Edge of stupidity, lies and make belief

Submitted by Amin Riaz (United Kingdom), Jul 11, 2011 at 11:13

Let me tell you, fellow readers would agree with me that you are one of the most grammatically poor guys here. Your constructions are ridiculously poor. I don't waste time talking about it because that is not the issue at stake.

Of course they would - as they would agree with as this is as big an anti-Muslim site you could come up wit. I backed mine with examples - yet again you fail to do so. Perfect example of rambling.

This was a waste of time - because even after admitting you were going to respond properly - you failed at it miserably:

You have exposed your pathetic state of helplessness here. You preferred to pretend to be confused and ignorant about the nature of the Qur'an because you don't know what to say.

Is that it? This is not a counter argument - because how was what you pasted on the story of Mary a mistake? Your inability to reason reall really astounds me.

Qur'an 3:45. Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

46. "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."

47. She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah…."

The Error

In case you still want to pretend not to see the error, here the grammatical error is the angels are later introduced as "he." The fact is that the fabricator(s) of this verse, who must be human being(s) was composed.

THESE ARE THREE SEPERATE INCIDENTS - THEY DO NOT CORRELATE. ...

Which Arabic? Is it the Pakistani/Hindo- pidgin Arabic which you speak or the normal Arabic? Any way, don't bring another diversionary tactics; what is at stake is NOT Arabic. We can use Arabic when the situation warrant; but not as a means of denying other readers the menu of the debate.

Pakistani/Hindo- pidgin Arabic- there is no such a thing as this. ...

If you talk about a literature of a particular language and its grammar - it is essential to be able to understand Arabic - which you do not understand - so how is it a diversionary tactic? You are the one who admitted not ot respond properly as you promised to d so and you are the one who keeps bringing up this diversionary tactic. The reason: you wanted to cover up - you d not know what the hell you are talking about.

This is a typical and usual apologetic rant of a defeated Muslim debater. If a Muslim is defeated in a debate, he'll in a way start blaming some likely website for providing his Christian defeater with points superior to his. Come on, when shall you people grow and stop making yourself look ridiculous. If you can't identify the alleged source site, stop sounding like a coward.

I already told you the site - this type of rubbish is allover answering-islam. Second - you have not brougt up a single good point ever. Just look at your sheer lies and make-belief. You are damnest trying to pass something as error when it simply isn't.

OK henceforth I will answer you point by point. And if that is not a proper discussion again, you can suggest the pattern. The fact is that it is you that is afraid of proper conversation, debate argument or proper discussion.

Ha - victory

Yes! It is drowned and not drawn. Please cite the verse and let us see what it really says. Be serious!

Ha - another Victory.

Listen sonny - it is essential to know Arabic language - if you are going to start calling grammars errors in Quran - else how d you know if something is in error or not? Else you can admit you do not know Arabic an cite your sources so I know whose work it is and if the original author understands te language or not. Now there is nothing wrong with this. As it is impossible to simply everything.

But what is clearly wrong and road you chose to go down - is pretending to know something when you don't. Do you get my drift.

Second thing:

The above verses regarding birth of Jesus - are three seperate incidents - you took the quotes to fit your arguments - go and read the verses before and after - and you will get they are in different settings. And i said - the angel - always refers to angel Gabriel - the leader. Just because you are going to repeat somethin bullishly - it might make you feel better - it migh make others of your opinion make feel better - but you do know in yur heart - you are lying through your fingers! nd it wont wash with me.

Third thing: ... Arabic for exmple precedes Islam and is also language for Christians and Jews etc. Regardless - its a beautiful semitic language.

Now condering what waste of time this was ....

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".