Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Chair Pundit

Did Khidr Murder A Boy?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If the boy was innocent and had no evil intentions then it makes sense because he committed no evil. In fact you agree with this because you said 'Right' (what else is that supposed to mean). If on the otherhand the boy wasnt innocent then he may still go to heaven depending on other factors such as his good deeds and how evil he actually was.

Your second reply assumes God only did this out of his mercy to the boy. This is an invalid assumption. God may have done it for the greater good.

Edited by .InshAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the boy was innocent and had no evil intentions then it makes sense because he committed no evil. In fact you agree with this because you said 'Right' (what else is that supposed to mean). If on the otherhand the boy wasnt innocent then he may still go to heaven depending on other factors such as his good deeds and how evil he actually was.

The boy was not innocent. He was killed because he would inevitably turn into an evil apostate. If his destiny was not predetermined to turn out that way, he wouldn't have been killed.

Therefore, two problematic issues arise:

- If God can save a person who is destined to be hell worthy, he should be consistent and save the rest of his creation who are also destined to be worthy of chastisement. The fact that he does not indicates that he is inconsistency with his mercy.

- There is absolutely no reason for why the boy had to be created and born into this world in the first place. It would have saved the parents from grief that their child had been killed, and that's the only variable that would change. If the test didn't occur through his existence, it wouldn't obviously wouldn't have occurred in his absence. So why create him?

In his absence there are no losers or winners. In his presence, there are only losers (the parents) because he was killed for something he was destined to become, and thus the test didn't materialise anyway.

Your second reply assumes God only did this out of his mercy to the boy. This is an invalid assumption. God may have done it for the greater good.

According to the narration I posted, it was done in the favour of the killer, the killed and the parents.

Your theory about it being a "greater good" doesn't mean anything, it's just speculation.

Moreover, what is the overarching moral of the story? That you should trust that the murderer of your child may have been doing the "greater good?" It's seriously twisted nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We provide you with insight and solutions but you decide to reject or ignore them and focus on a detail in the story and build on it. This way the discussion won't end even if continued for  a year. Everything on this page has already been said.

 

 

 

Well, finally, you have understood that the looming rebellious apostasy (or "bloodbath" in your analogy) caused by the boy was the test that was averted for the parents.

 

I quote myself from the previous page: "You said life is a test, why are you narrowing it and make the boy's potential harm the test? Why are you brushing off his death as a test? It collides with your conclusion?"

 

I always understood it, I just pointed to your flaw which is the 2nd time now. The boy's 'looming rebellious apostasy' isn't the one and only-ultimate final test you make it out to be.

 

 

I've highlighted your last sentence in italics because it is irrelevant and you've made it up. It also contradicts your previous stance, above.

 

Rebellion/transgression. One can make alot of crimes out of these. But fair enough. Let's see what you mean by contradiction though, elaborate. 

 

 

Of course the boy is innocent according to the primary source I presented in the opening post. 

 

 

 According to yourself, you made a mistake by misinterpreting the verse. Most likely because of the primary source.

 

 

But since you reject that source, I'm discussing the situation based on the assumption that boy is guilty, which is your interpretation. In either case there is a problem.

 

 

Why are you twisting it? Here's your quote from #88:

"Why are you absolving the boy of his ill intent? He was only killed because there would have otherwise been a "certain upcoming harm" caused by the boy himself. How is it even remotely logical that the boy would be rewarded when apostasy and rebellion was the REASON for his murder in the FIRST PLACE?"

 
I used the style from the OP and absurdly hinted he WAS innocent (in the first part of the analogy). So you picked on it, made a conclusion and decided he wasn't. You went against your initial interpretation by yourself. Now you say either case is a problem. We already explained both.
 
- How can the boy be sent to heaven if the reason he was killed in the first place was because he would be guilty of committing oppression in some future circumstance? 

 

 

You answered the question yourself. The boy was never able to effectively commit the crimes and so he was accounted for intent only. Before you come up with this again "The boy was killed to be rewarded... for not being able to mislead his parents in some future circumstance." Know that the primary reason is the parentsIf his life prior to his death consisted of good deeds only, then the bad intention he had before dying will lower his overall good deeds and the boy is rewarded for that quantity. See how your statement is wrong? Get the priorities of the story in order, how many times do I have to repeat myself...

 

 
- How can the boy be sent to hell if he didn't get a chance to prove his guilt?

 

 

In one question you're preventing him from heaven because of some future event which suddenly turns out to be 100% correct. And in the other you prevent him from hell because that 100% event isn't 100% anymore. Contradiction. The boy's intent was there. The boy was partially aware and knew what he planned. He can fool anyone except the one who knows about his intent. Keyword intent. Not the actual crime.

 

 It goes to reason that if his fate was not sealed then he would have been given a chance to carry out an alternative action. But since he was not given that chance, it is clearly proof that his fate was sealed, and therefore God's mercy is tainted.

 

 

Back to free will and predestination? Even if the boy was given 1000 more choices on top of the ones he already had, he would have picked the one God knew about, freely. Not because God sealed all the other options and made it one way. 

 

 

 

Your second reply assumes God only did this out of his mercy to the boy. This is an invalid assumption. God may have done it for the greater good.

 

I've pointed this out from the start and kept repeating it to him, he just doesn't get it. Or he does it intentionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if this has been posted already, but it seems like a reasonable discussion of the issue: http://www.al-islam.org/faith-and-reason-ayatullah-mahdi-hadavi-tehrani/question-43-al-khidr%E2%80%99s-actions-qur%E2%80%99

It's been dealt with already. I have dissected it, and it doesn't make a coherent argument that sticks to the actual content of the story.

I strongly recommend you read the entire thread carefully if you want to engage in the debate.

It's unbelievable that people here are defending something that would have been gleefully picked at if it was in any other religion.

It simply goes against reason for a merciful God to create someone in the knowledge that the person will have to be killed to prevent a test that wouldn't have occurred anyway had the person not been created at all. It not only opposes logic, but exposes the mercy of God to be supremely inconsistent (assuming the boy is sent to heaven.)

And what is the overall purpose? What message is this story supposed to send? That a believer should trust that the individual who murdered his or her daughter was just doing the work of God? If not, then what is the point exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't dissect anything, you just confused some words with others.

 

And again, Mashallah, you are apparently aware of the actual content of the story. Sorry Mr. #1 scholar ever, aka Mr. my opinion is law.

 

Your arrogance literally knows no bounds. You're still claiming that you know how God provides mercy to each and every individual. You're applying logic to God when you should be applying reason. And you STILL call it murder, meaning you'd have to call every natural death on this Earth murder (but you especially don't understand this point do you?).

You're so near-sighted as to think there is only one message this story delivers. Which is funny because one of the messages applies directly to your "questions"; do not speak about that which you do not know, i.e. don't make conclusions about God based off assumptions. But you don't even understand that because you literally believe your assumptions are law.

 

I'm astonished at how the above posters are patient enough to continuously go through your circular arguments. If I were to guess (correct me if I'm wrong), you're probably an ex-muslim.

Edited by dragonxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do not speak about that which you do not know

 

But we do know.  Khidr elucidated his action.  I'm simply identifying the logical flaw in his explanation.  If all you have left is to impute hubris to my character, it is clear that all of the bullets in your barrel have been exhausted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we do know.  Khidr elucidated his action.  I'm simply identifying the logical flaw in his explanation.  If all you have left is to impute hubris to my character, it is clear that all of the bullets in your barrel have been exhausted.

 

Yup, you know the amount of mercy each of the 7 billion people on earth get. Forgive my false accusation. 

 

Funny you say how you "dissected" that entire webpage of explanations when you literally only tackled one paragraph out of the many, AND you still couldn't even falsify that paragraph, you had to quote another paragraph and claim it has no reference and therefore it is "conjecture"... As if everything you say isn't "conjecture" and rather is "law". 

 

The posts don't lie. Go back and look if your memory is too short to remember that. Goodness you can't even lie correctly.

 

Lastly, I'm going to go ahead and say you're an ex-muslim since you didn't deny it. Hopefully the others won't reply and feed you the attention you crave. 

 

Blacklisted in my books.

Edited by dragonxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blacklisted in my books.

 

Then why do you need to respond to him  ?

 

You  are encouraging this ex-Muslim to give vent to his nonsense by endlessly keeping him engaged.

 

Stop responding to him

 

Let this nonsensical thread die a natural death.

 

Now go and play some tennis and please don't come back to this thread.

 

Remember, ex-Muslims are among the most dangerous people on earth because like persistent gadflies, they will use all sorts of tricks to deceive you.

 

if you want to tackle ex-Muslims, then read  the books by ibn Warraq and respond to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you still couldn't even falsify that paragraph, you had to quote another paragraph and claim it has no reference and therefore it is "conjecture"

 

The paragraph you posted had no reference, so I found another paragraph that was identical in content and found a footnote for it stating that it was speculation. 

 

 

if you want to tackle ex-Muslims, then read  the books by ibn Warraq and respond to him. 

 

 

Have you read ibn Warraq? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You answered the question yourself. The boy was never able to effectively commit the crimes and so he was accounted for intent only. Before you come up with this again "The boy was killed to be rewarded... for not being able to mislead his parents in some future circumstance." Know that the primary reason is the parentsIf his life prior to his death consisted of good deeds only, then the bad intention he had before dying will lower his overall good deeds and the boy is rewarded for that quantity. See how your statement is wrong? Get the priorities of the story in order, how many times do I have to repeat myself...

 

Then

 

a) God is inconsistent with his mercy

 

b} God did not have to create the boy in the first place

 

Back to free will and predestination? Even if the boy was given 1000 more choices on top of the ones he already had, he would have picked the one God knew about, freely. Not because God sealed all the other options and made it one way. 

 

Prior knowledge and freedom to choose are antithetical. If the boy truly had free choice he would not have been killed on the basis of what his free choice would be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surah Kahf:

74. Then they both proceeded, till they met a boy, he (Khidr) killed him. Musa (Moses) said: "Have you killed an innocent person who had killed none? Verily, you have committed a thing "Nukra" (a great Munkar - prohibited, evil, dreadful thing)!"

80. "And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.

Khidr killed the innocent boy.

You must accept the following assumptions:

- His destiny was fixed.

- God can arbitrarily violate freewill.

- God intervened to save the parents: what happened to the notion of life being a test?

Also, God logically cannot send the boy to a peaceful abode if the rationale for killing him in the first place was that he was destined to be a rebellious apostate.

And yet...

Imam Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (ع) describes these blessings in these words: “Allah knew that if he stayed alive, the young man would lead his parents to disbelief and he would become a source of corruption and hardship for all. Thus Khidr (ع) was commanded to finish his life so that as a result all of them (the killer, the killed, and his parents) would attain honor and Divine grace.”

Good luck with the defence.

 

I'm really struggling to see the issue here. Musa and Khidr encountered a boy, and Khidr killed him. He later explained that his parents were believers, and he didn't want them to become oppressed by their son's actions. Musa, since he knew nothing about this boy, assumed him to be innocent, but there is no reason to believe this was actually the case. A more rational interpretation would be that the boy was already a transgressor, but this had not yet come to affect his parents (many parents are unaware of their children's actions or beliefs). In that case, he would already be guilty, and deserving of whatever punishment Allah gives him. If Allah, out of His mercy, wishes to put the boy in Paradise, then He can do that. It is only through Allah's mercy that any of us will enter Paradise.

 

As for his destiny being fixed, etc, we are entering into a discussion of free will versus predestination which is one humans cannot fully grasp, since we are confined by time, while this requires to be able to think outside of that. Some people don't like this, and believe that human beings should be able to grasp anything, but there is no rational basis for that belief. It is however certain that God knows what will happen in the future, whatever difficulties we may have with that in regards to free-will.

 

With regards to God intervening, clearly Muslims believe that God can do that. Otherwise we wouldn't make dua. There are many tests in life, and the death of a child is also such a test.

 

Finally, we need to remember that God can do whatever He likes with His creation. He is not bound by some external rules of what we consider right and wrong. If God wanted to create a boy who was destined for hellfire, that would end up being killed simply in order to provide a lesson for Musa (as) then He can do that. There is nothing 'immoral' about it. A creator is at liberty to do whatever He likes with His creation. We should remember to keep a God-centred view of religion, and not a man-centred one.

Edited by Haydar Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really struggling to see the issue here. Musa and Khidr encountered a boy, and Khidr killed him. He later explained that his parents were believers, and he didn't want them to become oppressed by their son's actions. Musa, since he knew nothing about this boy, assumed him to be innocent, but there is no reason to believe this was actually the case. A more rational interpretation would be that the boy was already a transgressor, but this had not yet come to affect his parents (many parents are unaware of their children's actions or beliefs). In that case, he would already be guilty, and deserving of whatever punishment Allah gives him. If Allah, out of His mercy, wishes to put the boy in Paradise, then He can do that. It is only through Allah's mercy that any of us will enter Paradise.

 

The assumption that the boy was already a transgressor doesn't hold if he was rewarded. Moreover, there is no proof that he actually was a transgressor yet. 

 

As for his destiny being fixed, etc, we are entering into a discussion of free will versus predestination which is one humans cannot fully grasp, since we are confined by time, while this requires to be able to think outside of that. Some people don't like this, and believe that human beings should be able to grasp anything, but there is no rational basis for that belief. It is however certain that God knows what will happen in the future, whatever difficulties we may have with that in regards to free-will.

 

I'll accept the solution you've proffered if you accept that God created the boy while knowing that he would burn in hell (the boy was already a transgressor according to you.)

 

With regards to God intervening, clearly Muslims believe that God can do that. Otherwise we wouldn't make dua. There are many tests in life, and the death of a child is also such a test.

 

The test that was averted for the parents was to be caused by the boy. I needn't repeat this. As for why the intervention is problematic, read post #108.

 

Finally, we need to remember that God can do whatever He likes with His creation. He is not bound by some external rules of what we consider right and wrong. If God wanted to create a boy who was destined for hellfire, that would end up being killed simply in order to provide a lesson for Musa  (as) then He can do that. There is nothing 'immoral' about it. A creator is at liberty to do whatever He likes with His creation. We should remember to keep a God-centred view of religion, and not a man-centred one.

 

 

God can treat his creation like "play things?" Even if it is unfair and illogical? Why should I respect such a deity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ChairPundit- jews were also once preferred to God. They did transgressions like worshipping cows, etc, yet God forgave them.

Except for a few examples we dont know who will be where after death. Allah is merciful, if dont understand that you wont get the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is no proof in a court room then the case becomes inconclusive and is discharged. But you're so confidently limping along.

 

 


a) God is inconsistent with his mercy

 

b} God did not have to create the boy in the first place

 

c} The boy is responsible for his actions like everybody else because he had free will and he messed up and it became all too evident what he was going to do. Just like its clearly obvious and perfectly predictable what you yourself are doing now and where this discussion is headed and the result of it and its impact on you. Two chimpanzees and an atheist can predict that now can't they?

 

d} God does whatever He wants. He owes no one any explanations. We are all his insignificant property. Though He is not unjust. Sound unfair? Okay. Keep burning and hating God then. Which will change nothing. Did you visit hell after reading Ibn Warraq and saw your boy burning there?

 

But of course. Please carry on with full confidence. ^^^

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

killing of that child was a blessing from God.

 

from the Dua of Imam Sajjad (as):

Let me live as long as my life is a free gift in obeying Thee, but if my life should become a pasture for Satan, seize me to Thyself before Thy hatred overtakes me, or Thy wrath against me becomes firm!

 

http://www.duas.org/sajjadiya/s20.htm

 

Sometimes God gives blessings upon requests, sometimes even before making any request:

in Dua of Rajab:

O He who gives to one who asks Him.
O He who gives to one who does not ask Him and does not know Him,

Out of His affection and mercy.

http://www.duas.org/rajab3.htm

 

God granted that child and more importantly his family, a blessing without any request and that's true mercy.

Edited by mesbah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then

 

a) God is inconsistent with his mercy

 

b} God did not have to create the boy in the first place

 

a) But of course. It appears like that for the ones lacking knowledge. God judges a soul, each one unique, for what it is capable of. Didn't the story tell you not to judge without knowledge?

 

b} Here's a quote of yours from last page: "But God chose to create him when He knew that his only destination would be hell. How does that describe merciful exactly?" Have some responsibility and blame yourself for what you (are about to) do. The course of the story replies to that question. The boy's future choices and actions were most likely going to lead him to hell but someone intervened out of mercy for the ones who were going to suffer heavily and unnecessarily. So the evil was never committed.

 

 
Prior knowledge and freedom to choose are antithetical. If the boy truly had free choice he would not have been killed on the basis of what his free choice would be. 

 

 

You keep coming with subjective one liners and assume them as law. Atleast expand on it. Limiting God to human capabilities when the book you picked the story from, describes its God as all-knowing and Knower of the unseen, disqualifies you as a judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The assumption that the boy was already a transgressor doesn't hold if he was rewarded. Moreover, there is no proof that he actually was a transgressor yet. 

Plenty of transgressors will go to Paradise, by the mercy of Allah. Are you under the impression that only those deserving of Paradise will end up there?

I'll accept the solution you've proffered if you accept that God created the boy while knowing that he would burn in hell (the boy was already a transgressor according to you.)

Of course I accept that God knew how the boy would turn out. As for whether or not he will burn in Hell, we don't know that.

The test that was averted for the parents was to be caused by the boy. I needn't repeat this. As for why the intervention is problematic, read post #108.

A particular test was averted, not all the tests that they faced. His death would also have been a test obviously.

 

 

God can treat his creation like "play things?" Even if it is unfair and illogical? Why should I respect such a deity?

God doesn't care if you respect Him or not. You need Him, not the other way round. I didn't say that is necessarily what God does, I'm just saying He can do it if He likes, just as humans can can make things and throw them away if they feel like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) But of course. It appears like that for the ones lacking knowledge. God judges a soul, each one unique, for what it is capable of. Didn't the story tell you not to judge without knowledge?

A simple, straightforward question: if God can arbitrarily intervene to save someone who is predestined via their free will(?) to commit an action in some future circumstance that would cause the person to be hell bound, but doesn't lend the same favour to the rest of his creation, what would you call that?

b} Here's a quote of yours from last page: "But God chose to create him when He knew that his only destination would be hell. How does that describe merciful exactly?" Have some responsibility and blame yourself for what you (are about to) do. The course of the story replies to that question. The boy's future choices and actions were most likely going to lead him to hell but someone intervened out of mercy for the ones who were going to suffer heavily and unnecessarily. So the evil was never committed.

"Most likely?" That would imply a limited scope for the boy to take a different course of action.

However, he was killed because he was most definitely going to make a choice that would lead him to hell.

Did God find pleasure creating the boy in full knowledge that he would potentially be led to hell?

If not, why was the boy created at all? The reason why there was no purpose is simply because the test was never going to happen anyway.

You keep coming with subjective one liners and assume them as law. Atleast expand on it.

Expand on what exactly? How is it subjective?

Do clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Khidr killed the innocent boy.

You must accept the following assumptions:

- His destiny was fixed.

- God can arbitrarily violate freewill.

- God intervened to save the parents: what happened to the notion of life being a test?

Also, God logically cannot send the boy to a peaceful abode if the rationale for killing him in the first place was that he was destined to be a rebellious apostate.

And yet...

Imam Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (ع) describes these blessings in these words: “Allah knew that if he stayed alive, the young man would lead his parents to disbelief and he would become a source of corruption and hardship for all. Thus Khidr (ع) was commanded to finish his life so that as a result all of them (the killer, the killed, and his parents) would attain honor and Divine grace.”

Good luck with the defence.

 

First of all it is NOT MURDER...and it is absurd to insult a Prophet like that.

 

One definition of murder is:  "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human"

 

Secondly this story is talking about the spiritual journey of Prophet Musa (AS) to reach certain knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of transgressors will go to Paradise, by the mercy of Allah. Are you under the impression that only those deserving of Paradise will end up there?

Care to name and shame? Or can I treat this as wishful thinking?

Of course I accept that God knew how the boy would turn out. As for whether or not he will burn in Hell, we don't know that.

Had God not intervened, the future predicted for the boy was certainly a path of transgression. Which is why the secondary source I presented attributed to the 6th Imam clarified that the killing of the boy was a mercy to him.

Apparently, no one can make their mind up as the story itself is incoherent when placed under careful scrutiny.

A particular test was averted, not all the tests that they faced. His death would also have been a test obviously.

Where is your proof that God intended for the boy's death, per se, to be the primary test? While it may seem intuitive that the parents grieved, to assume that this was was the sole reason is problematic as it legitimises the moral lesson: that a parent ought to exhibit an inner conviction that the killer of his or her child was carrying out the work of God. What other moral lesson could possibly be derived? A very specific narrative has been conveyed which essentially constitues what it means to have "trust on God."

God doesn't care if you respect Him or not. You need Him, not the other way round. I didn't say that is necessarily what God does, I'm just saying He can do it if He likes, just as humans can can make things and throw them away if they feel like it.

One would expect a divine Creator to exhibit greater Wisdom than the limited mind of a human being.

Edited by Chair Pundit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think so. I didn't consciously make a choice. What does that even mean, anyway? Did I fix my own freewill in 'alam al-dar? That makes no sense.

 

You did consciously make a choice. You just don't remember it.

 

You consciously made a choice when you were 2, 3, 4, 5 years old, but you don't remember them. Does that mean it never happened?

Edited by Ibn Al-Shahid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You consciously made a choice when you were 2, 3, 4, 5 years old, but you don't remember them. Does that mean it never happened?

 

I wasn't held accountable at that age. There was a degree of consciousness involved, but that was an age when I was incapable of making big decisions. 

 

You did consciously make a choice. You just don't remember it.

 

It is impossible to not remember a choice if it was made consciously. 

 

But that is beside the point. It is illogical to say that I planned my entire life story, myself, from beginning to end. How can I fix my own freewill? It is patently nonsensical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malice aforethought is an intent to harm. That's precisely what took place.

Lawfulness aside, the debate is about whether or not the action was necessary or logical.

 

One of the point of the story is that the spiritual journey means to go beyond what is perceived to be logical/illogical (provided you have the right guide).  Because an action perceived to be illogical based on evidences from the 5 senses, may in fact be very logical if one has access to the higher senses (like Hazrat Khidr (as) ).

Edited by fibonacci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

One of the point of the story is that the spiritual journey means to go beyond what is perceived to be logical/illogical (provided you have the right guide).  Because an action perceived to be illogical based on evidences from the 5 senses, may in fact be very logical if one has access to the higher senses (like Hazrat Khidr  (as) ).

 

This response only demonstrates that you haven't actually read any of my arguments on this thread. Not a single action committed by Khidr in that "spiritual journey" went unexplained by him. If human logic could not be used, then Khidr would not have sought to explain any of his actions to Musa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point in your replies? Do you think having the last word equals "winning" the discussion? You're just annoyingly repeating yourself while rejecting more than half of what we presented. Everything you (will) say has already been addressed thoroughly, from your misinterpretations to your contradictory questions up to your lack of knowledge about God. The discussion started and ended in page 4&5.

 

 

 

 

 

This response only demonstrates that you haven't actually read any of my arguments on this thread. Not a single action committed by Khidr in that "spiritual journey" went unexplained by him. If human logic could not be used, then Khidr would not have sought to explain any of his actions to Musa. 

 

 

I think he's referring to the allogerical interpretation which you avoided from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just annoyingly repeating yourself

That's because you continue to go round in circles, asking the same questions. I assure you that I don't enjoy having to repeat and emphasise my points. It's not exactly my fault if you refuse to engage with my points.

while rejecting more than half of what we presented.

Perhaps the counter arguments you've presented are weak, for reasons I've already explained?

I think he's referring to the allogerical interpretation which you avoided from the start.

We've been through this already, Wing. Do you now understand why I have to repeat myself?

You'd have presented some proof from the secondary sources by now if you actually believed that the story is entirely allegorical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another issue that dawned upon me is that there are absolutely no details as to how the boy would impose hardship on his parents, and there are absolutely no details as to what the parents did to actually deserve removal of an unknown hardship through divine intervention. Without these necessary details, how can any parent know whether the murder of their child is a blessing or a manifestation of wrath? The entire story has no purpose beyond saying "things happen for a reason, even if they make no logical sense whatsoever."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) That's because you continue to go round in circles, asking the same questions. I assure you that I don't enjoy having to repeat and emphasise my points. It's not exactly my fault if you refuse to engage with my points.

2) Perhaps the counter arguments you've presented are weak, for reasons I've already explained?

3) We've been through this already, Wing. Do you now understand why I have to repeat myself?

You'd have presented some proof from the secondary sources by now if you actually believed that the story is entirely allegorical.

 

1) Ahah, now it's me. It's all there in page 4&5.  Not only did I answer all your questions, I commented on how your methodoly was wrong alltogether and gradually corrected it. You admit to one in #99. You're putting the lie detector to work since your twist in #104.

 

2) The only thing you actually answered was the flaw in the analogy, which was corrected in the next post. The counter arguments weren't weak. You decided to avoid/ignore, reject or bring up irrelevant objections in the form of one liners which do not respond the what I wrote.

 

3) The lie detector is about to explode. My second comment in this thread, which is post #85 had the allogerical meaning presented and explained on top. You avoided it in the next reply. Then I reminded you in post #87, hinting to tunnel vision. You proceeded to avoid it in the reply after. I let it be for one reason. It was to confirm something you had in the past and apparently never left. Good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least spell methodology and allegorical correctly, Wing.  Anyway, feel free to return when you have something of substance to say.  Though the fact that you ignored my request provide a narration as proof that the entire event was allegorical means that it would be unwise to engage in further debate with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's correct their spelling when we aren't able to address anything else.  Your conclusion about the story and everything related to it has been refuted, and your request for proof to certify the allegorical meaning only started 4 posts ago. Don't twist it to something else.

I didn't conjure the parable. It is an esoteric view within a branch of Shia Islam. Hold the spoon yourself, I fed you far too long despite knowing it was fruitless.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't conjure the parable. It is an esoteric view within a branch of Shia Islam.

Do you understand the meaning of "proof?" Asserting something doesn't automatically validate its veracity.

I think the readers of this thread can understand that there is simply no reasoning with you.

The bullets in the gun barrel have been exhausted. This thread has gained thousands of views, and yet no one can admit that the lack of response is due to the fact that the story doesn't make any sense.

God wanted to reward the parents, for some unknown reason, by sending Khidr to kill their only child before the child caused the parents some unknown trouble. If God had foreknowledge of what the boy would do, this entire story is unnecessary to begin with. It is utterly meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...