(November 16, 2013 at 6:50 am)Rayaan Wrote:(November 15, 2013 at 12:03 pm)paulpablo Wrote: That's what a contradiction is. If he doesn't forgive it in one sentence with no additional conditions attached but then attaches a condition in a different sentence these are two contradictory pieces of information.
The two are not contradictory pieces of information, but just that one of them gives us an additional piece of information that was not present in the other one.
Secondly, the two sentences doesn't necessarily have to be attached right next to each other because they are both still in the same book; so we have combine everything together as opposed to interpreting each and every verse all by its own. There are in fact many, many verses throughout the Quran that are known to complement certain other verses which appear in different chapters of the book. But again, what matters is that they are all in the same book and from the same source.
Thirdly (and most importantly), the two sentences/verses are essentially talking about the same subject matter - i.e. shirk - so it is perfectly reasonable to make a connection between the two even though they are mentioned in different surahs.
As I wrote earlier with regards to Surah Al-Zumar, verses 53 to 55:
(November 15, 2013 at 6:54 am)Rayaan Wrote: Furthermore, the entire surah itself was being addressed mainly to the Quraish, who did believe in Allah but they believed in other gods as well (which is shirk), so they were not Muslims. The surah is offering a hope to those groups by telling them that your shirk will be forgiven if and only if you repent before death overtakes you, before the penalty comes to you. So there is still a chance for forgiveness.
Read my post once again.
Ah yes, the same book that was actually a composition of ramblings, cobbled together in a few different versions by some followers before a final penguin edition was decided upon (after the death of the apparent author). It is no surprise then that, just as with christian and jewish texts, the qu'ran is littered with contradictory nonsense as well as the usual support for sexism and slavery. As far as bed time stories go the qu'ran is pretty lame, precisely because the narrative isn't clear at all. As already noted by other members, the fact that a ruling is made once, and then appears later on but with some additions, doesn't mean that everything is ok. All it means is that;
A) The qu'ran makes little to no sense chronologically, because it was hashed together by some followers and is thus not revelation but hearsay, and
B) The fact that the author supposedly says that something is the case on one day, and then later says the same thing again but with some extra stipulations, means that either god changed his mind in a temporal context after deciding something wasn't made clear the first time round (a perfect god wouldn't do that surely?) or alternatively it means that the author was MAKING SHIT UP AS HE WENT ALONG.
You buffoons are so far gone it's painful. Why would you take these bedtime stories as direct revelation? The evidence for this being period-relative desert nonsense is the only thing that's obvious in Islam.
