The Conversation between Allah SWT and Prophet Isa (Jesus) (Peace be upon him)

[Champ_Pal]

Surely Prophet Moses has communicated with God himself and all Abrahamic religion believes in it. Could you explain what sort of evidence you want?

You can’t bring evidence from your holy book. Just because a bunch of people believe in it, does not make it real or truth.

This is like saying since Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism believe in reincarnation, it is real and we have to accept as a fact.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Because having multiple omnipotent beings is stupid & illogical, having equally powered or near-equally powered "gods" looks good in a Hollywood blockbuster as they fight it out but for running the universe it makes no sense!

There isn't a single rational or sensible idea for multiple gods who also run the world...If someone believes that "god" just created the universe and then left it alone then that idea is also against science.

1. The universe is created
2. The universe is structured and ordered
3. The universe is controlled

I dare you to have a scientific argument, double dare

If you wanted a childish argument, spend your time in watching a MCU movie as it will be a batter use of your time

It is allah's will that Gazan children get killed by the thousands? Is its hebrew god's will that millions turn into air pollution?

Is this god merciful?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

You can’t bring evidence from your holy book. Just because a bunch of people believe in it, does not make it real or truth.

This is like saying since Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism believe in reincarnation, it is real and we have to accept as a fact.

Ok then a simple rule of thumb.

Disapprove what is in Quran because surely that will make them impostors and if you can't then otherwise may be true?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

It is allah's will that Gazan children get killed by the thousands? Is its hebrew god's will that millions turn into air pollution?

Is this god merciful?

HE is the same God who will held "INVADERS" as per you parlance accountable for their crimes and also any another tyrants for their crimes and will punish them at their appointed time on the day of Judgement.

 

[LordJames]

It is allah's will that Gazan children get killed by the thousands? Is its hebrew god's will that millions turn into air pollution?

Is this god merciful?

My Challenge:

Because having multiple omnipotent beings is stupid & illogical, having equally powered or near-equally powered "gods" looks good in a Hollywood blockbuster as they fight it out but for running the universe it makes no sense!

There isn't a single rational or sensible idea for multiple gods who also run the world...If someone believes that "god" just created the universe and then left it alone then that idea is also against science.

1. The universe is created
2. The universe is structured and ordered
3. The universe is controlled

I dare you to have a scientific argument, double dare

If you wanted a childish argument, spend your time in watching a MCU movie as it will be a batter use of your time

Your Response:
It is allah's will that Gazan children get killed by the thousands? Is its hebrew god's will that millions turn into air pollution?


Is this god merciful?

Bottom Line:

We can have a discussion on Merciful God and evil in the world.

Lets watch you run away...

 

[LordJames]

no we donl;t here are 4000+ religions inthew world. your is special. Prove it.

Secular moral are superior, newton's science is better, Shakespeare literature is better

What is so special about quran? make your case.

Looks like your only super power is editing posts secretively

Calm down before you have a heart attack, slow down and type, don't take your frustrations out on the device!

You have a challenge from me and a challenge from @The Bald Eagle

Let's see what you got, sunshine.

 

[rpant_gabba]

My Challenge:

Because having multiple omnipotent beings is stupid & illogical, having equally powered or near-equally powered "gods" looks good in a Hollywood blockbuster as they fight it out but for running the universe it makes no sense!

It is just as stupid as having on omnipotent being which created, every thing controls every thing, is just, merciful
but sits back and watches awful ting shpaen

There isn't a single rational or sensible idea for multiple gods who also run the world...If someone believes that "god" just created the universe and then left it alone then that idea is also against science.

1. The universe is created

Proof?

1. The universe is structured and ordered

Really? structure and order? prove it.

Ican provide about dozen intances where there doesn't there seem to be much order.

Maybe quran has solution for the turbulence problem. do yow know what I'm referring to?

1. The universe is controlled

Proof? So gazan eevnets are orchestrated by Allah?

I dare you to have a scientific argument, double dare

Scientific argument against what? your empty assertions

Like the one where you said god's nature will be discussed after his existence is accepted?

Is that the logic they teach in madrassas? not that I'm complaining. Illogical idoits are useful

If you wanted a childish argument, spend your time in watching a MCU movie as it will be a batter use of your time

Your Response:
It is allah's will that Gazan children get killed by the thousands? Is its hebrew god's will that millions turn into air pollution?


Is this god merciful?

Bottom Line:

We can have a discussion on Merciful God and evil in the world.

Lets watch you run away...

cure animation aside, you arew still stuck with explaining that this omnipotent god doesn't seem to fit your description.

Maybe you are worshiping the false god and following a fake prophet

 

[The Bald Eagle]

So you picked two point which could mean absolutely any thing.

Is it it even original to quran and not copied of from the knowledge before?

we are expanding it? many point out that universe actually is not expanding. What is your proof that universe is expanding?

are you an expert or simoply copying others work? like writers of quran

created every living thing from water? meaning what?

Are you mad or acting like one?

Don't panic when you are losing the plot.

The questions are simple:
1. Prove that the cosmic world is not expanding. End of Debate
2. Or name living being not made of water.

Instead of rambling, you could answer the simple questions...you have all the time in the world lol if you could ever disapprove

 

[rpant_gabba]

Are you mad or acting like one?

Don't panic when you are losing the plot.

LMAO.

The questions are simple:
1. Prove that the cosmic world is not expanding. End of Debate

you made the assertion that universe is exopanding. What is your proof.

I say its not. Prove me wrong

2. Or name living being not made of water.

you mean all living things have water in them? Hasn't that been centuries before quran?

you are admitting quran is either useless non-sense or plagiarised stuff?

Instead of rambling, you could answer the simple questions...you have all the time in the world lol if you could ever disapprove

Have you stopped my wife? Instead of rambling, give a straight answer.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

LMAO.

you made the assertion that universe is exopanding. What is your proof.

I say its not. Prove me wrong

you mean all living things have water in them? Hasn't that been centuries before quran?

you are admitting quran is either useless non-sense or plagiarised stuff?

Have you stopped my wife? Instead of rambling, give a straight answer.

@LordJames lol you were right, he is ducking now. All rambling and no proofs

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I can copy and paste too

1. Redshift Interpretation:

• Tired Light Theory:
  Some researchers suggest that the redshift observed in distant galaxies might not be due to the expansion of space, but rather the light losing energy as it travels through space, similar to how light tires.
  
  
• Einstein's Initial Belief:
  Initially, Einstein favored a static, unchanging universe and introduced the cosmological constant to his theory to accommodate that view. He later abandoned it after Hubble's observations seemed to indicate expansion.

2. Challenges to Expansion:

• Constant Surface Brightness:
  Observations of galaxies show that their surface brightness remains constant with distance, which would be expected in a non-expanding universe.
  
  
• Cosmic Microwave Background:
  The CMB, a key piece of evidence for the Big Bang, is interpreted by some as evidence of a universe that was once much hotter and denser, not necessarily as evidence of expansion.
  
  
• Alternative Theories:
  Some researchers propose mathematical models where the universe is actually static, and the effects we interpret as expansion are due to other phenomena, such as the evolution of particle masses over time.

3. Other Considerations:

• The Infinite Universe:
  Some argue that if the universe is infinite, it cannot expand because it is already everywhere.
  
  
• Finite Age vs. Expansion:
  The idea that the universe has a finite age, initially suggested by Hubble's observations, doesn't necessarily imply expansion.
  
  
• Hubble's Original Claim:
  Some argue that Hubble himself didn't claim the universe was expanding until the end of his life, and the claim is often misrepresented, according to one source.

Lol you are so dumb, instead read first what you are sharing

 

[The Bald Eagle]

yeah, you are the one who is running.

your statement

>>2. Or name living being not made of water.<<<

This is known long before quran.

Thus, quran is copied

Lol...no red herring....answer my questions....but but they have been answered before. Where was it first mentioned that cosmic world is ever expanding....reproduce the original source here.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Lol you are so dumb, instead read first what you are sharing

you are so gullible. careful about who words you choose to folllow

 

[rpant_gabba]

Q:How did scientists first discover that the universe's expansion is accelerating?

Scientists first discovered the universe's accelerating expansion in 1998 by observing distant type Ia supernovae—stellar explosions that serve as "standard candles" due to their consistent intrinsic brightness56. Two independent teams, the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z Supernova Search Team, found that these supernovae appeared dimmer and more redshifted than expected, indicating they were farther away than predicted if the universe's expansion was slowing down356. This surprising result showed that the expansion rate was actually increasing, not decreasing as previously thought, leading to the conclusion that a mysterious force—later called dark energy—was driving the acceleration356. The discovery earned the leaders of these teams the Nobel Prize in Physics46.

yup and that interpretation is being questioned by many experts, as I pointed out.

 

[Greenstorm]

Secular moral are superior, newton's science is better, Shakespeare literature is better

Always love when non believers use such terminologies and then cry about 'non merciful God'. Why do you believe in 'secular moral' ?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Always love when non believers use such terminologies and then cry about 'non merciful God'. Why do you believe in 'secular moral' ?

Lol he is gone now

 

[rpant_gabba]

Always love when non believers use such terminologies and then cry about 'non merciful God'. Why do you believe in 'secular moral' ?

you want to worship a god which drowned a whole world? go ahead.

don't call him moral or merciful

you worship a god who authorized slavery. is slavery moral in you book?

is torah also work of god? is moses also a prophet?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

you want to worship a god which drowned a whole world? go ahead.

don't call him moral or merciful

you worship a god who authorized slavery. is slavery moral in you book?

is torah also work of god? is moses also a prophet?

Lol ..so atleast you believe in a God now?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Lol ..so atleast you believe in a God now?

logic is not strong point among muslims I see.

Discussing gods nature as described by believers is not believing in god. you have to be an brainless to think that

 

[Greenstorm]

you want to worship a god which drowned a whole world? go ahead.

don't call him moral or merciful

you worship a god who authorized slavery. is slavery moral in you book?

is torah also work of god? is moses also a prophet?

No need for idhr udhr ki baat.

My question remains, why do you believe in 'secular moral' if you are a non believer ?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@rpant_gabba have you run out of logical answers as rambling won't do you any good.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Ok so why your religion or follower scientists wasted their entire life in discovering something that was already there even before Holy Quran...

can you be more specific about the discovery?

Won't you call it a stupidity then

I'll call myself stupid for posting illogical garbage.

 

[rpant_gabba]

@rpant_gabba have you run out of logical answers as rambling won't do you any good.

???? whats in the video? it doesn't play.

bit like your assertions about quran

 

[The Bald Eagle]

????

Answer the QUESTIONS not red herring please.

Waiting in quene, myself, lord James and green storm. Thanks

 

[LordJames]

you are so gullible. careful about who words you choose to folllow

Guy is losing his head, can't keep it together

 

[Greenstorm]

no we donl;t here are 4000+ religions inthew world. your is special. Prove it.

Secular moral are superior, newton's science is better, Shakespeare literature is better

What is so special about quran? make your case.

Looks like your only super power is editing posts secretively

No need for idhr udhr ki baat.

My question remains, why do you believe in 'secular moral' if you are a non believer ?

I will be waiting brother Gabba.

 

[sweep_shot]

Guy is losing his head, can't keep it together

These bhakts seem to be burning inside. You know they are losing it when they resort to petty insults.

 

[rpant_gabba]

No eed for idhr udhr ki baat.

My question remains, why do you believe in 'secular moral' if you are a non believer ?

I don't understand the question.

I don't believe in secular morals, I choose them over what is prescribed in religious books

I reject the idea of a god described in any of the religious texts.

I understand why you'd be confused, as religious belief is a metal illness.

 

[Greenstorm]

guess I touched raw nerve

Its all in your head brother .

I don't understand the question.

I don't believe in secular morals, I choose them over what is prescribed in religious books

I reject the idea of a god described in any of the religious texts.

I understand why you'd be confused, as religious belief is a metal illness.

Why do you choose to believe in something without any objective basis brother ?

 

[Suleiman]

Prophet Adam, Noah, Idris (Enoch), Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad and all other prophets between them peace and blessings upon them all are all prophets of Allah. We do not differentiate. They all came with Islam- which means to submit to God, regardless of what languages they spoke.

We do not insult any of them, and love them all. Peace be upon them all

 

[sweep_shot]

View attachment 153530

Prophet Adam, Noah, Idris (Enoch), Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad and all other prophets between them peace and blessings upon them all are all prophets of Allah. We do not differentiate. They all came with Islam- which means to submit to God, regardless of what languages they spoke.

We do not insult any of them, and love them all. Peace be upon them all

Correct.

Jesus (PBUH) is a great prophet in Islam. A Muslim cannot insult Jesus or any other prophet (peace be upon them all).

 

[rpant_gabba]

Its all in your head brother .

Why do you choose to believe in something without any objective basis brother ?

What do mean by believe? You don’t believe in “morals”. You either value them and practice it or you don’t. Belief doesn’t come into play. Belief is for existence of entities or events.

Not sure how anyone with half a brain can get it mixed up

 

[HalBass9]

Has @uppercut replied to @LordJames?

Don’t let atheists Hindutva hijacked the thread.

 

[LordJames]

Has @uppercut replied to @LordJames?

Don’t let atheists Hindutva hijacked the thread.

Still waiting...

 

[Champ_Pal]

Jesus said No one gets to his father but through him. He called Yahweh is Father in heaven.
Islamic Isa is a completely different person to Christian Jesus.

 

[HalBass9]

Jesus said No one gets to his father but through him. He called Yahweh is Father in heaven.
Islamic Isa is a completely different person to Christian Jesus.

An atheist wouldn’t say “Jesus said”, they’d say “as Christians claim he said.” Big difference between quoting a belief and subscribing to it.

 

[Champ_Pal]

An atheist wouldn’t say “Jesus said”, they’d say “as Christians claim he said.” Big difference between quoting a belief and subscribing to it.

Christianity came 600 yrs before Islam. Their sources are the oldest.

 

[HalBass9]

Christianity came 600 yrs before Islam. Their sources are the oldest.

lol, okay.

Read the comment again, lol.

Oh wow, what a revelation! Up until now, we all thought Christianity was invented after the European Zionists started their genocide spree against Christians and Muslims. Thanks for setting the historical timeline straight, truly groundbreaking stuff. Lol

 

[Champ_Pal]

lol, okay.

Read the comment again, lol.

Oh wow, what a revelation! Up until now, we all thought Christianity was invented after the European Zionists started their genocide spree against Christians and Muslims. Thanks for setting the historical timeline straight, truly groundbreaking stuff. Lol

What a come back

 

[HalBass9]

What a come back

Comeback? Oh no, this wasn’t a comeback. This was your Pulitzer worthy revelation that Christianity came before Islam. Absolute bombshell. Up next, water is wet.

Anyway, don’t hijack the thread with your half baked hot takes.

 

[rpant_gabba]

An atheist wouldn’t say “Jesus said”, they’d say “as Christians claim he said.” Big difference between quoting a belief and subscribing to it.

That’s weak tea. Not helping your case when you resort to word play. To an atheist, all 4000+ religions are nothing more than fairy tales. Just saying Jesus said for convenience doesn’t make one xtian.

 

[HalBass9]

That’s weak tea. Not helping your case when you resort to word play. To an atheist, all 4000+ religions are nothing more than fairy tales. Just saying Jesus said for convenience doesn’t make one xtian.

Says the Hindutva atheist, too godless for religion, too brainwashed for reason. Pick a struggle.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Says the Hindutva atheist, too godless for religion, too brainwashed for reason. Pick a struggle.

We are brainwashed and you are the voice of reason

For me all religions are same. They have No case and no trial. Just straight up verdict. And the verdict is what I believe is absolute truth.

 

[Suleiman]

Says the Hindutva atheist, too godless for religion, too brainwashed for reason. Pick a struggle.

There are certain individuals who are genuine in their questions, and we have a discussion already ongoing in this thread with them.

And then others who want to stroke their fragile ego by trying to act above the belief in God, when they were nothing more than a white stain and will inevitably return to brown dirt in another few years or decades decaying into nothing and then the unseen will be accessible to them. Then their doubts will be answered but it will be too late.

They are the first to mock monotheism from their cushy homes but once that plane starts to go through turbulence they are also the first to start praying out of nowhere.

 

[uppercut]

What is abrogation in the Qur’aan?

This issue is discussed in detail in the paper linked here. I strongly encourage @uppercut and others interested in a serious discussion to read it thoroughly, dissect its arguments, and post meaningful objections if any. I’ll summarize the main point here, but I’m not reproducing the entire paper. If you wish to respond, please engage with the full material presented.

Abrogation in the Qur'aan: A Brief Clarification

Abrogation (naskh) in the Qur’an refers to the phenomenon where a later verse supersedes or modifies the ruling of an earlier verse—either partially or completely. This is not a contradiction, but rather an example of divine wisdom unfolding gradually for a society in transition.

One of the most well-known examples of this is the gradual prohibition of alcohol, which was implemented in a step-by-step manner. All three verses related to this issue remain in the Qur’an and are recited by Muslims—but their legal weight differs based on the chronology of revelation.

@LordJames

( Due to severe time constraints I will keep my response short and address the core part of your post quoted above )


You’ve now cited 16:101 (in defense of 2:106) and to justify abrogation as divine wisdom, but this creates serious logical contradictions.
If the Quran is the final, perfect revelation from an all-knowing God, why did it take over 20 years to deliver the full message? Why not reveal it all at once?

Verse 2:106 openly speaks of God nullifying or replacing verses and 16:101 doubles down on it, acknowledging that critics accused Muhammad of fabricating revelations. If even the Quran anticipates that replacing verses would look like human invention, that’s not a refutation. That’s a confirmation of the problem.

The Yaqeen article you referenced even gives examples like the gradual alcohol prohibition. That shows verses were revealed, softened, then overridden. That’s not divine clarity. That’s reactive governance — something expected from humans, not timeless divine decree from God himself.

And worst of all … there’s no authoritative list today of which verses were abrogated. That means modern readers are relying on later juristic human opinions, not a definitive, preserved roadmap from God himself.

Even the Sahih Bukhari in 6829 ( linked below) records a verse on stoning that was once part of the revelation but is no longer in the Quran despite being carried out by Muhammad and his companions. If a verse commanding capital punishment could disappear from the final scripture, how is this divine preservation?

And consider this: the first compiled Quran under Abu Bakr which was assembled within 2 years of Muhammad’s passing, did not even survive two decades. It had to be replaced under Uthman’s orders with a standardized version, and the original copies were burned which clearly implies issues with the first written version so serious that all copies of it had to be burned and new amendments ordered. That’s not divine consistency — that’s human course correction.

You can’t call the Quran eternal, complete, and unchanged … while also defending a process where verses were revealed, revised, revoked, or forgotten within two decades. That’s not divine precision. That’s doctrinal damage control.

Link: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6829

 

[uppercut]

Still waiting...

As said before I do not have that kind of time luxury to read excruciatingly lengthy posts with even more lengthy articles embedded. If you prefer quick responses you need to shorted your replies considerably. ( for example see my previous post )

 

[Greenstorm]

What do mean by believe? You don’t believe in “morals”. You either value them and practice it or you don’t. Belief doesn’t come into play. Belief is for existence of entities or events.

Not sure how anyone with half a brain can get it mixed up

Nice try at deflection with semantics. So you don't believe in 'secular moral', you 'choose' it. Got it. May I ask why do you choose them ? Is there any objective basis for 'choosing' such an important aspect of life ?

 

[LordJames]

As said before I do not have that kind of time luxury to read excruciatingly lengthy posts with even more lengthy articles embedded. If you prefer quick responses you need to shorted your replies considerably. ( for example see my previous post )

@uppercut Shenanigans Summarized

@uppercut asked for Discussion and here is his statement:

This is not entirely true but please let me know if you are interested in a serious facts and logic based discussion.

Jay Smith Statements Video by @uppercut (1st Argument by @uppercut)

See post here

1. @uppercut unable to standby his own posts:

My 1st question to ask about the exact time of the video (@uppercut replied & apologized for not being clear)

1. My 2nd attempt at trying to summarize (@uppercut obfuscates)
2. My 3rd attempt at asking him to standby his arguments (@uppercut obfuscates)
3. My 4th attempt at at asking him to agree with the summary and standby his arguments
4. My 5th attempt at the same issue, agree with the summary and standby arguments
5. My 6th attempt...
6. And so on and so forth...

My response and @uppercut drops the issue and pretends like he never posted Jay Smith:

1. My Arguments are detailed and evidence provided
2. 2-3 of my arguments are also broken down and summarized

@uppercut doesn't answer a single query, doesn't respond but changes the topic.

2nd Argument by @uppercut)

1. Drops the first argument entirely
2. Doesn't answer anything
3. Changes the topic and poses a different argument

Read here

My response to 2nd argument by @uppercut

3rd Argument by @uppercut)

1. Drops the 2nd argument fully (but unlike the 1st one) at least tries
2. Answers selectively

( Due to severe time constraints I will keep my response short and address the core part of your post quoted above )

And says:

As said before I do not have that kind of time luxury to read excruciatingly lengthy posts with even more lengthy articles embedded. If you prefer quick responses you need to shorted your replies considerably. ( for example see my previous post )

As I said before I don't do knee jerk reactions, I am going to dissect every comma, every period in what @uppercut I am going to pay attention and then I am going to take the time and respond and where I am wrong will be happy to admit.

What I will not do is to be dictated by someone who asked me to discuss to respond according to his request. @uppercut asked for:

1. a serious
2. facts and
3. logic based discussion.

I believe that when a person asks for a discussion then we will have a discussion and I will give it my undivided attention even when the argument is as STUPID as this!

If the Quran is the final, perfect revelation from an all-knowing God, why did it take over 20 years to deliver the full message? Why not reveal it all at once?

Why the argument of @uppercut is STUPID, just 1 point

1. He is claiming that the Quran today is changed from 1400+ years ago because preservation didn't happen
2. Whether 114 chapters were revealed in 1 go OR over 23 years gradually, his argument of preservation equally applies to the volume of Quraan (1 go or 23 years, the issue of preservation is the same) and that's how dumb this argument is

IF he would have made the argument in isolation to say "Why didn't God reveal the whole of Qur'aan in 1 go instead of over 23 years, it would have been an issue" but because his argument is preservation it is a dumb argument.

Btw I am not calling @uppercut stupid, I am calling his argument stupid.

What is @uppercut doing? Whats his strategy? Whats his game plan?

It is clear to me (from past experience) that @uppercut doesn't know this subject all. His strategy is classic Islamophobe (or Hidutva game plan) to throw mud and lets see what sticks to the wall and run with it, not saying that its intentional but he is following it by copy/pasting whatever comes to his head and hoping to get away with it.

As I said, will read, dissect and respond to it too.

 

[Farhan The Man]

@uppercut Shenanigans Summarized

Niceties have come to an end. Blades are drawn.

You need to be succinct when presenting an argument. Long-winded responses are uncalled for.

Attempting to hit many bases but failing to conclude the main one. Makes your counter irrelevant.

 

[sweep_shot]

Sit down kid! When I want to interact with a whining baby, I will let you know



The only blades are in your soul and they constantly injure you, Islam is an Ex for you which you claim to have left but she lives in your head rent-free

Exactly.

These Islamophobes feel helpless I guess. They want Islam to go away but it keeps on flourishing.

Reminds me of this Quranic verse:

"They want to extinguish the light of Allāh with their mouths, but Allāh will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it." (Surah As-saf: verse 8)

 

[LordJames]

Exactly.

These Islamophobes feel helpless I guess. They want Islam to go away but it keeps on flourishing.

Reminds me of this Quranic verse:

"They want to extinguish the light of Allāh with their mouths, but Allāh will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it." (Surah As-saf: verse 8)

The condition of @Farhan The Man is actually pretty common, his "ex" lives in his head and he is unable to move on, guy needs therapy.

While the ex has moved on far ahead and prospering but he is infatuated by the ex, can't get it out of his head

Pretty pathetic situation, really.

 

[uppercut]

Niceties have come to an end. Blades are drawn.

Indeed but not surprising at all .... I knew it.was bound to happen... thanks for calling that out

You need to be succinct when presenting an argument. Long-winded responses are uncalled for.

Attempting to hit many bases but failing to conclude the main one. Makes your counter irrelevant.

Exactly!

 

[LordJames]

Indeed but not surprising at all .... I knew it.was bound to happen... thanks for calling that out



Exactly!

So you are setting yourself to also leave your "3rd set of arguments" which you put forth, no problems my friend.

I will reply to you in full and also continue to ask for responses to issues which you have dropped like a hot potato such as:

1) Unable to read Arabic without dots and vowels

2) Jay Smith says Quran was compiled by 3rd Caliph (652) Usman while you say that it was complied by first Caliph Abu Bakr (634)

By "Shenanigans" I mean throwing whatever in the hope that it sticks and it is clear that you don't have knowledge of this subject which is ok, I don't know your intentions but you clearly don't know about this topic even from an Orientalist perspective.

Will reply my friend and appreciate the chance to expose the blatant contradictions.

Thanks

 

[HalBass9]

We are brainwashed and you are the voice of reason

For me all religions are same. They have No case and no trial. Just straight up verdict. And the verdict is what I believe is absolute truth.

No, you don’t get to label anyone as “brainwashed” when your sorry excuse for justifying genocide is that some people are “God’s chosen,” the land was “promised” to them by their god, and their religious ancestors lived there thousands of years ago, all while backing European colonizers in the year 2025.

You also don’t get to project your delusions onto others while obsessively trying to discredit one religion, all while cheering on religious extremists disguised as a political party.

No one tries harder to discredit Islam and Muslims than a closet Hindutva keyboard warrior. Just look at this thread, someone who openly supports the idea of slaughtering people over their beliefs made a challenge, but the moment replies started pouring in, their excuse became, “It’s too much for me to read.” Classic. @uppercut

If you're defending genocide, ethnic cleansing, or colonial land grabs with religious mythology, you're not the voice of reason, you’re the dictionary definition of brainwashed. And that’s the cult you proudly belong to.

 

[HalBass9]

There are certain individuals who are genuine in their questions, and we have a discussion already ongoing in this thread with them.

And then others who want to stroke their fragile ego by trying to act above the belief in God, when they were nothing more than a white stain and will inevitably return to brown dirt in another few years or decades decaying into nothing and then the unseen will be accessible to them. Then their doubts will be answered but it will be too late.

They are the first to mock monotheism from their cushy homes but once that plane starts to go through turbulence they are also the first to start praying out of nowhere.

The only one being genuine in this thread is the person writing long replies, because the rest are too desperate to protect their brainwashed worldview, born and raised in hate, to handle even a single counterpoint that shatters the fantasy they’ve wrapped themselves in.

And let’s not forget, you're debating someone who has, in more ways than one, openly justified the slaughter of Indian Muslims over their beliefs, all while casually shopping at an American grocery store that sells slaughtered beef. Their defense? Geography. You can’t argue with that level of cognitive dissonance, it’s like debating a toaster about climate change.

Engaging with these types is a waste of time. If they can't respond, they deflect. If they’re cornered, they label you. And yet, they’ll shamelessly support mass violence with the same breath they pretend to care about humanity.

The truth is, they’re not even well read on the topics they obsess over, it is copy/paste job. They just need it all to be true because that’s the only thing holding together the fragile fiction they’ve been fed since childhood.

And that’s not debate, that’s delusion.

 

[LordJames]

The only one being genuine in this thread is the person writing long replies, because the rest are too desperate to protect their brainwashed worldview, born and raised in hate, to handle even a single counterpoint that shatters the fantasy they’ve wrapped themselves in.

And let’s not forget, you're debating someone who has, in more ways than one, openly justified the slaughter of Indian Muslims over their beliefs, all while casually shopping at an American grocery store that sells slaughtered beef. Their defense? Geography. You can’t argue with that level of cognitive dissonance, it’s like debating a toaster about climate change.

Engaging with these types is a waste of time. If they can't respond, they deflect. If they’re cornered, they label you. And yet, they’ll shamelessly support mass violence with the same breath they pretend to care about humanity.

The truth is, they’re not even well read on the topics they obsess over, it is copy/paste job. They just need it all to be true because that’s the only thing holding together the fragile fiction they’ve been fed since childhood.

And that’s not debate, that’s delusion.

@uppercut copied/pasted the following (2 contradictions only):

1. Arabic cannot be read without dots and vowels and this is from Jay Smith (original post)
2. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) passed away in 632 but Quraan was first compiled in the era of 3rd Caliph Usman (652) and this is also from Jay Smith (original post)
3. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) passed away in 632 but Quraan was first compiled in the era of 1st Caliph Abu-Bakr (634) and this is from his second set of arguments

Does any non-Muslim see contradictions?

A simply Yes/No will suffice, waiting for honesty and integrity

 

[uppercut]

As I said, will read, dissect and respond to it too.

So thats the last line in your LENGTHY response to me ... which implies that everything above it was NOT a real response to my post.

Therefore that begs the question: What is the point of that massive post other than to waste my time ?

 

[LordJames]

So thats the last line in your LENGTHY response to me ... which implies that everything above it was NOT a real response to my post.

Therefore that begs the question: What is the point of that massive post other than to waste my time ?

Dear @uppercut

I haven't responded to you yet, as I said I will give you the courtesy and respect which you deserve but reading your post repeatedly, dissecting it, researching it. Just said that your first argument is utterly absurd and stupid and explained why.

If you are not reading you may have missed the last line which says

As I said, will read, dissect and respond to it too.

 

[uppercut]

Dear @uppercut

I haven't responded to you yet,

I am aware of that which is why I only quoted the last line from your lengthy post in my post#217.

So essentially you are confirming that your post does not address my points and is a waste of my time ... Correct?

as I said I will give you the courtesy and respect which you deserve but reading your post repeatedly, dissecting it, researching it. Just said that your first argument is utterly absurd and stupid and explained why.

Your opinions about my post are of no use to me. Instead address the core topic and answer the points. Everything else is a waste of my time.

If you are not reading you may have missed the last line which says

As I said, will read, dissect and respond to it too.

See above

 

[LordJames]

I am aware of that which is why I only quoted the last line from your lengthy post. So essentially you are confirming that your post does not address my points and is a waste of my time ?



Your opinions about my post are of no use to me. Instead address the core topic and answer the points. Everything else is a waste of my time.



See above

Dear @uppercut

If you are aware then why are you asking? That's called redundant, right?

It addresses just the absurdity of your argument contextually but I am wrong it somehow does have a bearing on the context of your argument please feel free to expand on that.

 

[uppercut]

Dear @uppercut

If you are aware then why are you asking? That's called redundant, right?

It addresses just the absurdity of your argument contextually but I am wrong it somehow does have a bearing on the context of your argument please feel free to expand on that.

Good ... Now that we have established that you are wasting my time ... going forward pls don't bother with such things as I have no time to wade through pointless rants on how you construe my points as absurd or stupid or whatever and keep your emotions out of it.

Pls Restrict your response to Only the points raised and counter them with facts and logic. There is also no need to do book keeping on who said what when etc.

If you need quick progress keep your posts short and pointed like how I do. Otherwise expect lengthy delays.

 

[LordJames]

Good ... Now that we have established that you are wasting my time ... going forward pls don't bother with such things as I have no time to wade through pointless rants on how you construe my points as absurd or stupid or whatever and keep your emotions out of it.

Pls Restrict your response to Only the points raised and counter them with facts and logic. There is also no need to do book keeping on who said what when etc.

If you need quick progress keep your posts short and pointed like how I do. Otherwise expect lengthy delays.

Really strange behavior!

1. I said that I will respond in time from the beginning
2. I added it to every post that that I will respond in time
3. I reiterated again that I will respond in time
4. Guy asks a question to confirm (despite at least 3 clear statements) and then gets angry while skipping all the points previously clear as day.

But have a great day @uppercut I can see that you can read "pointless posts (according to your opinion)" but somehow cannot read and respond to your contradictions which are clearly spelled out.

Let me end by stating again, "I will respond in time".

And also I reserve the right to write as I see fit as do you.

 

[sweep_shot]

After having multiple interactions with uppercut in the past, I can confirm interaction with him is a massive waste of time.

I doubt his goal is to learn anything. He wants Muslims to agree with his Islamophobia and clap for him. Just a typical Hindutva fella.

 

[LordJames]

After having multiple interactions with uppercut in the past, I can confirm interaction with him is a massive waste of time.

I doubt his goal is to learn anything. He wants Muslims to agree with his Islamophobia and clap for him. Just a typical Hindutva fella.

He has a unique eye for reading everything else apart from the contradictions which have been pointed to him but for the record for @uppercut

1. Arabic cannot be read without dots and vowels and this is from Jay Smith (original post)
2. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) passed away in 632 but Quraan was first compiled in the era of 3rd Caliph Usman (652) and this is also from Jay Smith (original post)
3. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) passed away in 632 but Quraan was first compiled in the era of 1st Caliph Abu-Bakr (634) and this is from his second set of arguments

Somehow, can't see these and never responds and if he does watch him reply to this post and ignore all others which are in other posts.

@uppercut is probably a good guy, just extremely biased and certainly not knowledgeable on the topic and also not honest & truthful

 

[uppercut]

Really strange behavior!

1. I said that I will respond in time from the beginning
2. I added it to every post that that I will respond in time
3. I reiterated again that I will respond in time
4. Guy asks a question to confirm (despite at least 3 clear statements) and then gets angry while skipping all the points previously clear as day.

But have a great day @uppercut I can see that you can read "pointless posts (according to your opinion)" but somehow cannot read and respond to your contradictions which are clearly spelled out.

Not my opinion .... your own words allude to the fact that your lengthy post was not addressing any points I raised and therefore a complete waste of time ( and re-confirmed)

And hang in there I will adddress every single Point you raised. Pretty sure you will eventually descend down to throwing insults, name calling etc.

Let me end by stating again, "I will respond in time".

And also I reserve the right to write as I see fit as do you.

Then don't make juvenile posts with memes like you did in post#194 and expect me to respond to your pointless posts that don't address the main Points raised.

 

[LordJames]

Not my opinion .... your own words allude to the fact that your lengthy post was not addressing any points I raised and therefore a complete waste of time

And hang in there I will adddress every single Point you raised. Pretty sure you will eventually descend down to throwing insults, name calling etc.




Then don't make juvenile posts with memes like you did in post#194 and expect me to respond to your pointless posts that don't address the main Points raised.

Direct Words:

Please go ahead and respond to the contradictions inherent in your objections as pointed out in my:

1. First Response
2. Second Response

Thanks @uppercut

 

[uppercut]

Direct Words:

Please go ahead and respond to the contradictions inherent in your objections as pointed out in my:

1. First Response
2. Second Response

Thanks @uppercut

Cut and post just the relevant sentences that you want me to respond... I don't have time to wade thru massive posts.

 

[LordJames]

Cut and post just the relevant sentences that you want me to respond... I don't have time to wade thru massive posts.

1. Its laid out in clear terms for you as First Response and Second Response
2. Its then split for you in 2-3 different posts
3. Its surmised for you repeatedly
4. 2 of the points (see below) are even addressed to you multiple times and even said @uppercut will at best respond to these two and ignore the rest

1. Arabic cannot be read without dots and vowels and this is from Jay Smith (original post)
2. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) passed away in 632 but Quraan was first compiled in the era of 3rd Caliph Usman (652) and this is also from Jay Smith (original post)
3. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) passed away in 632 but Quraan was first compiled in the era of 1st Caliph Abu-Bakr (634) and this is from his second set of arguments

You know very well that everything is clear and candid for you and repeatedly addressed.

Would you like me to respond for you too?

 

[uppercut]

1. Its laid out in clear terms for you as First Response and Second Response
2. Its then split for you in 2-3 different posts
3. Its surmised for you repeatedly
4. 2 of the points (see below) are even addressed to you multiple times and even said @uppercut will at best respond to these two and ignore the rest

You know very well that everything is clear and candid for you and repeatedly addressed.

Would you like me to respond for you too?

Addressing the first one ONLY for now. Doesn't mean I am avoiding or conceding the other points.

are you claiming that dots and vowels do not have any purpose at all in Arabic text? please clarify where you stand.

 

[LordJames]

Addressing the first one ONLY for now. Doesn't mean I am avoiding or conceding the other points.

are you claiming that dots and vowels do not have any purpose at all in Arabic text? please clarify where you stand.

Dear @uppercut

Please do not make up things from your head, here is the whole issue of dots and vowels spelt out for you as to what Jay Smith is claiming which you submitted

1. You submitted "Jay Smith"
2. Therefore you should know what he said
3. Nevertheless, it is detailed for you what he says and why its problematic in a single post and the problem

This isn't about conceding or avoiding, its a simple contradiction which you posted from "Jay Smith" and one of many.

Clearly written in Plain English. The answer to your query is also in the post

 

[uppercut]

Dear @uppercut

Please do not make up things from your head,

Read my post again... where Did I make up anything?

here is the whole issue of dots and vowels spelt out for you as to what Jay Smith is claiming which you submitted

1. You submitted "Jay Smith"
2. Therefore you should know what he said
3. Nevertheless, it is detailed for you what he says and why its problematic in a single post and the problem

This isn't about conceding or avoiding, its a simple contradiction which you posted from "Jay Smith" and one of many.

Clearly written in Plain English. The answer to your query is also in the post

So essentially you are saying the dots and vowels are not really necessary correct ? Yes/no

 

[LordJames]

Read my post again... where Did I make up anything?




So essentially you are saying the dots and vowels are not really necessary correct ? Yes/no

I am pointing out a contradiction of Jay Smith which you submitted to be Authentic

Everything is there in plain and simple English for you to understand easily.

1. Click
2. Read & Understand
3. Respond

 

[uppercut]

I am pointing out a contradiction of Jay Smith which you submitted to be Authentic

Everything is there in plain and simple English for you to understand easily.

1. Click
2. Read & Understand
3. Respond

Then that will take time. However if you want a quick answer and fast track this discussion .... respond to my previous post. If not then wait till I get around to reading your massive posts.

 

[uppercut]

I am pointing out a contradiction of Jay Smith which you submitted to be Authentic

You also accused me of making up things ... where did I do that ?

 

[LordJames]

You also accused me of making up things ... where did I do that ?

Dear @uppercut,

Brother, please excuse me as it is not possible to deal with you. You asked to engage me and wanted to have an evidence based discussion and you clearly don't have any intention for it and you are clearly out of your depth in terms of your arguments. You are copy/pasting and have no clue what you are actually pasting at all.

I have repeatedly and plainly asked you to respond and laid out the arguments in details (and also summarized in single posts), I have repeatedly pointed you to both.

My points are clear as daylight multiple times and yet you made this up without reading

are you claiming that dots and vowels do not have any purpose at all in Arabic text? please clarify where you stand.

I accept defeat as I cannot deal with your circular distractions, I am an honest and truthful person and I standby my words and give dignity and respect to people. I gave you my word so I will respond to your 3rd attempt at sophistry but you are under no obligation to respond do anything so for the sake of everyone's else time who are expecting a meaningful discussion. More then I, there are others who are expecting honesty, truthfulness and good exchange from both of us and it is clear that you don't have any such intentions.

This isn't a duel and if and when I make a mistake (which I do as I am human), I plainly admit it and concede. We clearly have two sets of rules in life. It as my mistake to engage with you (per your request) at the behest of others but there are many who are trying to follow and its a waste of their time expecting a dialogue when there is nothing coming from your end.

I am an honest and truthful person and as promised, I will respond to your 3rd distraction in detail in time (as stated previously) in time. I expected honesty and truthfulness and its clear that it is lacking.

I appreciate your time, please feel free to continue to dip in and out but if you respond on the topic of Quran and want my response please quote me and I will respond or if I see it, I will respond.

My mistake & my loss.

 

[uppercut]

Dear @uppercut,

Brother, please excuse me as it is not possible to deal with you. You asked to engage me and wanted to have an evidence based discussion and you clearly don't have any intention for it and you are clearly out of your depth in terms of your arguments. You are copy/pasting and have no clue what you are actually pasting at all.

I have repeatedly and plainly asked you to respond and laid out the arguments in details (and also summarized in single posts), I have repeatedly pointed you to both.

My points are clear as daylight multiple times and yet you made this up without reading

are you claiming that dots and vowels do not have any purpose at all in Arabic text? please clarify where you stand.

I accept defeat as I cannot deal with your circular distractions, I am an honest and truthful person and I standby my words and give dignity and respect to people. I gave you my word so I will respond to your 3rd attempt at sophistry but you are under no obligation to respond do anything so for the sake of everyone's else time who are expecting a meaningful discussion. More then I, there are others who are expecting honesty, truthfulness and good exchange from both of us and it is clear that you don't have any such intentions.

This isn't a duel and if and when I make a mistake (which I do as I am human), I plainly admit it and concede. We clearly have two sets of rules in life. It as my mistake to engage with you (per your request) at the behest of others but there are many who are trying to follow and its a waste of their time expecting a dialogue when there is nothing coming from your end.

I am an honest and truthful person and as promised, I will respond to your 3rd distraction in detail in time (as stated previously) in time. I expected honesty and truthfulness and its clear that it is lacking.

I appreciate your time, please feel free to continue to dip in and out but if you respond on the topic of Quran and want my response please quote me and I will respond or if I see it, I will respond.

My mistake & my loss.

What circular distractions ? Iam addressing the topic of dots and vowels for the 1st time because you were adamant that I respond to that point and so I asked you a very simple question to clarify where you stand on the need for vowels and here you are again ranting and raving instead of responding clearly in simple short sentence or two ?

And what was the dishonest thing that I supposedly do ? I told you I will get to EVERY single question you posed. Just not in one single post. As I do not have that kind of time. Were you expecting this topic to be done and dusted in a few posts !!??

If you want quick progression in the debate .... then you need to start learning how to construct short pointed responses.

 

[BouncerGuy]

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC

 

[Farhan The Man]

I am addressing the topic of dots and vowels for the 1st time because you were adamant that I respond to that point and so I asked you a very simple question to clarify where you stand on the need for vowels?

Let's get the discussion back on track.

With only this specific question.

The rest to follow organically.

 

[LordJames]

Let's get the discussion back on track.

With only this specific question.

The rest to follow organically.

As far as @uppercut is concerned...

It's all in the post clearly detailing what I am saying, exactly how I am saying and the implications of what I am saying.

I have now repeated it and referenced it at least 4-5 times in the detailed post and also the summary.

All he needs to do is read and then ask I am not clear what you mean by this line or this word or this comma. Instead, he is trying to put words in my mouth, interject and take the conversation in a different direction and deliberately so.

All he has to do is read, he knows very well where it it because it has been stated and referenced multiple times and clearly so.

But when the intention is obfuscation, feigning naivety is a common tactic. Everyone involved in this thread is well aware of what's going on here and that's fine

@Farhan The Man, you neither have the Academic capacity nor the moral integrity for a discussion so your intervention is not required.

 

[uppercut]

As far as @uppercut is concerned...

It's all in the post clearly detailing what I am saying, exactly how I am saying and the implications of what I am saying.

I have now repeated it and referenced it at least 4-5 times in the detailed post and also the summary.

All he needs to do is read and then ask I am not clear what you mean by this line or this word or this comma. Instead, he is trying to put words in my mouth, interject and take the conversation in a different direction and deliberately so.

All he has to do is read, he knows very well where it it because it has been stated and referenced multiple times and clearly so.

But when the intention is obfuscation, feigning naivety is a common tactic. Everyone involved in this thread is well aware of what's going on here and that's fine

@Farhan The Man, you neither have the Academic capacity nor the moral integrity for a discussion so your intervention is not required.

As I have said many times ... I do not have the time to dig thru excruciatingly lengthy posts. So therefore this is my way of speeding up the progress on the topic of dots and vowels in Arabic text.

the Question is simple... are they necessary Or not according to you. Its a simple yes/no type of question.