70 jawans killed in biggest Maoists/Naxal attack ever in India

[Kriterion]

Ok this makes no sense... you are claiming that your own scholars that you use to build your case are errorneous and yet somehow claim that you have a point ? With due respect I cannot just take your word because I dont ask you to take my word. This is not how a debate works.

i've never asked you take my word...the quran itself denounces people who take scholars as gods (i.e infallibles) besides God. if you recall, i've mentioned in my previous post "don't believe, ask your doctor" or "don't take my word, check the quran", etc. They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no god save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! [surah 9, verse 31] this is a clear warning for muslims to not make the mistake others have before of blindly following scholars and clergy men. unfortunately, many muslims have also fallen victim to blind faith. this is NOT, however, to be construed as blanket disregard for scholarly thought, but one must combine rationally analyzing what a scholar or priest says.

And as far as Muhammad being fallible .... you couldnt be any more wrong ... check out 53:2 ( and also these verses 4:64, 47:33, 4:80, 76:24, 59:7, 3:31, 53:1,53:2,53:3,53:4,53:5, 68:4 plus some more ). Thats as clear as it gets about Muhammads infallibility. These verses are the reason why there is that concept of Sunnah.

you are correct, my mistake, although i was not trying to suggest that Muhammad was theologically fallible. total brain fart on my part - i'll blame sleep deprivation associated with following Test cricket. at any rate, what i was trying to say is that Muhammad was fully human and mortal, and himself said that his salvation exists but with Mercy of God and not on anything else. but my mistake nonetheless. however, i stand by the position that the scholars are fallible, and cite 9:31 above, as well the fact that there is no teaching in form of Islam, which demands unquestioned support to any scholar. there isn't a single scholar who will claim he is infallible - although many of the Shia consider their Imams as infallible - again, a point in contradiction with the Quran as per 9:31.

But yes you are beginning to get to the bottom of the root cause of why there exists so much violence in your religion because you are right when you say that Muhammad was fallible. Its just that you are conditioned to never question that.

even if Muhammad was fallible (which Muslims believe he was NOT, theologically speaking) the violence goes counter to the teachings of the Quran of self defensive, limited, and highly regulated warfare. i have listed at least 7 verses of this occurring, and stopped looking somewhere around halfway through the Quran, so i am sure there are more. all verses of war follow after 2:190, and chapters 8 and 9, which clearly lay out only defensive war. the fact that 9:4 mentions no war against a group of disbelievers, clearly proves, that disbelief is not a sufficient raison d'etre to wage war. unfortunately, you have chosen to repeatedly ignore this issue and haven't given me the ONLY possible correct interpretation of of surah 9, verses 1-5 AS A WHOLE. the basic fact of the matter is simple: if Muhammad was merely waiting to gain possession of enough followers to form an army, then why did he leave Mecca? and once he left, why not declare war immediately? why wait for the Meccans to attack at Badr? why make peace treaties with the Medina tribes? why accept the Meccan's treaty of Hudaibiyya when it was offered to him? all of these are accepted by mainstream historians - not just Islamic historians. ***************** btw, just to illustrate the need for cross-checking Quran translations (as well as everything else), i used the Babylon English-Arabic Medical dictionary (which can be downloaded from their website for free, so again, don't accept my word for it) to check the translation of the term "Sulbi" in verse 86:7 to see if means "spine" or something else. this are the noun form possible results, according to a well-renowned medical dictionary (so nothing to do with religion) noun: cross cut, steel, ramrod, betterment, loin, crucifixion as we can see here, the only word that fits the context of the quran verse is "loins" and not "spine". thus those translators who used "loins", including muhammad asad, have done it correctly whereas Shakir and others have dropped the ball on this one.

[Kriterion]

Once again for the last time .... this IS NOT the true meaning of those verses in chapter 9. Unless you take into account the real events circumstances and such details that lead to the reveleations of these verses the true intentions cannot be deduced. ( why because Quran is vague/unclear/erroneous as I think I have already proved with the errors in creation time and the moon splitting verses ... see my additions to post#316 ) the words of Quran are very clear. perhaps translators have muddled it up, but in the case of 9:1-5, even the translation is crystal clear. i will re-post if for convenience and then summarize it in my own words. i would like for you to do one of two things: either provide your own summary of those 5 short verses, or show how my summary is incorrect. you cannot just state that my understanding of 9:1-5 is wrong, without showing how. DISAVOWAL by God and His Apostle [is herewith announced] unto those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God, [and] with whom you [O: believers] have made a covenant. [Announce unto them:] "Go, then, [freely] about the earth for four months [2] -but know that you can never elude God, and that, verily, God shall bring disgrace upon all who refuse to acknowledge the truth!" And a proclamation from God and His Apostle [is herewith made] unto all mankind on this day of the Greatest Pilgrimage: [3] "God disavows all who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him, and [so does] His Apostle. Hence, if you repent, it shall be for your own good; and if you turn away, then know that you can never elude God!" And unto those who are bent on denying the truth give thou [O Prophet] the tiding of grievous chastisement. But excepted shall be [4] -from among those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God - [people] with whom you [O believers] have made a covenant and who thereafter have in no wise failed to fulfil their obligations towards you, and neither have aided anyone against you: observe, then, your covenant with them until the end of the term agreed with them. [5] Verily, God loves those who are conscious of Him. And so, when the sacred months are over [6] , slay those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God wherever you may come upon them, [7] and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place [8] ! Yet if they repent, and take to prayer, and render the purifying dues, let them go their way: for, behold, God is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace. [surah 9, verses 1-5] and now my summary/interpretation (feel free to provide your own): Muslims are no longer bound to keep their end of treaties made with disbelievers, who have 4 months to pack up and ship out. If they repent and reform themselves, then everything is fine. (verses 1-3) This dissolution of the treaty however does NOT apply to disbelievers who have not broken their end of the deal. These treaties must be completed in good faith. (verse 4) As for the disbelievers who broke treaties, referenced in verses 1-3, declare war upon them if they haven't vacated once the 4 sacred months are over. (verse 5) [Kriterion's summary of above verses] this is pretty clear...again, please let me know what part of that you don't understand. i'll be more than happy to explain it word for word, if need be. so once again i ask you a simple question you haven't even attempted to answer once in the 300+ posts of this thread: why are there different actions against disbelievers in verse 4, then there is in verse 5? do you agree that verses 1-3 are linked to verse 5, because they all mention the 4 sacred months, but those months are not mentioned in verse 4? what is unclear or ambiguous about the obvious verses?

No one is saying that these scholars are certified by Muhammad or the Quran. The reason that these scholars exist is because the book itself is not a straightforward one to understand contrary to its own claim. (There again i just proved another fallacy of the Quran). And the reason why we refer to their works in discussions like these is because they are subject matter experts. ME and you are not. But Iam certain you are going to tell me that since there is 0.01% probablity that numerous scholars can be wrong on the same topic in a identical manner it somehow proves your case.

so you are saying that because they are subject matter experts, they are incapable of making mistakes? is that right?

To further break it down ... soo many eminent scholars cannot all be wrong.

logical fallacy. at one time ALL eminent scholars believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

The point is not whethere Muhammad forgot the length of a week or how to add. The point is simply this.

that is the point, because those were 2 of the only 3 possible scenarios: either he suddenly forgot how many days are in a week or he was unable to add or thats the way it really was are there any other logical possibilities i've missed? so far the "errors" of the quran include: 1) semen comes from loins and the abdominal region. 2) the sun sets on the western horizon 3) someone built a metal wall several thousands of years ago 4) 2 days to create earth, 4 to create the heavens, and 2 to create the mountains, with no guarantee that it wasn't done concurrently. are there any more you would like to share?

[Kriterion]

It is not something that is bound to happen in the future because of its past tense. This is further illustrated by the next verse (54:2) where the Quraysh are admonshed for calling the miracle as nothing more than an illusion or magic.

every translator, major and minor, has used the term Hour, which is in ALL other places of the quran used to refer to the FUTURE Day of Judgement, and not a time when the moon allegedly split. as for 54:2, it is not in past tense: But if they [who reject all thought of the Last Hour] were to see a sign [of its approach], they would turn aside and say, “An ever-recurring delusion!†[Asad - note the word "if"] if that doesn't convince you, also note the term "Hour". what else does the term "Hour" refer to in the Quran? 12 noon? midnight? 3 o'clock? what is the Hour as referenced to in the following verses? the word or phrase for "Last Hour" or "the Hour" or "the hour" as used in the Quran is "al Sa'aat": السَّاعَةُ this is the word which appears in verse 54:1. it also occurs in the identical form in verse 54: 46, which has no mention of the Moon split: بَلِ السَّاعَةُ مَوْعِدُهُمْ وَالسَّاعَةُ أَدْهَى وَأَمَرُّ But nay - the Last hour is the time when they shall truly meet their fate; [27] and that Last hour will be most calamitous, and most bitter: [surah 54, verse 46] it also occurs as "as-Sa'aati" in surah 79, totally unrelated to surah 54 and the moon: يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ السَّاعَةِ أَيَّانَ مُرْسَاهَا THEY WILL ASK thee [O Prophet] about the Last hour: "When will it come to pass?" [surah 79, verse 42] the disbelievers were not asking Muhammad when the "moon splitting was going to occur". in fact, surah 79 doesn't even mention the word "moon" at all. every elementary muslim knows this, and this is an instance where EVERY ONE of your "subject matter experts" opines that it is the Day of Judgement, despite the fact that some of them have mistranslated their verb tenses - which is why i take your "experts" ideas with a grain of salt. once again, i am proving to have the greater "expertise" [read: logical acumen] than your experts. don't agree, ask anyone, heck, even ask your experts themselves! they won't have a choice but to agree with me!

[Kriterion]

As I have said before a discussion of this type cannot be conducted on words of participants. Iam sure I dont need me to explain why.

seeing as how every single discussion anyone has ever had on any internet forum is based upon the words of participants, it would appear that based on the above, you shouldn't have gotten engaged to begin with. i am of the opinion, and correct me if i'm wrong, that this is rather a final excuse in order to wriggle out of the uncomfortable position of conceding an argument one has held dear to his heart for a great many years. this is itself the definition of a debate, in which one person or side exchanges arguments with the other person or side. bringing in 3rd or 4th parties is not part of a bilateral discussion.

I have showed you what the Tafsir, Hadith and Seerah say on this matter. I have also shown you what scholars have to say about chapter 9. I have produced historical events to further back up my claim (Ridda wars) and the actions of Sahaba. The possiblity of all this being wrong is simply non-existant.

thats precisely my point, i didn't ask you to quote the tafsir. i know what the tafsir says. i asked you for your opinion of the verse. you have opined on dozens of verses so far in this discussion, and yet you refuse to opine on this one, claiming that the words are unclear and need some scholar to decipher for you. i was able to read the words. they are written in the same arabic and english language as the other verses which were magically clear enough for you to quote. and if you don't understand something, how can you possibly quote it as evidence of some point you are trying to make? if you don't understand something, how can you say for a certainty that it stands for violence and aggression?

I wont bother responding if you continue reject works of widely renowned scholars and insist that you know more than those who spent a lifetime on Islamic theology. Otherwise its just a exercise in he-said, she-said , i-said and accomplishes nothing .

again, just because one is a scholar does not mean he or she is incapable of error. further, islamic doctrine does not hold this position. islam has always been based upon ijma and qiyas - as the quran itself calls for rational thought in at least a dozen different verses. there are many differing but equally valid madhabs in Islam...and not just one cookie cutter format. all were created by scholars, and if each scholar is 100% right, then they would have no differences of opinion. furthermore, the most renowned Islamic scholar would disgaree with most of these view and his name was Imam Ghazaali. so even by your "infallibility" argument, you're still not out of the woods.

wrong. Every translator has this verse translated in past tense.(Except Asad) Examples : Muhsin Khan : The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has been cleft asunder (the people of Makkah requested Prophet Muhammad SAW to show them a miracle, so he showed them the splitting of the moon). Pickthal:The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain. Shakir:The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder. and many others ... But atleast you are not trying to use the ridiculous claim that Quran uses past tense to tell whats going to happen in the future like some do !!

not wrong. i was talking about the term "Hour" and every translator uses the same term. further the original arabic word - the original quranic source - uses the same term to refer to this moon split as to the Day of Judgement. unless there are 2 seperate "hours" in Islamic doctrine - which is impossible since the article "al = the" makes it just one SINGLE "Hour" - it must refer to the same time period, which in ALL other Quran verses, as well as this one, refers to a future event. AND you totally ignored the verse 54:6 which is clearly talking of a FUTURE event. it refers to the FUTURE day of judgement, meaning those translators have mistranslated the verb tense, or completely misunderstood the verse. i've already given you the straight up arabic term for "hour" and shown you other instances not pertaining to the moon-splitting. this proves without a doubt that this verse is not a reference to this fictitious event. further, notice how Khan's transaltion renders the reference to a miracle parenthetically. this means that no such reference is in the quran, as evidenced by its lack of mention in other translators. Khan no doubt believed in the faulty hadith and extrapolated - in contradiction to the term "Hour" - as to what the verse was talking about.

Let me explain this one more time ... Unless you resort to ingenious methods - such as claiming Multi-tasking - you cannot explain the descrepancy in those 2 verses. Now I provided you a logical explanation as to why you cannot use the multi-tasking excuse ( Because you will have to do it only for the verse that has shorter duration and assume Serial Tasking for the other verse. And that just as you can assume Multi-tasking I can assume serial-tasking for the shorter verse ... which is why we need to use translations from scholars which obviously have no mention of Multi-tasking). Before I spend time explaning all this means you need to tell me whether you agree to this logical reasoning.

lets agree to use an even more basic reasoning: Muhammad stated the creation took place here as 8 day event, adding one day for the Sabbath = 9 days in a week. In other verses Muhammad used a 6 day event, adding one day for the Sabbath = 7 day weeks. so one of the three things must be our logical conclusion: 1) Muhammad was totally unaware of how many days there are in a week. So sometimes he said 7, sometimes he said 9. or 2) Muhammad was aware of how many days were in a week, but could not properly add 2 + 4 + 2, and thought it still made 6+ 1 = 7 days. or 3) Muhammad always knew there were 7 days in a week, and wrote the some verses as a generalized story, and wrote one verse with a breakdown, with the necessary implication that it still added up to a 7 day week. again, i ask you, is there a 4th logical possibility???

[Kriterion]

that would be you because I could simply type the opposite of what you have and claim that Iam right just as you have done. Instead I have dug out works of reputed scholars and produced them here - which is much harder than simply proclaiming that chapter 9 is defensive or the moon wasnt split etc etc ...

its quite simple to find things, especially islam related on the internet. analyzing something is more labor-intensive than merely citing it.

You miss the point completely and I hope it is not done intentionally. The point is that this whole discussion is based on a hypothesis that Quran is the word of God and that God and Muhammad are infallible according to Quran. Unless you venture into creating illogical excuses (i.e God was Multi-tasking in only one verse) there is no other way you can explain that descrepancy in creation times. Hence those 2 verses simply prove this hypothesis to be wrong(I hope you agree to this else we need to go back to square one !!).

but you see that one verse differs from all the others in that its the only one which provides a breakdown, thereby leaving the door open to a concurrent sequence of events. multi-tasking was never excluded by any of the other verses. like i said before, the term "holy war" is also not explicitly mentioned in the quran, are you going to argue that that is an illogical inference of the verses of the quran. no, because a "holy [defensive] war" is never excluded by any other verse of the quran.

Whether Muhammad forgot to add correctly (or whatever else you want to use as a excuse) is simply besides the point which I have no interest in.

just for the record, i'm not using it as an excuse, just pointing out that that is one of only 3 logical possibilies. the question is why are you not interested in Muhammad's seeming inability to count or rampant forgetfulness? unless this means, given your above post in which u seem to be skeptical, that this is inapplicable to him. but in that case, only the 3rd possibility remains! you are interested in all other details of his life, except this particular one. does not strike you as conveniently odd? stated another way, is there anything you have mentioned, which has not "interested" me? and if not, why do you suppose that is? like i said, those 3 possibilities are the only ones. its inescapable, and once again, its fairly clear that when any sort of rebuttal eludes your grasp, your "interest" in that topic, interestingly enough, wanes to the point of non-existence.

[Kriterion]

Thats the one that you are aware of. Theres more to come.

fair enough. haven't checked it out myself.

Nor was serial-tasking.

not quite. because if it was serially tasked, Muhammad would have had to forget how many days there are in a week.

Fighting in the name/cause of God is mentioned at more than one place in the Quran.

but the phrase "holy war" is still not mentioned. btw, just to emphasize, you and i both know "holy war" is mentioned in the quran, but its not explicitly mentioned. it is inferred that the war is holy, just as "multi-tasking" is to be inferred in the verse in question.

Because he isnt even supposed to count or cross check what is comming from "up-above" . He is a messenger.

self-contradicotry logic here...you are saying this: Muhammad was a true Messenger --> therefore the Quran cannot contain errors Since the Quran contains errors --> Muhammad cannot be a true Messenger do you see how that doesn't make any sense? what I am saying is thus, based on the premise i've held in all of our discussions: that Muhammad himself wrote the quran and may NOT be a messenger at all: Abrahamic creation story is based on the number of days in a week (i.e 7 days) Muhammad accurately mentions 6 (+1 "rest" day as found in Abrahamic traditions) days in a week in all other verses. Since he "incorrectly" mentions 8 (+1) = 9 days in a week in the verse in question, Muhammad must necessarily have done one of the following: a) he suddenly forgot the number of days in a week b) he remembered the correct number of days but couldn't add the numbers properly c) it is to be inferred that the events are NOT serial, and are concurrent. You cannot show any logical rationale to indicate that the events necessarily had to be "serial". However, based on the above, it has to be "multi-tasked". I have given the break down of the logic, if there is a flaw, please, by all means shoot it down.

This is because I dont want to venture into a endless argument which revolves around claims ( illogial ones mind you) that not one single Islamic scholar agrees on.

again, you are holding Islamic scholars as being more authoritative on Muhammad himself as evidenced by your un-willingness to discuss only the quran, as if the translators wrote something you are incapable of reading. the translators have made plenty of internal errors, as i have pointed out already. but its not wholly un-readable as you are making it out to be. its written with the same characters and same 26 letters of the same language as your tasfir and hadiths (many of which don't even support your theses to begin with).

So when you subject his works to minute scrutiny you will find the evidence of mistakes which is normal for fallible Human beings to make.

mistakes like semen orignating from the prostrate, seminal vesicles and bulbourethral glands ("between the loins and ribs")? imprecise is one thing, incorrect, completely another. mistakes like the sun setting on the west? historical impossibilities such as the construction of a metal wall?

So do you agree that there is a descrepancy in those 2 verses and unless you bring in additional sources you cannot really make any sense of those verses ( well in this case even that is not possible )

whats not to make sense? if you cannot make any sense, how do you even know its a contradiction, because in order to know that you have to be able to interpret it to begin with? ********************************* the fact remains, that in the span of several scores of posts, you still haven't answered at least 2 (there might be more) important questions: 1) why does Muhammad mention 2 sets of treatment for a single group of people, the "infidels" in the first 5 verses of surah 9? Once again, the only possibilies are: a) they are really 2 different groups of people who acted in 2 different manners... or b) ...Muhammad simply forgot what he wrote 5 verses earlier. You will most likely disagree with "a" because it would then disprove your assertion that Muhammad, at least in this instance, waged offensive war. And the are the violent chapters of 8 and 9. But then if "b" is correct, how does such an inept person form the charisma, let alone competence, to create a war machine capable of world conquest??? ****************** i am actually slightly insulted that instead of conceding that you have no answers (if not conceding outright defeat, which would also be nice :winky:), you are resorting to the most elementary of logical fallacies. many of your reply posts, end not with some argument put forth by yourself, but by circular attempts to refute my points. even in the last post, you've mentioned "islamic scholars" as if they are a single monotholic entity. i've even quoted Imam ghazali, if you have trouble accepting the acclaim or scholarly credentials of a Muhammad Asad or a Hamza Yusuf or a Karen Armstrong, or a John Esposito or even a Reza Aslan. but let us assume that "islamic scholars" are indeed one monotholic, hate-the-infidels group. how can you cite these scholars as proof that i'm wrong, when the crux of my argument is precisely that only Muhammad and his Quran can be trusted 100% (along with only those AUXILLARY SOURCES that corroborate the Quran) in order to gain an understanding of Islam. do you see what i am saying? you could only use the scholars to prove me wrong if i accept 100% of what the scholars say.

[Kriterion]

Thats the one that you are aware of. Theres more to come.

just ran search of the Quran on islamicity.com only 1 other instance out of 59 hits, where there is any semblence of a breakdown as to creation. and even then, no numbers are given, and no further reason to indicate any contradictions to the questioned verses or their obvious "multi-tasked" interpretation. unless of course Muhammad was medically handicaped or couldn't perform basic arthimetic. and i mean BASIC.

[Kriterion]

See this is the sort of inane logic that I was afraid of ... but what the heck ... lets do this one more time ... very very slowly ... Verse 1 says : God took 6 Days for creation. Verse 2 says : God took 8 Days for creation. Are these two verses giving you the same no.of days for one event ? Simple one word answer please ... yes (they are giving you the same no.of days) / No they arent

yes. because the number 8 is never mentioned in the quran. now i hope you will answer my question, pretty please. since you say "yes" to the above question, does that mean Muhammad forget how many days there are in a week, or was he merely incapable of adding simply integers?

except that it is not me who is making the 1st statement(in bold). It is you who made it because that is the absolute core of your religion. You also state that Quran = Error free + Perfect + Clear + For All times. What I am doing by bringing up these errors is to proove that null hypothesis wrong by showing you all kinds of errors. (Here the implicit understanding is that a Book dictated by God thru his infallible messenger would have absolutely no errors/contradictions/logical fallacies).

you did make that statement:

Because he isnt even supposed to count or cross check what is comming from "up-above" . He is a messenger.

But heres your typical circular logic : You : Quran = Perfect (in all sense) [correct] Me : But what about these two verses here that contradict each other. [correct] You : Well there is no contradiction [correct] Me : Why ? [correct] You : Well because since Quran is the Word of God and according to it Muhammad is infallible it only leaves one other option i.e Iam wrong. :D [incorrect]

i'm not sure how you've braved making up this blatant non-truth. the 3 options i gave you repeatedly i might add were: 1) muhammad forgot # of days in a week. 2) he didn't know how to add properly 3) multitasking which one of those is what u say it is? u do u realize that if had indeed made that last statement, this whole discussion would start and end with my first post because - as you have pointed out - that is circular logic and circle ends exactly where it ends. on the contrary, i have worked with your assumption that Muhammad wrote the Quran and hence there might possibly be "contradictions".

(See above for circular logic :D ) Because unless you give into blind belief there is no way you can explain a lot of it. And as far as scholars are concerned ... well if it was haram for scholars to interpret the Quran they wouldnt be around. There is a reason that these guys are in that business (and indeed highly respected) isnt it ? Unless ofcourse you are now going to claim that the majority of Islamic world are fools to employ these scholars and listen to them for 100s of years ... and that only you have seen the light.

where did i say it was haram for scholars to make interpretations based on logic and rational execution of the Quranic concept of Tafakkur (critical reasoning)? again a totally untrue statement. when the said "Hour" is followed by "was" , "did" , "has been" ( post#321) it means that it is in the past. If that verse were to be talking about a future event it would say : " When the hour drives near the moon will be split into two".

As for 54:6 it is a continuation of last 2 verses and it simply means that "If the Quraysh dont believe in the perfect wisdom of the Quran and the signs as illustrated by 54:1 and 54:2 ( ie the moon spillting) then leave them alone and the summoner will deal with them on the day of judgement.(54:4-6).

thats correct. it is a continuation of the last 2 verses. and those 2 verses are a continuation of first 3. thats why they are all in the same chapter. and talking about the same subject matter. and how about all other occurences of the word, السَّاعَةُ (hour)??? ********************* in your last post, you have come up with 2 totally untrue allegations to things i've clearly NOT said either in this thread or anywhere else on this or any other forum. i will, of course, give you the opportunity to prove that i've said what you claim that i've said. the fact that you are not resorting to fabricating statements or positions that i DO NOT hold, leads me to doubt your chances in a continued discussion. not answering my repeated questions i.e evasion is one thing, but resorting to a campaign of outright misinformation, in the hopes that i might forget the crux of my argument is basically a 4th down hail marry tossed up from your own 1 yard line. as such, if you wish to move onto the rest of your "heavy artillery", please go ahead. otherwise, i will have no choice but to counter all subsequent alleged statement i won't make on this board.

[Kriterion]

The number 8 is not mentioned in the 2nd verse but it provides a breakdown for creation ( i.e 2+4+2) which adds upto 8. And you pretty well know you cannot use multi-tasking to explain the descrepancy as there is no evidence to support that.

exactly. thanks for mentioning that key word, "breakdown". you see, this verse, differs from all others. all other quran verses say that the creation of "heavens and the earth", that is the universe, occurred in 6 days. this particular verses never mentions the term "heavens and the earth". it gives a breakdown, as you yourself have admitted, of the components of the "heavens and the earth". this why it is important to read EVERY word and phrase of the quran carefully...instead of reading half of it and relying on tom, dick, and harry's tafsir to muddle the rest.

Whether Muhammad forgot how to add or how many days there are in a week .... he made a mistake in that verse is besides the point and in any case all it means is that he was fallible which proves the Quran wrong.

so you accept that Muhammad must necessarily have forgotten the number of days in a week or was unable to count? do you still want to argue that this is the evil genius who is supposed to have inspired one of the largest conquests in human history? a genius who neither knows how many days are in a week and/or cannot properly add single digit integers? i don't know where you are from, but where i am from, we call that "mentally retarded" not "genius". and mentally retarded people have never posed a threat to anyone (except by sheer accident), let alone all of humanity. and according to your logic every mentally handicapped child, is a potential "Muhammad" amongst us! oh my!

then what did you mean when you said : " when the crux of my argument is precisely that only Muhammad and his Quran can be trusted 100%" ... in post#326 ?

that only Muhammad and his Quran (btw, his denoting that Muhammad "wrote" it, for arguments sake) are 100% accurate indicators of what Muhammad felt, taught, preached, and believed. not some uzbek who lived 150 years later, nor some distant arab who came 700 years later, and magically knew Muhammad's personal thoughts. all along in this discussion - go back and cross check my posts - i have worked under the premise that Muhammad himself wrote the quran, not that it was divinely delivered.

If you are going to simply not budge from the word of quran why even bother verifying its contents with things like Logic,Science,Math,Archeology and other such wonderfull benefits available in a modern society ?

was it not science that informs us that semen orignates from the prostate and seminal vesicles? was it not science that informs us that the sun does indeed set on the western horizon? is not archeology that says an ancient metal wall was not something technologically miraculous? is it not logic that Muhammad either could not add, or forgot the number of days in a week, if multitasking is excluded as a possibility? How many times do I need to explain this ? Here is my answer repeated again from Post#325 But for what its worth my take is based on my firm knowledge that Muhammad was no messenger of God. He simply took a bunch of gullible folks for a ride ( Happens even in this day and age ... there is no shortage of Holymen claiming divine powers ). that is not an answer. that is an entirely fresh allegation/opinion. an answer - since you seem to not know what one is - is by definition something that resolves a question. if it does not event attempt to resolve a question, then it is not an answer. if i could state that in simpler terms i would... your sentence above, does not resolve the question as to whether Muhammad couldn't add, suffered from severe amnesia, or obviously implied multitasking. hence it cannot be an answer, and is merely just one more of your many diversionary tactics (i'm sticking to my key points and only diverge when you steer the conversation that way). i allow you to do this, not because i'm overly fond of convoluted discussions, but because i want to prove that i am not steering this conversation and am willing to discuss anything you wish to bring up.

Now can I have a answer to my question on how you arrived at 2+4+2 = 6 without using any source other than the Quran ?. Keep in mind that the answer should be able to stand logical scruitny. (Which rules out multi-tasking because )

yes because the the numbers 2, 4, and 2, refer to components of a system and not the entire system, as i have explained above. the number 6 always refers to the entire system. i assume that you can understand the difference between a systemic whole, and the various individual components that comprise that system.

Isnt that what messengers are supposed to do ? Deliver the message ? Are you suggesting that Muhammad cross checked Gods orders for validity before passing them on ? And BTW that is NOT my claim. Iam simply re-iterating what most Muslims believe. Correct me if wrong.

understood that its not your claim. but you are still using that claim as the premise to your argument. or you are using the premise to refute the premise. or something like that...its so convoluted i'm losing track of it myself now. just like my claim is not that Muhammad wrote the quran, yet i am using it as the premise to my argument. but unlike you, i am not attempting to disprove that premise, by using the exact same premise (i.e "the quran is perfect --> --> therefore the quran cannot be perfect"). this is the definition of circular logic, yet another term you are failing to understand, and if you do understand, you totally don't comprehend its practical application apart from its dictionary definition.

[Kriterion]

since you're having trouble here, and no doubt being embarrassed in the eyes of whoever is reading your logic, let me help you get started by builing a non-circular logic arc for whatever it is you're trying to prove. the rest will be up to you... premise: Islamic belief holds that the Quran is Perfect/Divine --> because the quran is perfect, it cannot contain contradictions or scientific errors --> the quran does contain contradictions and/or scientific errors --> therefore the quran is not perfect/divine --> hence Islamic belief is wrong. thats the outline you are gonna have to actually fill it in. good luck.

[Kriterion]

This discussion on creation time descrepancy is not to prove anything about Muhammads violent conquests (and whether or not they were in self defense). This sub discussion is about the authenticity of the Quran and whether or not it is the word of God. (And to re-iterate a Book written by God cannot have any errors)

have you forgotten your main point already? you are calling into question the authenticity of the quran, so that you can show that hadiths which contradict the quran are still valid. and these hadiths narrate Muhammad's violent conquests. now that we've finished that diversion attempt...do you concede that Muhammad was mentally retarded and thus necessarily of very low IQ, or that he suffered from amnesia was psychologically inept?

I do but apprantly God does not. The time taken for the individual parts when added should tally with the number given for the "Whole" thing.

God as in Sachin Tendulkar or God as in Yahweh/God/Allah/Elohim/Bhagvan/Waheguru? and how do you know, whichever diety you're referring to, lacks an understanding of the "whole and parts"?

[Kriterion]

Thanks for the help ... I tried to state that in much easier sentence but whatever works ... so currently I am at the "Quran contains errors" part. And those 2 verses on creation time are what I put forward. Feel free to prove me wrong based on logic and scholarly works.

scholarly works are unnecessary since the origin of the universe is inaccessible to modern scientists except only up to a few microseconds of the "begininng of time". furthermore, the quran contains ample evidence, within itself. logic i can agree to... so why is it that the only verse, out of dozens to mention creation times, that cites a different "total" is also the only one that gives a "breakdown" of creation? this is will be my last post for probably the next week...depending on how much time i want to waste. *********** gave up on the semen examples, the sun setting example, and the ancient wall example already (i know, i know, i'm a ***** and a half, please forgive me, but its just too much fun)? my prediction is, if i give it enough time, you'll run to a diversion from this one also.

[Kriterion]

Thanks for the help ... I tried to state that in much easier sentence but whatever works ... so currently I am at the "Quran contains errors" part. And those 2 verses on creation time are what I put forward. Feel free to prove me wrong based on logic and scholarly works.

i hope you see now how important every singe word, and word order, etc is to whenever you are trying to logically analyze something like Quran verses.

[Kriterion]

Didnt you want a "Quran Only" debate ?

like i said, thats your argument, what you want to include in it is up to you. if its irrelevant like the tafsir/seerah/hadith you've often cited, i'll let you know when u cite it. but i'm open to whatever...in the words of George W Bush, "bring it on"

[Kriterion]

No rhetorical questions as answers to my questions. That is not a debate. Please give a logical reason for that descrepancy. because 2+4+2 > 6

which means one and only one of 3 possilble things: 1) Muhammad implied multi-tasking...supported by the fact that the verse is the only one with a "breakdown" as you've noticed. 2) Muhammad forgot how many days were in a week (impossible) 3) Muhammad incorrectly added the numbers when he wrote this verse (impossible). this leaves only option 1 (my answer). it is - according to you argument - physically impossible for options 2 and 3 to be true. can you tell me with any degree of certainty that option 1 is outside the bounds of physical possibility? and if so, how?

[Kriterion]

I have already explained why Multi-tasking is not a logically viable answer. The language used in that verse doesnt suggest so and there is no precedent of Allah working in parallel mode anywhere else.To make matters worse( for you) the verse 41:11' date=' 41:12 describe the time taken to create Heavens and they begin with "And [b']then HE created heavens in ..... " which clearly tells you that the process of creation was sequential. Also the default mode is serial unless otherwise explicitly mentioned.

the word "then" is most likely a "filler" introduced by that particular translator (other translators do NOT use that word, such as Asad). the reason being is that the literal arabic word for then as a time operator is "thumma" which is distinctly absent from the verse you cited, but present in other Quran verses. this leads me to believe that the word was introduced by the translator in order to make the sentence flow.

BTW 41:9 says it took him just 2 days to create earth whereas it took him 4 days to "place" the mountains on top of it. This makes no sense because ... The Mountains are Not seperate entities that have been placed on Earth. They are the result of earths Tectonic plates colliding against one other( Courtesy modern science ohh wait science must be wrong ). So there is no question of "Placing" mountains on top of earth.

whilst this is true, i believe this is a matter of semantics. for example, one needs not refer to mountains to "disprove" the Islamic creation story. if it is agreed that the tectonic plates are moving, even as we speak, then should that not suffice in "disproving" creationism all by itself? of course it should. but only so long as one takes a traditional approach to creationism. i'm sure you have heard of Newton's more progressive "clockwork" model of creation, in which god sets the universe in motion and after that lets the laws of science take over. if you haven't already realized, my approach to the Quran could hardly be termed "traditional" although i believe its the approach which would be approved of my Muhammad himself if he were still alive. as such i tend to think that in geological (and other matters) God "winding up of the clock" or creation is his "placing of the mountains upon the earth" from the time he "completed" His task.

And in a seperate verse(16:15) it says this "placing of mountains" was dont to keep the earth from shaking with you

had to look this one up on wikipedia, as unfortunately my knowledge of geology is a bit inadequate. 16:15, in my interpretation, is a possible reference to two things. 1) what the quran refers to as "awtad" translated as "pegs" in surah 78, also in reference to some sort of geologic "stability". i think this is a posible reference to the discovery of "mountain roots". 2) this brings into play, exactly, what is meant by "earth not shaking" since the quranic term for earthquake is "zilzal" and not used here. it may be a reference to a lack of isostastic stability which would seemingly exist without mountains.

[Kriterion]

Actually almost every translator uses that word ( eg : Muslim, Muhsin Khan, Pickthall, Shakir, and various other Tafsir authors )

even if that is true, which it very well maybe, its a "filler" word nontheless in 41:12, which lacks the word "thumma".

It actually does ... and heres the Transliteration for 41:11 ...

you are absolutely correct and this proves, the creation is consistent in 6 days. how you ask? so we've established the importance of literal time operators, since you have yourself gone out and looked for and found the word "thumma = then" in verse 41:11 above. now you're beef is not just with verse 11, but with ALL of verses 9-12, which seemingly says the universe (or whatever) was created in 8 days, contradicting the rest of scripture which says 6. not only is this impossible in that Muhammad would have to have either forgotten the number of days a week, or miscalculated simple numbers, but it is also not what the Quran says, once you take into account the time-operative words such as "thummam = then" and "wa = and". bearing in mind we have to go back to the actual arabic, please check the transliterations you have access to to double-check what i'm saying. i'll post them here as well for convenience. so here is Asad's translation of the verses in question: SAY: “Would you indeed deny Him who has created the earth in two aeons? [7] And do you claim that there is any power that could rival Him, the Sustainer of all the worlds?” For He [it is who, after creating the earth,] placed firm mountains on it, [towering] above its surface, and bestowed [so many] blessings on it, and equitably apportioned [9] its means of subsistence to all who would seek it: [and all this He created] in four aeons. And [11] He [it is who] applied His design to the skies, which were [yet but] smoke; [12] and He [it is who] said to them and to the earth, “Come [into being], both of you, willingly or unwillingly!” - to which both responded, “We do come in obedience.” And He [it is who] decreed that they become seven heavens [14] in two aeons, and imparted unto each heaven its function. And We adorned the skies nearest to the earth with lights, and made them secure: [15] such is the ordaining of the Almighty, the All-Knowing. [surah 41, verses 9-12] and here is the arabic transliteration, noting the time-operative words: 9. Qul a-innakum latakfuroona biallathee khalaqa al-arda fee yawmayni watajAAaloona lahu andadan thalika rabbu alAAalameena 10. Wa jaAAala feeha rawasiya min fawqiha wabaraka feeha waqaddara feeha aqwataha fee arbaAAati ayyamin sawaan lilssa-ileena 11. Thumma istawa ila alssama-i wahiya dukhanun faqala laha walil-ardi i/tiya tawAAan aw karhan qalata atayna ta-iAAeena 12. Faqadahunna sabAAa samawatin fee yawmayni waawha fee kulli sama-in amraha wazayyanna alssamaa alddunya bimasabeeha wahifthan thalika taqdeeru alAAazeezi alAAaleemi [transliteration of surah 41, verses 9-12] so what does all this mean? what it means is that when read literall, noting the time-operators of "wa = and" and "thumma = then" we necessarily come up with a grand total of 6 days, not 8, or any other number. the proper translation then of the verses 9-12, following directly from the literal Arabic should be thus: 9) Would you deny him who created Earth in 2 days. 10) AND He created the "rawasiya" in 4 days. 11) THEN, he created the heavens... 12) ...in 2 days [Kriterion's "translation" of surah 41, verses 9-12 using the literal Arabic time-operators of "and and "then"] so what we have is that Earth and some entitiy called "Rawisya" (translated by some as mountains, although the Quranic term for mountain in all other places is Jabl, as in the Jabal Nur just outside Mecca) were created CONCURRENTLY. this is the meaning of "and", when used as oppossed to "then". And means at the same time, not serially, since the very next word mentions the serial-operator, "then". So if earth took 2 days, and rawasiya 4 and it was done concurrently, the total time is 4 days. THEN (arabic = thumma), God claims he created the Heavens in 2 days. the word "thumma" indicates, that HERE God's creation was "serial" in relation to the previous 2 verses. thus what we have is 2 and 4 days concurrently = 4 days and 2 days serially = 4 days concurrently + 2 days serially = a total of 6 days. the time-specific words "and" and "then" indicate this clearly in the literal arabic. the only thing you can do is dispute the meaning of the words "wa" and "thumma" but if you ask any Arabic speaker, he will tell you that they mean "and" and "then", respectively.

its not semantics when precise time durations are assigned to these creation tasks and mentioned repeatedly in the quran.

see above explanation of specific time-operative words. thanks for helping to bring this into perspective.

There is no need to complicate matters .... The bottomline is Mountains are NOT seperate entities that have been placed on top of earth like pegs as the quran says in 16:15 ... lets not even get into the purpose in life of Mountains in the best interest of time.

well, i went ahead and cross-checked the literal arabic term "rawasiya" which is used in both surah 41:10 and 16:15. turns out the arabic word for "mountain", as used in the quran in surah 78 and other places, is "jabal" or "jibal". indeed many of the translators have translated "rawasiya" as "stabilizer". even if rawasiya is another word for mountain, the word "placed" does not literally have to mean "placed as in physically put". For example, Islam (and other religions) teach that God has "placed" each of us here on earth to worship Him. Does this mean that God literally reached into our mothers' wombs, pulled us out, and physically placed us on Earth? of course not, if such a thing had happened, you can be sure Obstetricians the world over would not be keeping Mum about it! but he still "placed" us here, he just didn't "place" us here. as a side note, i too have discovered "contradictions" within the Quran when i was younger. that lead me to have deep and intermittent periods of agnosticism and skepticism. i still have brief episodes of this, but thats cuz i am Obessive-Compulsive. indeed, such "contradictions" in the quran like the meaning of the phrase "placed mountains on earth" will only be a contradiction to 2 people: 1) the disbeliever who out of frustration nitpicks with words of very little relevance which also have multiple shades of meaning. and 2) the believer who out of a compulsive need for reassurance, nitpicks over the exact same things in order to "make sure" his beliefs are correct.

So there I found you 2 errors in the Quran ... now let me know if you want to continue with other errors or you want to get back to the main discussion.

1) given the precise locations of the words "and" and "then" that proves without doubt that there are 6 days of creation. although you were partially correct in that some part of the creation was done serially, based on the words found in the literal arabic. i will concede that. but 6 days all around, so no error there. besides the obvious logical implications an '8-day' interpretation would have based on reductio ad absurdum. 2) as for mountains themselves, rawasiya does not mean "mountain" but means "stability" and the word mountain was used by the translators for lack of a better geologic understanding. don't believe, look the word up yourself, "jabl" = "mountain". there is plenty of time to get to the main discussion, i want you to complete your thesis, and i want to let you control the direction of this discussion as i am fluid and versatile. and in light of the above 2 "errors that weren't", please move onto the next one. when you are finished, we can move onto the main discussion.

[Kriterion]

i will be on and of the message boards, but please reply whenever, and i will get back to you as soon as i am able.

[Kriterion]

lol ... So basically whether or not that word "Thumma" existed you would have carried on arguing that quran is right ... so typical of you guys :D

but the word thumma does exist, hence the hypothetical scenario of it not existing is irrelevant. one could just as well posit that the substitution of an ad hominem when no rational refutation can be found is also typical of Bossbhai, no? surely you're not accusing me of using the shotgun method, when it is you who is operating under the "if not this contradiction, definitely the next" principle? bear in mind that despite being proven wrong about the origins of semen, you still you haven't even admitted your mistake. you still haven't admitted the fact that an ancient wall built of metal is perfectly unimpressive. and here again disproved as to the number of days in the quran and the absence of the term "jibal". any time i've made an error, i've tried my best to acknowledge it and move on. let me remind you, that you yourself brought up the issue of the presence of the word "thumma", not me. i even credited you for that foresight. it really is foolish to start a knife fight and then run crying to Mother that you've been cut.

[Kriterion]

No it doesnt. Because ... 1. You cannot simply say that Multitasking was applicable to only one part of the creation process and serial tasking to the next. This is absurd and illogical given that God has limitless powers and supposedly can Multitask should have done all the 3 tasks simultaneously.

regardless, there is no "contradiction". anything and everything in the world can and is referred to as being "absurd". had all 3 tasks been mentioned explicitly to occur simaltaneously using the word "and" throughout, then you would have a point. but then you would have labeled that as "absurd" because the length of a week would then have been just 2 days long! now isn't that absurd?

2. The Translation of your own prefered scholar - Asad - says that the Mountains were placed after earth was created. (copy/pasted from your post#346):

first off, notice the parenthetical nature of the word "after". this means it is not in the actual arabic. so the Quran does not say that the mountains were created after or before the earth. ALL IT SAYS, is that earth was created in 2 days, the mountains in 4, AND they occurred concurrently, THEN the heavens were created in 2 more days. thats what the literal arabic Quran says, there is no ambiguity about it. the ambiguity arises from translations which are almost always not literal. that being said, as long as Asad hasn't stated that the creation of the universe took other than 6 days, or that the creation of the earth + mountains wasn't done in other than 4 days, there isn't a problem in terms of the number of days for creation, if that is still what your trying to get at (?). remember your beef is not with what was created first or 2nd but rather than the days "supposedly" don't add up.

3. But if you insist that Earth and Mountains were done simulatneously then the verse that says Mountians were placed on earth makes no sense because you cannot place the mountains on Earth without first creating Earth.

you're reading way too much into things here, and interestingly not reading enough in other places at your convenience. either way... All the Quran says is this: that earth and the mountains took 2 and 4 days respectively to create. the term "and" implies it was done concurrently. THEN the heavens were created in 2 more days. the idea of mountains being "placed" or not "placed" is excessive play with semantics. the word "placed" is simply another word for "created". Its like arguing that Genesis states God did not create Adam, he "made" him. made, create, placed...its all the same thing.

Which is why I keep telling you that unless you go to the Hadiths there is no way you can figure out what is the true meaning of many of these verses. The narrations in the Hadith shed a lot of light on the true meaning of Quran. ( as I have mentioned before .. this again blows a hole into Qurans claim as being the most perfect and clear book).

the Quran never claims or claimed that its translations are "perfect and clear". one must go back to the literal arabic. and btw, to be pedantic, even the written arabic is technically not the quran. the word "quran" itself means "recitation" as in spoken word, and only when the arabic words are recited, is really the "quran". as for the Hadiths, i have no quarrels with the ones that are authentic by not contradicting the Quran. But we don't need a hadith for this verse since the words "and" and "then" are very clear. further there is no contradiction in the statement in "God placed mountains on earth" anywhere else in the Quran. God created everything, and unless there is a verse attributing creation to other than God as a First Cause, then where's the problem? we don't need a hadith to realize that God "placed" humans on earth, but that he didn't physically pull us out of our mothers' wombs with His own "hands". if you think we do, then that, my friend, is hilarious.

Speaking of "actual arabic" ... this is a whole another chapter that you will not like talking about ... some other time ... I promise :D

whenever you're ready.