"and can not give the reasoin why mirza cotted contradicted statements "
I hope lovesh knows about the 1400 years old issue of NASIKH & MANSOOKH. This issue poped up when people started pointing contradictions wiothin Quran so a simple solution was invented i.e. arrange contradictory ayats in chronological order and consider the older one as MANSOOKH (cencelled).

And what about the contradictory Hadeeths that Ahmedies and anti-Ahmedies use to beat each other?

If contradictions can exist in Quran and Hadeeth then why cannot they exist in a man written text?

@PeePee the Pea head bigot,

Just google and U will find zillion resources on the subject by Muslims and anti-Muslims. All accepting contradictions.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-ca:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GCNV_en&ei=cVIXStStAYLEM_LmoY0P&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=nasikh+mansukh+quran&spell=1
http://www.google.com/search?q=nasikh+mansookh+quran&rls=com.microsoft:en-ca:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GCNV_en


Some Muslim sites out of zillions:
http://www.nizamulislam.com/mazameen-ul-quran/nizam-e-taleem/Nasikho-Mansookh/index1.asp
http://www.ummah.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-103174.html
http://education.kalpoint.com/pow/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=157

Some Anti-Islam links:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/ashraf.html

Contradiction between Quran and Hadeeth:
http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/6/contradictions_between_the_hadiths_and_the_quran.htm

The battle of bigots between million sects of Islam are purely a manifestation of these contradictions.

Just calling me Kafir is not the answer. My question stays unanswered.
If contradictions can exist in Quran and Hadeeth then why cannot they exist in a man written text?

Badshah,
I agree and disagree both with your last post. Here are my comments (in black) on your last post.

Two wrongs don't make it right. The issue of stating something as Quranic ayah, while it doesn't even exist there, is beyond the "simple" discussion of nasikh and mansookh. Agree. In fact I was challenged by 'PeePee Persaud' in his post # 388 to putup evidence of contradictions in Quran or Hadeeth. He wrote "I hope Kafir MDP will provide the evidence for his allegation against Qur'an. If not then Mods should ban him for his anti Islamic comments."

Trying to draw attention to the concept of nasikh and mansookh while discussing MGAQ's practice of quoting non-existant concept from Quran will not be fair. Nasikh and mansookh are valid discussion points, but the issue of sayings by MGAQ, which state as fact that certain things are mentioned in Quran while they infact are not, is still there. Both Agree and disagree. I am not here to defend Mirza sahib. All I wanted to say is that I expect the logic applied to analyse Mirza sahib's writings should also be applied on the previous texts. If opponents of Mirza sahib are not ready to do so then their criticism against Mirza sahib is nothing but hypocritical. There is no religious text immune from similar objections by religious opponents and rationalists. Second reason for quoting Quran and Hadeeth without comments is that it shows the psyche of religious extremists (including Ahmedies) besides revealing their ignorance about their own fath and holy texts.

The reason it becomes a very critical issue is that MGAQ claimed to be prophet of Allah. And not just any prophet, but even boasted about being reincarnation of pretty much all of the greatest prophets passed. He should have known better.

First a correction. Mirza sahib called himself Zilli (shadow) and Baroozi (does it mean light reflector?). Is shadow = real body? AND is image reflected in mirror = real body?

I will agree with your logic if there is any criteria or bench mark to compare him with previous prophets. Mirza sahib probably is the first claiment of prophethood who wrote books. Most of previous prophets are revered or criticized purely based on stories attributed towards them or based on texts attributed twards them. So my approach towards this "critical issue" is to find answers from 'holy texts' believed by both sides of this battle of bigots.

If you say Mirza lied, I ask can a Prophet lie?
If you say Mirza cheated, I ask can a Prophet cheat?
If you say Mirza made mistakes, I ask can a Prophet make mistakes?
If you say Mirza broke agreements, I ask can a Prophet break agreements?
If you say Mirza contradicted himself, I ask did previous holy texts contradic?

and so on

I just take stories from Quran and hadeeth as a baseline to compare this 'new shadow prophet'. So what is wrong with this approach?

By virtue of his own claim, he was not just another aalim, faazil, saint, mullah, scholar, imam etc who existed throughout the history of Islam. He claimed to speak directly with Allah, and claimed to be in a league entirely of his own!
If you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. -Thomas Szasz (b. 1920), U.S. psychiatrist

What's wrong is wrong. Just can't be defended...

Agree. Let us apply the same logic on all religious texts without drawing lines and hiding behind one's own blind faith or threats of blasphemy and Fatwas of Kufr.

"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." - Ayn Rand