Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

freefromrats wrote:

rudeboy wrote:I feel like banging my head against the wall. just dont understand some ppl, you try your best to explain it to them but they dont want to understand and stick to their guns.

Anyways, moving onto the next verse, since we've come to the conclusion that the 'conquer all religions' is a correct translation of the Koran, the Koran says to wage perpetual jihad warfare against unbelievers (Jews and Christians) until they live under Muslim occupation:

Koran 9:29 says:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

http://www.quranexplorer.com/Quran/Default.aspx

Context!!!!!!!!

You have quoted the verse but don't know what it means. Not to mention that the translation is inaccurate.

1- Muslims were at war at the time. A war that they did not start. An attempt at religious genocide to wipe out followers of a new religion. The true meaning is to "defend" or "fight back"

2- Do you even know what is tribute? The word in Arabic is Jizyah. Jizyah is a state tax. Nonmuslims in a Muslim state pay a tax and in return they are protected. You might think this is discrimination but it isn't because muslims pay tax as well (zakah). This is an attempt to establish equality without forcing nonmuslims to perform an act of worship of a religion other than their own. Nonmuslims also pay Jizyah to be exempted from military service. There are so many countries in the world now that have a similar system.

3- The word you translate as "low" doesn't mean low. The verse says jizyah 3an yadin (excuse the english lettering, no arabic keyboard right now). It means non muslims only pay the tax if it is within their "hands". Hands here is means. So within their means. So the rich pay the tax and the poor don't. It is like having tax brackets and tax brackets are common in the Western World.

Please try to do a bit of research before you form an opinion (on anything!). Noone likes a gynecologist who tries to fix your plumbing or a shoemaker who designs Burj Dubai. Know what you are talking about because eventually people will feel it's not really worth it to answer you.

freefromrats wrote:
I have no problem admitting that the Koran contains contradictory passages.

I agree that Muslims should ignore the violent teachings of Islam and the Koran and focus on the passages that do not say to wage war against unbelievers.

Cool - but what we are saying is your point is moot anyways, as the violence you are attributing to certain verses is only to be found in the writings of orientalists and those who believe Fox News is impartial.

However, I am very glad we agree that the other verses of the Quran are quite clear that Islam teaches peace and contradict the meaning you are giving to the 'violent' verses.

Now - you can choose to believe that there are contradictions in the Quran because the other verses are talking about peaceful coexistence etc, whilst we have merely pointed out that it is your interpretation that is faulty and not the Quran - and we therefore don't see any contradictions.

You see, it boils down to beliefs and perceptions - just like the blind man insisting the elephant is snake-like. You are convinced you are right, we beg to differ.

'nuff said, methinks.

Cheers,
Shafique

Excellent post dee7o.

shafique wrote: Imagine how silly I would be if I argued that this is what Christianity teaches and ignored the fact there are contradictory verses in the Bible that talk about women being Deacons etc.

Yes, that would be silly of you to argue that. Almost as if you had not read the New Testament beforehand and tried to convince others you knew what you were talking about.

I guess the analogy has whooshed over the head of rats - fair enough, I guess it is hard to give up in-grained orientalist views of Islam when presented with cogent arguments.

Who are these orientalists you are referring to? I try to read more modern writers and I agree with the statements of many different historians I've read.

dee7o wrote:1- Muslims were at war at the time. A war that they did not start. An attempt at religious genocide to wipe out followers of a new religion. The true meaning is to "defend" or "fight back"

Yes, I agree that Muslims must go outside the Koran and consult scholars/historians to correctly interpret the meaning of the Koran's passages. Thank you for agreeing with me.

As an aside, which historian/scholar believes that 9:29 was revealed at a time when Muslims were facing 'genocide'?

Do you even know what is tribute?

Sure, tribute is the same under the Romans and every other imperialistic empire as it was to the Muslims.

Nonmuslims in a Muslim state pay a tax and in return they are protected.

Reminds me of the Mob, actually.

There are so many countries in the world now that have a similar system.

I agree. The world really hasn't changed much since the Romans.

Noone likes a gynecologist who tries to fix your plumbing or a shoemaker who designs Burj Dubai. Know what you are talking about because eventually people will feel it's not really worth it to answer you.

Once again, thank you for reminding me that Muslims require scholars to interpret verses of the Koran for them.

shafique wrote:as the violence you are attributing to certain verses is only to be found in the writings of orientalists and those who believe Fox News is impartial.

I disagree. The violence is not attributed to these verses only in the writings of orientalists. 9:29 contains a violent command for Muslims to wage unprovoked warfare against unbelievers. Are you saying that verse 9:29 is actually a faulty translation?

However, I am very glad we agree that the other verses of the Quran are quite clear that Islam teaches peace and contradict the meaning you are giving to the 'violent' verses.

Agreed. But most Muslims have reconciled the issue of contradictory passages in the Koran by saying the later revealed passages contradict the earlier ones (if they contradict each other).

I believe Ibn Abbas was the first Muslim scholar to write about 'abrogation'. Thing is, Ibn Abbas was Muhammad's cousin (Sahabba) and therefore, the theological belief of abrogation is not a later invention under the Umayyads as some historians I have read would have their readers believe.

It was a concept that the first and second generation of Muslims knew of, including Muhammad's own relatives!

and we therefore don't see any contradictions.

Fair enough. You're free to believe that verses in several different chapters that say to attack unbelievers do not contradict two or so verses in the Koran that seemingly speak out against unprovoked offensive warfare.

freefromrats wrote:

shafique wrote: Imagine how silly I would be if I argued that this is what Christianity teaches and ignored the fact there are contradictory verses in the Bible that talk about women being Deacons etc.

Yes, that would be silly of you to argue that. Almost as if you had not read the New Testament beforehand and tried to convince others you knew what you were talking about.

I guess the analogy has whooshed over the head of rats - fair enough, I guess it is hard to give up in-grained orientalist views of Islam when presented with cogent arguments.

Who are these orientalists you are referring to? I try to read more modern writers and I agree with the statements of many different historians I've read.

dee7o wrote:1- Muslims were at war at the time. A war that they did not start. An attempt at religious genocide to wipe out followers of a new religion. The true meaning is to "defend" or "fight back"

Yes, I agree that Muslims must go outside the Koran and consult scholars/historians to correctly interpret the meaning of the Koran's passages. Thank you for agreeing with me.

As an aside, which historian/scholar believes that 9:29 was revealed at a time when Muslims were facing 'genocide'?

Do you even know what is tribute?

Sure, tribute is the same under the Romans and every other imperialistic empire as it was to the Muslims.

Nonmuslims in a Muslim state pay a tax and in return they are protected.

Reminds me of the Mob, actually.

There are so many countries in the world now that have a similar system.

I agree. The world really hasn't changed much since the Romans.

Noone likes a gynecologist who tries to fix your plumbing or a shoemaker who designs Burj Dubai. Know what you are talking about because eventually people will feel it's not really worth it to answer you.

Once again, thank you for reminding me that Muslims require scholars to interpret verses of the Koran for them.

shafique wrote:as the violence you are attributing to certain verses is only to be found in the writings of orientalists and those who believe Fox News is impartial.

I disagree. The violence is not attributed to these verses only in the writings of orientalists. 9:29 contains a violent command for Muslims to wage unprovoked warfare against unbelievers. Are you saying that verse 9:29 is actually a faulty translation?

However, I am very glad we agree that the other verses of the Quran are quite clear that Islam teaches peace and contradict the meaning you are giving to the 'violent' verses.

Agreed. But most Muslims have reconciled the issue of contradictory passages in the Koran by saying the later revealed passages contradict the earlier ones (if they contradict each other).

I believe Ibn Abbas was the first Muslim scholar to write about 'abrogation'. Thing is, Ibn Abbas was Muhammad's cousin (Sahabba) and therefore, the theological belief of abrogation is not a later invention under the Umayyads as some historians I have read would have their readers believe.

It was a concept that the first and second generation of Muslims knew of, including Muhammad's own relatives!

and we therefore don't see any contradictions.

Fair enough. You're free to believe that verses in several different chapters that say to attack unbelievers do not contradict two or so verses in the Koran that seemingly speak out against unprovoked offensive warfare.

Okay let me explain something to you. If I want to learn about Hinduism (which I know a reasonable amount about to start with as you might about islam), I go and try and find out the most that I can from HINDUS. AFTER I understand their views (and this takes ages because it is complex religion and philosophy), then I do my own research. Following months upon months of study, I begin to have my own opinion and propagate it. The same applies to physics, chemistry, economics, name it. When you want to have a respected opinion about something (ANYTHING), you have to learn from those who have been at it longer than you. That is why you have professors in university. You can't walk in the first day of Chemistry 101 and try to negate electronegativity and attempt to convince your fellow students to leave the class because the professor who has devoted his life to studying what he teaches is in your opinion "wrong".

I am not telling you not to have an opinion. Free speech and all that nonsense. But before you begin to publicize your opinion, get bloody educated about the 1400 years of history you are discussing. No major religion in the world can be dismissed by one person in one discussion. You have not come here to discuss something or debate it. You have not come here to convince or be convinced. You have an opinion which whether right or wrong is very badly researched and you wish to spread. I replied to your posts with an explanation, and you replied with the above post which contains not one single usable fact. Instead, you posted cheeky one-liners that were not even funny to respond to people who actually thought you wanted a discussion. Maybe you believe that because we are supporting islam or attempting to have a discussion with you about it then we are idiots- because we are wrong and have been fooled. Maybe you think that because we are fooled and you are not that you are smarter. So you can automatically make fun of our religion and way of life. Religion is a sensitive topic regardless which following you address. If you actually cared about convincing people you would have tread carefully to "convert" people to your thinking. However, I don't think this was ever your intention. Your intention is quite simply " I am smart because I am not a Muslim and you people are stupid because you are". That is the point that you are trying to make and that is the thesis of your debate. Given the fact that no one likes to be called stupid, no wonder people are attacking you.

You claimed with your first posts that people did not give you any serious explanations of why they thought you were wrong. Now that you have received these, your responses are to joke feebly. You just burnt your intellectual bridges with any intelligent human being who might have been following this topic. Even if you ARE right, you obviously cannot explain yourself and you are probably not well intentioned. So what moron is going to take your opinion seriously now?

Almost forgot about this thread.

I think the last verse in question I posted was 9:29, which instructs Muslims to wage perpetual wars of aggression against unbelievers.

Fortunately or unfortunately, this passage has been understood correctly/misinterpreted by Muslim scholars for over 14 centuries who cite the passage as a proof text to wage offensive wars of aggression against unbelievers:

@O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).

@O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

Anyways, I believe the next verse in question was 9:123 which says to attack non-Muslim lands close to the Muslims:

O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that God is with the godfearing.

Hopefully rudeboy can come back and tell me if I have quoted this passage out of context.

9:123 refers to the Roman Empire. There had been a group of missionaries sent to deliver the message of Islam to the Roman rulers in Syria and they were all killed in cold blood. The Roman Empire had effectively declared war on Muslims with this act and Muslims were at risk.
How many countries do you know in the modern era that would accept the murder of 15-20 of their diplomats who had simply been sent to a neighboring country to deliver a message? How is that different from fighting terrorism which seems to be the most noble message of the past decade?

dee7o wrote:9:123 refers to the Roman Empire. There had been a group of missionaries sent to deliver the message of Islam to the Roman rulers in Syria and they were all killed in cold blood. The Roman Empire had effectively declared war on Muslims with this act and Muslims were at risk.
How many countries do you know in the modern era that would accept the murder of 15-20 of their diplomats who had simply been sent to a neighboring country to deliver a message? How is that different from fighting terrorism which seems to be the most noble message of the past decade?

Dee7o, I agree with you that Muslims must go outside of the Koran to correctly interpret the teachings of the Koran. I've actually maintained this position for quite some time - the Koran is very hard to follow without reading Seerah and hadith, and in several verses of the Koran, it is impossible to know what is occurring. It would be the equivalent of walking into a conversation fifteen minutes after it began and trying to figure out who the pronouns refer to.

Without hadith and seerah to say who are the hes and shes in the conversation, in addition to providing a lot of further background and historical context, it would be impossible for that person to know anything about what is going on.

And really, that is what it's like when trying to read the Koran. The passages jump around and many times there is no connection between passages next to each other. Really, your argument is not with me, but with Muslims who believe the Koran can be interpreted without the aid of outside sources.

eh - again with your orientalist views?

The Quran's verses on warfare etc have been well discussed and your particular view of 9.29 etc is the equivalent of all those who believe the world is flat. They also persist in their beliefs despite being shown the evidence of the truth.

A pretty far-out view - but then again, perhaps that is why you chose the latest screen name?

In any case, this thread belongs in the religion forum.

Cheers,
shafique

event horizon wrote:

dee7o wrote:9:123 refers to the Roman Empire. There had been a group of missionaries sent to deliver the message of Islam to the Roman rulers in Syria and they were all killed in cold blood. The Roman Empire had effectively declared war on Muslims with this act and Muslims were at risk.
How many countries do you know in the modern era that would accept the murder of 15-20 of their diplomats who had simply been sent to a neighboring country to deliver a message? How is that different from fighting terrorism which seems to be the most noble message of the past decade?

Dee7o, I agree with you that Muslims must go outside of the Koran to correctly interpret the teachings of the Koran. I've actually maintained this position for quite some time - the Koran is very hard to follow without reading Seerah and hadith, and in several verses of the Koran, it is impossible to know what is occurring. It would be the equivalent of walking into a conversation fifteen minutes after it began and trying to figure out who the pronouns refer to.

Without hadith and seerah to say who are the hes and shes in the conversation, in addition to providing a lot of further background and historical context, it would be impossible for that person to know anything about what is going on.

And really, that is what it's like when trying to read the Koran. The passages jump around and many times there is no connection between passages next to each other. Really, your argument is not with me, but with Muslims who believe the Koran can be interpreted without the aid of outside sources.

How many books of value can be interpreted without additional research and a solid understanding of relevant background? Forget the Qur'an for a minute. Do you think you would be able to understand Evolution of Physics without an understanding of basic mechanics and dynamics and even of Einstein's own previous research? You think you can just pick up a copy of The Prince and skim through it if you don't know anything about politics? How much of the New Testament can you understand if you haven't read the Old Testament? Even if you did think you understood, how accurate would your opinion be on some of the biblical characters if you did not know their backgrounds?

The Qur'an is no different. If you are concerned with a particular part of it, you research the background and then assess the verse and form an opinion. These were verses revealed disjointedly over 23 or so odd years. Of course when you bind them in a book and read them without previous knowledge or reference to their background, they make no sense independantly.

dee7o, what don't you understand with 'I agree with you'? The Koran is difficult to read without consulting outside sources/scholars to understand the meaning of its passages.

Interesting to see that shafique is confusing 'discredited orientalist view' with mainstream Muslim view. I can understand that fasting on Ramadan must take its toll on shafique's already fragile mind and affects his reading ability more than usual. : (

I'll re-paste the quote and shafique can look up the source online (I can't post links yet):

@O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).

@O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

Well said dee7o

dee7o wrote: How much of the New Testament can you understand if you haven't read the Old Testament? Even if you did think you understood, how accurate would your opinion be on some of the biblical characters if you did not know their backgrounds?

For the NT, it appears we do need to consult outside experts to establish which parts are to be followed and which parts are either metaphorical or just forgeries (eh/ikka/rats kindly showed this when he quoted an expert who stated that the NT account of Paul saying women should not speak in church, for example, was actually a forgery - and since then we have discussed other examples).

For the Quran, at least it is internally consistent and on any topic the various verses on the subject can be examined. We've had threads looking at whether there are contradictions in the Quran (there aren't) - but with eh/ikka/rats the issue is not one of what Islam teaches on warfare, but a seemingly stubborn insistence that his orientalist mis-interpretation of some verses is what Islam teaches.

On warfare, one does not need to really go outside the Quran - but the hadith and other commentaries do compliment and expound the concepts in the Quran. Interestingly, rats/ikka/eh does not like quoting the other Quranic verses - which speaks volumes.

As I said, just because someone wants to believe something is true - doesn't make it so. The blindman who stubbornly insists that the elephant is snake-like is to be pitied - but he believes he is right.

And for the person who quotes selectively from the web, the old adage:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing"

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:dee7o, what don't you understand with 'I agree with you'? The Koran is difficult to read without consulting outside sources/scholars to understand the meaning of its passages.

Interesting to see that shafique is confusing 'discredited orientalist view' with mainstream Muslim view. I can understand that fasting on Ramadan must take its toll on shafique's already fragile mind and affects his reading ability more than usual. : (

I'll re-paste the quote and shafique can look up the source online (I can't post links yet):

@O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).

@O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

The thing is, if you "agree" with me, what is the point of continuously selecting verses from the Qur'an that only talk about Jihad and posting them everywhere without explanation? It is not even like you are asking for an explanation either, it more like you are trying to make a point.

Crap ! why do I have still notifications to this thread. I hope this takes care of ratty boy once and for all

LOL. yep same here, I wish there was an ignore options for threads (and also some people....)

For the Quran, at least it is internally consistent and on any topic the various verses on the subject can be examined.

Really, your argument is with dee7o, who says that Muslims must consult scholars/outside sources to understand the meaning of the Koran. I agree with him, don't you?

For the NT, it appears we do need to consult outside experts to establish which parts are to be followed and which parts are either metaphorical or just forgeries

Nope, the New Testament's teachings are internally consistent. The confusion arises from trawling Ahmadiyya missionary websites and quoting back a select few verses instead of taking into consideration all of the passages in the New Testament on a certain subject - such as Paul's commissioning of female deacons and evangelists, etc,.

I noted when I informed you of these passages (which you first thought must have been ordered by other apostles in contradiction to Paul) in the New Testament, you replied that one shouldn't have to look at the NT's passages wholly (apparently, interpreting the Koran and New Testament is different for you)

In any event, you've only shown that the passages calling for warfare contradict a few passages in other chapters (and are unrelated) that call for warfare after Muslims are attacked. I agree with you that this is how Muslims should interpret the Koran by ignoring the numerous general commands (and prophecies) to wage war against/'conquer' unbelievers and choosing instead to follow passages that say to attack the enemies of Islam the same way Muslims were attacked (an eye for an eye).

Lastly, this thread isn't about proving that Muslims should wage violent jihad warfare by quoting passages in the Koran - Muslim jurists have done this twelve centuries ago, and so, insisting that one's opinion is correct without consulting the schools of Islamic law is pointless. This thread was intended to find out which passages I quoted from the Koran were taken out of context. So far, it appears that I have not taken any passages out of its immediate context. Do you disagree?

For the views of Sunni Islam pertaining to war, please consult the Reliance of the Traveler, which shafique mistakenly confused with 'discredited orientalist writers'.

Wow - so the NT does not contain contradictions. Perhaps you can start a thread in the religion forum then and explain them away - starting with Paul's instructions that women should not speak in Church vs other accounts that there were women deacons.


As for your other points about warfare - I refer you to our previous explanations. You are quite clear that the elephant is a snake, and we are quite happy in the fact that you won't change your mind.


Intriguing (and brave) statement on the NT being internally consistent though - bravo - let's see whether there is any substance to back this claim or whether this another 'all mouth, no trousers' moment from eh/ikka/rats.

We can go through the contradictions etc on Sceptics Annotated Bible - there's a long list of verses there.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon:

Please don't take offense, I really don't mean anything but do you mind me asking how old are you? You are of course under no obligation to answer but to be honest with you, your answers are slightly immature for an adult and quite frankly, they don't make a whole lot of sense. You seem to twist the logic of people's answers in quite mundane ways to support points that don't really help your argument. Discussing this with you has been a little like playing a word-game: tiresome and repetitive. Do you truthfully want to have a discussion about this or are you just going to keep repeating the same posts over and over again no matter what replies you get?

And Shafique, I think that proving that the NT has contradictions does not help your argument either. So what if it does? That says nothing about the Qur'an's validity which is the topic of discussion. Even if you do manage to prove the contradictions in the bible it will be irrelevant. I didn't think that this thread was a comparison. Anyway, just for the record, I do support your belief that there are inaccuracies and contradictions in the NT. The first time I read it I was 12 and even at that age I spotted a few.

^I asked eh in another thread whether he is an only child - it could explain some of the traits we've seen.

The fact that the NT contains contradictions is just another discussion that should be in the religion forum, and came up in a previous long, long thread on exactly the same topic.

I explained that ikka/rats/eh was drawing inferences from his interpretation of one verse (in that thread) and I gave an analogy that it would be wrong to interpret Christianity as misogynistic because one verse says Women should not speak in church. (I was stating that Christians quite rightly ignore that verse and don't follow it). This led to a discussion where he quoted experts who said that the verse was inserted by an incompetent forger - i.e. they weren't Paul's words after all - and this was how the expert he quoted explained away this contradiction.

Conversely, the Quran's teachings are internally consistent and understandable even in the translations (which cannot give the full meanings of the original Arabic) - especially when it comes to the verses on warfare. When all the verses are considered together - the Islamic teaching on the ethics of war is internally consistent and belies the Orientalist view of a militant religion bent on killing/subduing non-believers.

So the issues being discussed here have been repeatedly presented to eh, and thus all the sane advice above about not feeding the troll.

I was just surprised to read eh claim that the NT contained no contradictions -as you point out from experience, a child can spot the contradictions. But we've started discussing this - well, I have laid out one contradiction - in the religion forum.

Cheers,
Shafique

Please don't take offense, I really don't mean anything but do you mind me asking how old are you?

I'm old enough to know that your knowledge on Islam is too lacking for you to lecture others on the beliefs of Islam. I suppose I was too polite to point out your historical errors to you (or ask you to substantiate them and I would then stand corrected) and I could start another thread when I have more time.

You seem to twist the logic of people's answers in quite mundane ways to support points that don't really help your argument.

Twisting logic?

Twisting?

Well, if I do twist other people's posts, then I can assure you this is only what I have picked up to debate certain posters who have been accused of twisting posts themselves (and in the process killing off the members of a subforum he was a moderator of).

Discussing this with you has been a little like playing a word-game

You mean like post-after-post of needless obfuscation that is less about any type of debate/exchange of information but about how much you can tire/bore another poster until they decided to stop posting and then pretend you were the 'winner'?

Please, dee7o, say it isn't so.

Anyways, getting back on topic...

Koran 8:39:

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

: )

Not worth the time