah doesnt like them." - Allah can't lie because there is no point in believing him then. Allah says such things for the betterment of people. Not himself. That's the difference.
""It also says he doesn't have emotions. So what can we deduce from here?""
"That Quran contradicts itself?" - metaphors and generalizations are not contradictions.
"Did you know that pigs are protected animals in the Quran? Its banned to eat them. Allah protects his kind."
- Pigs are Najis. They are ritually unclean. It doesn't mean they are dirty. You can sleep with a bed filled with pigs if you like. It's okay in Islam.
"Fine then, be upset." - I'm not. I enjoy you being upset.
"It says in the quran that he does." - It also says he doesn't have emotions. So what can we deduce from here?
" neither should they be" - why not? People can't be upset? Interesting...
"maybe Allah likes being a pig" - Allah does not "like". I don't think you know how to read properly. Refer to previous comment #26
No. People will. Because people are irrational. Like yourself.
No. God does not "feel" according to Islam. He has attributes.
"But I cant help but hate muslims" - that's okay. I'm not an emotional person. So insults have 0 impact on me. But, please continue. I enjoy it.
"They pretend to support child marriages, but the circumcision in islam is real." - my views are open in this debate.
Mate, you said this is an act of blasphemy. Do you think critique and blasphemy are the same thing?
"but you could say that it's only an interpretation of your own idea of the bible or the quran at least.." - it's the definition of blasphemy. I'm not interpreting here.
"In fact, there are verses against the idea of who is superior to who or who is inferior to who." - No Quran says that believers (not Muslims) are superior to disbelievers.
"which are simply a comparison of superiority, specifically moral superiority in this situation." - right. Quran believes that both Jesus and Muhammad were moral. Bible does not. If the Bible believed everyone was equal it wouldn't send immoral people to hell.
"especially the act of ranking moral superiority between two individuals (which was performed in this debate" - I understand your point. But you are being pedantic. The premise is not the most accurate. But again, Christians interpret that the Bible does not accept Muhamad.
"The debate is directly a blasphemy against both sacred items.. if you have read the topic and description, you might've understood what I had meant by "this whole debate in conclusion considered an offensive act against Christianity and Islam" - Again there is no offense because there is no blasphemy. Muslims themselves criticized Muhammad. Some believe he was infallible (i.e perfect). Some believe he was infallible in only delivering the message and could make mistakes.
"In addition to "offensive act", since the writing itself alone is simply a blasphemy itself, it can be written as an "offensive act" because it is also considered a blasphemy.. which is also what is going on here in general." Muslims have been critiquing Islam and Quran for centuries. Christians as well. They called Muhammad a magician and such. Criticism is allowed in Islam. Not blasphemy.
I was unaware that you pinged me. So I feel obliged to reply. Let me clarify further so you understand where we are coming from.
1. "I think that this whole debate is very much an act of blasphemy towards both sacred items of which is the bible and the Quran..." - Blasphemy: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk. PRO did not blaspheme or insult. He is criticizing Muhammad. Criticism is good. PRO was respectful too.
2. "Nowhere in the bible or the Quran says that Jesus is morally superior to Mohammed." - Yes it doesn't say that in the Bible or Quran. But Christians and Muslims also focus on interpretation not just translation. If the Bible says X is immoral or they interpret it from their scholars, then they will argue it.
3. "his debate in conclusion is considered an offensive act against Christianity and Islam." - There is no offense because there is no blasphemy.
Hope you understand now.
Thanks for the debate.
And just one further clarification for the voters. When i said, " If PRO gave such arguments like it's wrong because it could hurt her or X, Y, Z. At least then PRO's argument would hold more ground."
I meant: when PRO argued that child marriage is wrong because it hurts. He asserted it without backing it up. Evidence shows such a marriage did not have that effect. Thanks
"I think that this whole debate is very much an act of blasphemy towards both sacred items of which is the bible and the quran.."
Yes, what's the problem. It's a debate of opposing sides.
"Nowhere in the bible or the quran says that Jesus is morally superior to Mohammed." Yes. But Christians don't accept Muhammad as a prophet so this is one of the points they dispute
"I believe that neither of you are qualified professionals to even create such conclusions based on religious materials that are also incorrectly informed."
What does qualified professional mean? How do you know we are not qualified?
"Maybe for your first debate, you shouldn't have yapped so much without being a bit more humble about having those conclusions made which are greatly irrelevant to the point you're trying to reach.. instead the conclusion that you made is more against you than it is to be with you as one..:"
The topic is Islam vs. Christanity, the assumption is that God exists. How is discussing two people Muhammad and Jesus is irrelevant to that discussion?
Obviosuly if you are an atheist all religion is nonsense to you. So I don't understand why your contention. Would you agree Morphinekid77?
Yes
No I am not talking to you. I said
"Idk why people ping you and then block you. I am referring to the last comment by Phenenas."
He commented and I couldn't reply back so I am replying to you because he blocked me. I don't know this person or why they are so triggered.
Just so that it is there, we did agree that we reach a common topic and I get do decide the policies, correct? This is for the record to prove I'm not being intellectually dishonest.
Also, it was PRO who instigated and said I can set conditions. He agreed prior to the debate that I can set conditions.
Idk why people ping you and then block you. I am referring to the last comment by Phenenas.
yes, I am too lazy to read hundreds of words explaining one simple thing. What's the problem?
"get your Islamic seal of approval?" - Interesting, so by that logic I said Wikipedia is good. Is Wikipedia approved by Islamic scholars? No. I don't agree with everything on there as well. The religion of peace has been disproved by many Islamic scholars mainly because it is a biased source. Wikipedia is mainly unbiased.
One thing, don't make appeal to emotions. Don't quote anti-islamic websites (like the religion of peace). It's better if you use Wikipedia, or a valid source. Make short arguments and don't go on paragraphs trying to explain something that can be done simply. It's just a headache.
Ok the 2 weeks is fine.
Sure. Do you know how to make a debate? Since you are the instigator, you have to start it. A few things
- Make the word count at least 10,000 and the timeline 1 week.
Since you were the one to ping me, start the debate and defend your position.
"Tauhid vs Trinity"
- Since I'm already discussing that, lets skip for now
"Muhammad vs Jesus"
- Sure
"Quran vs Bible"
- Too broad and covers too many topics.
Muhamad vs Jesus is good.
I don't really have a topic in mind. List a few topics and lets reach an agreement.
Well if "they" said so.... then of course it must be true :)
"It could be that God can do possible things, but we can't use logic to argue this." - I made a typo here. the word is not "possible" but impossible.
Mall and I are having the same debate. Good luck!
"Cows are people". I identify as a cow now. Moooo :D
I believe we both accept the 2nd claim so we don't have to discuss it. Also for the first point I made, how does Christianity answer the question: how can God be both the creator and created? Is that not contradictory?
Sure. The same points were repeated in the arguments anyway. I would just like to say to the voters: The contender changed the argument (straw-man): "If one country does X (let's say circumcision) and another doesn't but both achieve the same goal (i.e healthiest countries) then is X necessary?" But my argument was not X is healthy (or necessary for health). My argument was its good because the benefits outweigh the risk.
You don't have to debate in comments. You can answer the comment in your argument. I mistakingly limited the word count so I can't explain all my points in the arguments page.
"Also, most of the healthiest countries dont circumcise.
But most of the unhealthiest shitholes do, especially muslim shit holes."
Sure. But circumcision is not the reason these countries are unhealthy as I explained before. Most unhealthiest countries are in Africa and mostly Christian. You are thinking pragmatically - you believe the truth of ideas comes from success in practicality. Which is not a logical way of thinking.
For the 2nd point: The health benefits are correlated with circumcision. But I never claimed they were the cause of it. One healthy country does X the other ones doesn't do X. Therefore, we can't judge that X is bad based off that.
I can't change the word limit so that's unfortunate