There are many things FEOS states as fact which aren't.Spark wrote:
Hmm... looking at this issue, the notion of 'abrogation' is certainly not as black/white and certainly not universally accepted doctrine as FEOS is making it out to be.
Yes.Beduin wrote:
No.FEOS wrote:
The fact that 9:5 is generally considered to be either the last or next-to-last revelation to Muhammed, depending on which school of thought you ascribe to.Beduin wrote:
Where do you have this from?
Saying "No" does not equate to "rejecting" a theory. Multiple sources have been provided re the abrogation doctrine that applies to religious texts, in this case, focused on the Qu'ran. You've done nothing to disprove any of it. Bring it if you've got it.Beduin wrote:
Notice that I have already rejected his theory. I also wrote why it is invalid and pointed out practical examples that prove his theory wrong.
The issue of abrogation is not black and white. It is debatable, which is what I said when I brought it up. It is what has caused the debate about the "violent nature" of the Qu'ran and the confusion when one studies the text. Is the chronology or the literary flow more important from an abrogation perspective? They are not one and the same. In fact, if you look at it from one perspective, abrogation tells you the exact opposite than if you look at it from the other.Spark wrote:
Hmm... looking at this issue, the notion of 'abrogation' is certainly not as black/white and certainly not universally accepted doctrine as FEOS is making it out to be.
Pot. Kettle. Black.Dilbert_X wrote:
There are many things FEOS states as fact which aren't.
Now you're just making shit up, Dilbert. Even the UK post-mortem self-flagellation for the press is proving this claim to be nonsensical. You been spooning with Ramm or something to bring Israel into this now?Dilbert_X wrote:
It was bogus US and Israeli intel that caused the problem, and a few politicians like Blair would have gone through with the 'crush Saddam' agenda even without it.FEOS wrote:
It wasn't just the CIA. It wasn't just the US. Get. That. Through. Your. Skull.
In several cases the security services reports were re-written by the politicans =/= they believed the intel.
No Google search has proven that I'm wrong. The fact that you can't prove anything--right, wrong, or indifferent--because you can't be bothered to learn anything about the topic yourself is your problem, not mine.Dilbert_X wrote:
You need to provide some backup to show the school of though you ascribe to exists anywhere outside your own head.FEOS wrote:
The fact that 9:5 is generally considered to be either the last or next-to-last revelation to Muhammed, depending on which school of thought you ascribe to.
Google searches which prove you're wrong aren't helpful.
Reading Scott Ritter at present.FEOS wrote:
The intel wasn't bogus. It was exactly what was supposed to be seen. The conclusions that were drawn were exactly what were supposed to be drawn. Saddam just assumed that nothing would be done...because that's exactly what had been done for a decade.
As I've said before...I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.Dilbert_X wrote:
Reading Scott Ritter at present.FEOS wrote:
The intel wasn't bogus. It was exactly what was supposed to be seen. The conclusions that were drawn were exactly what were supposed to be drawn. Saddam just assumed that nothing would be done...because that's exactly what had been done for a decade.
Its pretty obvious:
The intel the CIA thought they had was wholly bogus, endless inspections proved that, as did the lack of WMD after the invasion.
Saddam wasn't mounting a deception campaign, he wanted sanctions lifted and was cooperating with UNSCOM.
The Iraqis were fed up with endless inspections when they'd destroyed all their WMD in 1991. They were also fed up with sensitive information from UNSCOM inspections unrelated to WMD being shared with the CIA and Israel.
The US objective was regime change, as stated by Bush and Blair after the invasion. The WMD business and sanctions were put in place to put pressure on Saddam, not because Iraq was believed to have WMD.
The CIA saw what they wanted to see, its that simple.The whole point of it is that the intel would prove to be bogus after the fact. That's how deception works.
The great thing about conspiracies is that you can ignore what you want to so that it fits your conspiracy.Dilbert_X wrote:
The CIA saw what they wanted to see, its that simple.The whole point of it is that the intel would prove to be bogus after the fact. That's how deception works.
A simple truck became a mobile chemical weapons facility, a simple factory became a nerve gas factory, a simple bump in the ground became a buried nuclear enrichment facility. Umpteen inspections proved every piece of 'intel' wrong and still they wouldn't let go.
The Iraqis were in an impossible situation, prove they didn't have something they'd already destroyed without giving away info on their conventional military capability.
The UNSC was dominated by the US and their bogus intel. In the end the UNSC did not approve the Iraq invasion.
Worked nicely for Bush and the CIA.FEOS wrote:
The great thing about conspiracies is that you can ignore what you want to so that it fits your conspiracy.
PROVE IT!FEOS wrote:
Yes.Beduin wrote:
No.FEOS wrote:
The fact that 9:5 is generally considered to be either the last or next-to-last revelation to Muhammed, depending on which school of thought you ascribe to.
I have done nothing to disprove what your stupidity claims?FEOS wrote:
Saying "No" does not equate to "rejecting" a theory. Multiple sources have been provided re the abrogation doctrine that applies to religious texts, in this case, focused on the Qu'ran. You've done nothing to disprove any of it. Bring it if you've got it.Beduin wrote:
Notice that I have already rejected his theory. I also wrote why it is invalid and pointed out practical examples that prove his theory wrong.
Abrogation is something that is discussed quite a bit within the Muslim community itself and you're going to tell me it's not even a player? Get serious.
You dont know how to backpedal. You just drive the same broken bike in another direction for the sake of posture.
Already done, Beduin. You saying "no" doesn't un-prove it.Beduin wrote:
PROVE IT!FEOS wrote:
Yes.Beduin wrote:
No.
Nice. Instead of addressing the issue with countering facts to help us better understand your position (as I have done with mine), you offer up this tripe.Beduin wrote:
I have done nothing to disprove what your stupidity claims?FEOS wrote:
Saying "No" does not equate to "rejecting" a theory. Multiple sources have been provided re the abrogation doctrine that applies to religious texts, in this case, focused on the Qu'ran. You've done nothing to disprove any of it. Bring it if you've got it.Beduin wrote:
Notice that I have already rejected his theory. I also wrote why it is invalid and pointed out practical examples that prove his theory wrong.
Abrogation is something that is discussed quite a bit within the Muslim community itself and you're going to tell me it's not even a player? Get serious.
You can start off by posting where you got your bs from, is it from "what the west need to know about islam"?
Cause you are either fucking stupid orYou dont know how to backpedal. You just drive the same broken bike in another direction for the sake of posture.
Seems to some have understood what I wrote... But not you obviously.FEOS wrote:
Already done, Beduin. You saying "no" doesn't un-prove it.Beduin wrote:
PROVE IT!FEOS wrote:
Yes.Beduin wrote:
No.
If you have a counter-argument, then kindly make it. "No" doesn't count as an acceptable counter-argument.Nice. Instead of addressing the issue with countering facts to help us better understand your position (as I have done with mine), you offer up this tripe.Beduin wrote:
I have done nothing to disprove what your stupidity claims?FEOS wrote:
Saying "No" does not equate to "rejecting" a theory. Multiple sources have been provided re the abrogation doctrine that applies to religious texts, in this case, focused on the Qu'ran. You've done nothing to disprove any of it. Bring it if you've got it.
Abrogation is something that is discussed quite a bit within the Muslim community itself and you're going to tell me it's not even a player? Get serious.
You can start off by posting where you got your bs from, is it from "what the west need to know about islam"?
Cause you are either fucking stupid orYou dont know how to backpedal. You just drive the same broken bike in another direction for the sake of posture.
If you can't address the issue of abrogation in the Qu'ran, fine. No need to get all pissy. And I'm not picking on the Qu'ran here. Abrogation is a religious text doctrinal issue, not strictly a Qu'ran issue. The Qu'ran-specific issue arises from the way the Qu'ran is put together in a literary fashion, which does not follow the chronological order of the revelations to Mohammed, thus confusing many people--particularly when it comes to abrogation.
Disagree? NO. Am saying he is WRONG. Any one can search on this issue.Varegg wrote:
I think you two should agree to disagree and move on ...
I get it ... not because I know how the Quran is organized but I trust you as a Muslim would actually know better ... and reading your posts about the subject you do seem to know what you are talking aboutBeduin wrote:
Disagree? NO. Am saying he is WRONG. Any one can search on this issue.Varegg wrote:
I think you two should agree to disagree and move on ...
1. The claim of one verse cancel out more than half of the Quran is FALSE! He cant not present ANYthing that proves that.
2. He FAILD to prove that 9:5 is the last verse, cause it is WRONG. It is chapter 9 that is the 2nd last chapter.
Get it?
fixedDilbert_X wrote:
The problem is FEOS can'tt make any effort to prove his assertion.
Bullshit. You've made no effort to read the links provided that made the assertion. It's not my assertion. It's an assertion made by Muslim theologians.Beduin wrote:
fixedDilbert_X wrote:
The problem is FEOS can'tt make any effort to prove his assertion.
What link? the wiki link you provided in page 8 post#180?FEOS wrote:
Bullshit. You've made no effort to read the links provided that made the assertion. It's not my assertion. It's an assertion made by Muslim theologians.
I am a muslim that knows how to read and understand the Quran. I am a muslim that loves to read about what I believe in.FEOS wrote:
Are you a Muslim theologian, Beduin? Or are you just a Muslim who's pissed off that someone is giving your religion the same treatment Christianity regularly gets on these forums?
What fucking links, did I miss something?FEOS wrote:
Muslim scholars are struggling with the abrogation issue. Muslim scholars (as stated in the links provided--go back and actually fucking read them) are arguing whether 9:5 was the last or next to last revelation to Muhammed. Not whether it was the fifth verse of the ninth chapter. The abrogation issue is the difference between the chronological revelation and the literary order presented in the Qu'ran--does chronology or literary order take precedence? That is the source of the debate and confusion.
Are you saying that isn't the case? If so, you need to tell the Muslim scholars that they are wrong and you are right...and provide something other than your opinion when doing so.
I've provided more than one. Or, you could try something crazy and research the topic yourself.Beduin wrote:
What link? the wiki link you provided in page 8 post#180?FEOS wrote:
Bullshit. You've made no effort to read the links provided that made the assertion. It's not my assertion. It's an assertion made by Muslim theologians.
Someone who is open-minded about religion and theology.Beduin wrote:
I am a muslim that knows how to read and understand the Quran. I am a muslim that loves to read about what I believe in.FEOS wrote:
Are you a Muslim theologian, Beduin? Or are you just a Muslim who's pissed off that someone is giving your religion the same treatment Christianity regularly gets on these forums?
What are you?
Clearly. I'm not going to spoon-feed you. If you've got an inkling of an open mind, go back and read the links that I provided earlier. Don't just skim them. Examine them. Research the topic a bit. I didn't get my information from white guys who have issues with Islam. The abrogation discussion is from Muslim scholars.Beduin wrote:
What fucking links, did I miss something?FEOS wrote:
Muslim scholars are struggling with the abrogation issue. Muslim scholars (as stated in the links provided--go back and actually fucking read them) are arguing whether 9:5 was the last or next to last revelation to Muhammed. Not whether it was the fifth verse of the ninth chapter. The abrogation issue is the difference between the chronological revelation and the literary order presented in the Qu'ran--does chronology or literary order take precedence? That is the source of the debate and confusion.
Are you saying that isn't the case? If so, you need to tell the Muslim scholars that they are wrong and you are right...and provide something other than your opinion when doing so.
Give me the links hereFEOS wrote:
I've provided more than one. Or, you could try something crazy and research the topic yourself.Beduin wrote:
What link? the wiki link you provided in page 8 post#180?FEOS wrote:
Bullshit. You've made no effort to read the links provided that made the assertion. It's not my assertion. It's an assertion made by Muslim theologians.Someone who is open-minded about religion and theology.Beduin wrote:
I am a muslim that knows how to read and understand the Quran. I am a muslim that loves to read about what I believe in.FEOS wrote:
Are you a Muslim theologian, Beduin? Or are you just a Muslim who's pissed off that someone is giving your religion the same treatment Christianity regularly gets on these forums?
What are you?
What are you?Clearly. I'm not going to spoon-feed you. If you've got an inkling of an open mind, go back and read the links that I provided earlier. Don't just skim them. Examine them. Research the topic a bit. I didn't get my information from white guys who have issues with Islam. The abrogation discussion is from Muslim scholars.Beduin wrote:
What fucking links, did I miss something?FEOS wrote:
Muslim scholars are struggling with the abrogation issue. Muslim scholars (as stated in the links provided--go back and actually fucking read them) are arguing whether 9:5 was the last or next to last revelation to Muhammed. Not whether it was the fifth verse of the ninth chapter. The abrogation issue is the difference between the chronological revelation and the literary order presented in the Qu'ran--does chronology or literary order take precedence? That is the source of the debate and confusion.
Are you saying that isn't the case? If so, you need to tell the Muslim scholars that they are wrong and you are right...and provide something other than your opinion when doing so.
No. I've given you the links already. Go back and get them yourself. I already said I'm not going to spoon-feed you.Beduin wrote:
Give me the links here
srs... the wiki link you provided in the beginning?FEOS wrote:
No. I've given you the links already. Go back and get them yourself. I already said I'm not going to spoon-feed you.Beduin wrote:
Give me the links here
I've provided more than just wiki links.Beduin wrote:
srs... the wiki link you provided in the beginning?FEOS wrote:
No. I've given you the links already. Go back and get them yourself. I already said I'm not going to spoon-feed you.Beduin wrote:
Give me the links here
