Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

freza wrote:However the article suggests more than dialectic differences. In the article Andrew Rippin is quoted:
"Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed."

Also, the article touches on the Quran's incomprehensibility, confusing words, and a history which included different schools of thought within Islamic theology..

I do not know Andrew Rippin's credentials, but let us address what he has said:
'variant readings' - as noted in the previous thread, variant readings are known about and relate to pronunciations of the same underlying words.

'verse order' - depends on what the variation is and whether it changes any of the meanings (but I can't see how this will be the case).

It is hard to argue against an unspecific comment in an article - the Sana'a document was written in an older Arabic script and is not complete. The main method of preservation and transmission of the Quran is the memorisation and recitation of the oral transmission of God's words.

I'll therefore wait to read about which specific verses or words of the Quran are in question.

In the mean time we can still discuss the internal consistency of the Quran vs that of the Bible.

freza wrote:Yes I think it would be interesting to compare the inconsistencies, additions, fabrications, etc. that are being attributed to the Bible with those that are attributed to the Quran. here are some points that are commonly brought up from a Christian perspective (which might not represent the views of all skeptics but it's still worth looking into I think): http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/quran9d.htm
....

Great - we'll take one at a time and I'll let you choose the issues.

freza wrote:Shafique, if you read the article you would see that I was paraphrasing what is stated there and what is stated some observations of the Quran. And again it is a bit obvious that the experts are referring to more than different dialects.

It wasn't obvious to me that there was any substance to the allegations - but as I said, if it is obvious then there should be specific verses and words you can bring to our attention to discuss.

freza wrote:The other link cites the same things that the article states but also includes historical inconsistencies, illogical phrases, 3rd person accounts, etc.. Also, can you please address the actual Islamic theological disputes that are also mentioned in the article. There is too much to quote that is why I encourage you to read the entire article if you haven't done so already. But this caught my eye in particular:

"A major theological debate in fact arose within Islam in the late eighth century, pitting those who believed in the Koran as the "uncreated" and eternal Word of God against those who believed in it as created in time, like anything that isn't God himself. Under the Caliph al-Ma'mun (813-833) this latter view briefly became orthodox doctrine. It was supported by several schools of thought, including an influential one known as Mu'tazilism, that developed a complex theology based partly on a metaphorical rather than simply literal understanding of the Koran."

this caught my eye because it seems that there was some difference in opinion on how to....dare I say...interpret or view the Quran.

Ok - as I said we'll tackle the numerous instances you cite one at a time (and you choose which ones).

The theological debate over whether the Quran was created or not is exactly what is described - a debate over theology.

I think we were at odds in the other thread because I said Christian sects had major differences over theology. I stated this as an obvious fact, and unfortunately was challenged over this.

Muslims also have major differences over theology - hence why there are different sects and schools of thoughts.

This does not have anything to do with whether the Quran contains contradictions or not. It does contain verses that are allegorical - but no contradictions.

Let's be clear - a contradiction would be if one verse said the Father of Joseph was Mr A, and another verse said it was Mr B - and both refer to the same Joseph. However, saying that a person is a son in one verse and a husband in another is not a contradiction (but saying a person is a sister and a husband, would be).

Whilst the Quran is untainted and guaranteed by God not to be corrupted, the way in which people misuse religion and attribute things to Islam despite what is in the Quran was also prophecised - there will always be people who twist words and try and mislead people.

As for the theological debate over whether the Quran was created or not - I believe it was created, as only God is a non-creation. However, the Quran was part of God's plan for the universe and therefore was with Him from when the universe was created.

To my knowledge, this has been a largely philosophical debate within various schools of thought and not a major divisive issue (unlike the issue of hereditary leadership of the Muslims for instance).

Anyway, if you would like to choose a specific aspect of the Quran that you think shows a contradiction or inconsistency - then I will answer that.

Many thanks,
Shafique

Re: comments on the Sana'a manuscripts, I agree with you in that there isn't specific info to reference on the what exactly the significant open questions the author is referring to. There isn't much info on the studies of the Sana'a manuscripts in general since I understand it's still an ongoing study.
about the theological disputes of the past I don't think that paragraph describing the dispute implies that the Quran wasn't technically created rather the opposing view that the Quran is not the exact words of God, not created by him so to speak but by man.

Re: Contradictions you can address the ones in the other link provided for example in the biblestudymanuals link it says:

"In sura 5:82, Pagans and Jews are considered the furthest from Muslims, while Christians are the nearest, yet in sura 5:51 & 57 Muslims are told not to have Christians as friends. Interestingly, in the same verse (51) it comments that Jews and Christians are friends, yet [historically] the only thing they have in common is their agreement on the authenticity of the Old Testament."

and then

"Muslims Jews, Christians, and Sabians are all considered saved in sura 2:62, yet in sura 3:85 only Muslims are considered saved."

2:62 “Those who believe in the Qur’an and those who follow the Jewish scriptures and Christian and Sadians and who believe in Allah and the Last Day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

compared to:

3:85 "And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers."

This here does not appear to be a different way of saying things rather it appears to be a noticeable contradiction.

freza wrote:Re: comments on the Sana'a manuscripts, I agree with you in that there isn't specific info to reference on the what exactly the significant open questions the author is referring to. There isn't much info on the studies of the Sana'a manuscripts in general since I understand it's still an ongoing study.

So, until we have some more specific points to discuss there is nothing more to discuss on this point.

freza wrote:about the theological disputes of the past I don't think that paragraph describing the dispute implies that the Quran wasn't technically created rather the opposing view that the Quran is not the exact words of God, not created by him so to speak but by man.

I see your argument. However, I think it is moot because the Quran itself claims to be the literal words of God, and no Muslim has ever disputed this clear claim. Therefore the discussion over created/non-created does not have the implication you point to - that it is a dispute over whether it is the word of God or not.

freza wrote:Re: Contradictions you can address the ones in the other link provided for example in the biblestudymanuals link it says:

"In sura 5:82, Pagans and Jews are considered the furthest from Muslims, while Christians are the nearest, yet in sura 5:51 & 57 Muslims are told not to have Christians as friends. Interestingly, in the same verse (51) it comments that Jews and Christians are friends, yet [historically] the only thing they have in common is their agreement on the authenticity of the Old Testament."

and then

"Muslims Jews, Christians, and Sabians are all considered saved in sura 2:62, yet in sura 3:85 only Muslims are considered saved."

2:62 “Those who believe in the Qur’an and those who follow the Jewish scriptures and Christian and Sadians and who believe in Allah and the Last Day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

compared to:

3:85 "And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers."

This here does not appear to be a different way of saying things rather it appears to be a noticeable contradiction.

Excellent, this is a specific point which we can discuss and agree whether the Quran's verses are contradictory or not.

I do not see a contradiction in the verses and believe they are both clear.

2.62 clearly states that provided non-Muslims do not commit the sin of worshiping another God, believe in accountability of actions and do good works - then they will have their reward with God and have nothing to fear.

3.85 says that Islam is the only religion acceptable to God (also see 3.19 and 5.4 which clarify this point). What 2.62 stipulates are some of the core beliefs of Islam and that rewards will be given if these are followed.

The Quran therefore teaches that Muslims (followers of Islam) do not have the monopoly of God's salvation (which is what the Jews believe and the verses around 2.62 are referring to Jewish beliefs - but the context isn't important to my argument here).

That God will reward Jews, Christians and Sabians who do good works etc is an excellent teaching of the Quran, in my opinion. What they are practicing will be in line with the core teachings of Islam, after all.

The God of the Quran is Just, Merciful and Logical.

However, God's final religion is Islam according to the Quran, and those that decide not to follow it will be among the losers. Some people will be punished more than others, others will be rewarded more than others.

The confusion may be because Christianity teaches only one way of achieving salvation and condemns those who do not believe in Christ to 'non-salvation' after death. The Quran teaches that each person will be judged by God alone and He will decide.

3.85 does not condemn all non-Muslims to hell, but says that those who reject Islam will be among the 'losers'.

I therefore respectfully submit that there is no contradiction here.

Let me know if you agree or not freza before we move on to another point of your choice (let's clear this one up first before moving on).

Wasalaam (peace),
Shafique

John 18 shows that at least one of the disciples carried a sword and used it to draw blood:

John 18:9-11 (New International Version)
9This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me."[a]
10Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)
11Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:2.62 clearly states that provided non-Muslims do not commit the sin of worshiping another God, believe in accountability of actions and do good works - then they will have their reward with God and have nothing to fear.

if they have nothing to fear why the: "3:85 And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers."

shafique wrote:The Quran therefore teaches that Muslims (followers of Islam) do not have the monopoly of God's salvation.

If Islam doesn't have a monopoly of God's salvation why then will followers of other religions "will NEVER be accepted of him" and will "lose" in the hereafter?? What will they lose? Isn't it clear that they will lose their salvation? They will have their reward in one verse then they seem to lose it in another...

Also, what about the Jewish-Christian friendship in the other verses? And why are Muslims told not to have Christian friends?

Freza,

Being among the losers means that they won't get the full rewards that those obedient servants of God will get - if you reject the message of God and present another religion, then this will not be given precedent.

What it does not say is that they will necessarily go to Hell - something that the Quran is completely consistent on.

I agree with you, if the Quran had said all non-Muslims go to hell and then 2.62 would contradict this. However, 3.85 does not say this.

As explained in my previous post - everyone will be rewarded on their own merits. Amongst the muslims, there will be those who will have higher ranks than others, similarly amongst all other people.

Do you agree with the Islamic teaching that God should/will judge people on their merits? If yes, then do you also believe that God would reveal one true final message that is universal? If so, then these verses offer no contradiction and are logical - God will not hold other religions above His final universal religion, but will judge each person on their merits - including whether they rejected or accepted Islam.

Cheers,
Shafique

double post

triple! post

shafique wrote:Freza,

Being among the losers means that they won't get the full rewards that those obedient servants of God will get - if you reject the message of God and present another religion, then this will not be given precedent.

what are those "full rewards"? Can you be more specific as to the meaning of "full rewards" Just a little heaven instead of a lot? And how do you get the losers = not full rewards. And why the "NEVER be accepted of HIM" ? <-- these are strong words, that seem quite final in their message. Never be accepted of God. How is this not so bad?

and also, why can't Muslims have Christian friends according to the Quran?

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Freza,

Being among the losers means that they won't get the full rewards that those obedient servants of God will get - if you reject the message of God and present another religion, then this will not be given precedent.

what are those "full rewards" and how do you get the losers = not full rewards. And why the "NEVER be accepted of HIM" ? <-- these are strong words, that seem quite final in their message.

Why can't Muslims have Christian friends?

Do you agree that this is not a contradiction then - as you are asking another question now?

The Islamic concept of heaven is that one will continue to progress and advance in the form that we will take in the after-life. The more pious will be closer to God - those who fulfill all the requirements God has laid down will have better rewards than those who do not.

The Quran says we cannot have any real concept of what the after-life will be like, but it gives us similitudes only - eg. it will be like gardens with rivers etc.

Whether Muslims can have Christians as friends or not is another question and I'll be happy to deal with this after we finish with this part of the discussion.

Cheers,
Shafique

Apologies, I overlooked the fact you did refer to 5.51 and 57 in your original post.

These do say do not take Jews and Christians as friends (in 5.51) and 5.27 says do not take those who make fun of your religion (Islam) from among those who were given the book before (i.e. Jews and Christians).

I do not see these verses as being relevant to the other verses relating to who will be saved in the hear-after.

I think the question about the reason behind these verses is a valid one, but not relevant to the discussion about contradictions.

As I said, I'm happy to expound on the meanings of these verses - they don't say we can't be friendly with Jews and Christians generally. The first verse is about those who were scheming against the Muslims - the second verse specifically specifies that Muslims should not take as friends those who mock their religion.

The practice of the Prophet showed how these verses are to be implemented - for example he received the Bishop of Najran and his delegation and offered his own mosque to them for them to offer their Sunday worship in. Similarly there were very good relations with the Christian rulers of Abyssinia who gave shelter to Muslims early on, and never had a military conflict with the muslims after they rose to power.

Again - the verses are internally consistent and non-contradictory.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Do you agree that this is not a contradiction then - as you are asking another question now?

No.

shafique wrote:The Quran says we cannot have any real concept of what the after-life will be like, but it gives us similitudes only - eg. it will be like gardens with rivers etc.

beautiful virgins etc.

shafique wrote:The Islamic concept of heaven is that one will continue to progress and advance in the form that we will take in the after-life. The more pious will be closer to God - those who fulfill all the requirements God has laid down will have better rewards than those who do not.

Interesting. However what about the "NEVER be accepted of Him"part? To progress and to have step by step access to rewards is one thing. But to NEVER be accepted is another.

Re: Christians as friends:
Sura 5.51 “Sura 5.51: "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

ok, where exactly in 5.51 does it say those Jews and Christians who make fun of Islam? Why does it say that Jews and Christians are friends when they weren't? And YES there is a big contradiction between stating that Jews and Christians are in God's favor to telling Muslims not to have Jew and Christian friends and calling them unjust and suddenly unfavorable to God. Contradictory for sure. you mentioned 5:27, The Cain/Abel story? or am I misunderstanding? on to 5:27 another issue that I read about comes up:[5:27] Recite for them the true history of Adam's two sons. They made an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, but not from the other. He said, "I will surely kill you." He said, "GOD accepts only from the righteous.
a "flesh" or more appropriately "blood" offerings was accepted by God it seems...

Freza,

5.27 was a typo - I meant 5.57 (the other verse you referred to).


'Never accepted of him' means exactly what it says - God will not accept another religion above Islam and 'they will be among the losers' means exactly what it says 'at the day of judgment these will be among those who will be rewarded less'.

So 'full rewards' means the maximum rewards you could get by fully following God's laws and wishes.

Once you are dead and in front of God, it is too late to change what one did on earth and religion is something that only applies to this life, as it relates to one's belief and actions on earth (this is the Islamic concept of religion).

When it comes to the day of judgment one is presenting one's life to God and He is judging you on your merits. Presenting a different religion other than Islam will not be accepted as a religion, but your ultimate fate depends on your thoughts and actions.

Thus there is no contradiction between one verse saying Christians etc will be rewarded by God for their actions should they believe in One God, believe in the day of Judgment and do good works ; and with the other verses saying that the ultimate and universal religion of God is Islam.

Let me know what aspects of this concept are still unclear and whether there remains a contradiction in the meanings of the verses.

[And yes, 'virgins', is a metaphor as well - other verses talk of 'pure consorts' and that these consorts are companions for women as well as men - and as we won't have our physical bodies or carnal senses, these references are similitudes only]

Cheers,
Shafique

I agree with you, if the Quran had said all non-Muslims go to hell and then 2.62 would contradict this. However, 3.85 does not say this.

this is what v98.6 says:

Those who reject (Truth),
Among the People of the Book
And among the Polytheists,
Will be in Hellfire,
To dwell therein (for aye).
They are the worst
Of creatures

The verse is followed up by: Verily, those who believe and do righteous good deeds, they are the best of creatures

Is the part 'those who believe' referring to only (which is how I'm reading it) Muslims, or does it include all believers in that verse?

Also, Ibn Kathir's commentary on the verse is that the disbelievers will dwell in hell forever.

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=98&tid=58900

Valkyrie,

The verse and Ibn Kathir's commentary speak of 'some' of the unbelievers, not all the unbelievers.

The issue over whether hell is eternal or not is a different issue - I disagree with Ibn Kathir that hell is eternal, but that is not really relevant to 2.62 which says some Jews and Christians and Sabians will be rewarded by God.

In fact, by implication, 2.62 complements 98.6 in that those who aren't going to be rewarded according to 2.62 will be going to hell as per 98.6.

Cheers,
Shafique

I thought I'd post an apparent contradiction in the NT:

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. ACTS 9.7

And they that were with me, saw indeed the, light and were afraid; but heard not the voice of him that spake to me. ACTS 22.9


The question that comes to mind is whether the people with Paul heard a voice or not. Both verses cannot be accurate as they are contradictory. Therefore one must be false and not the word of God.

Or am I missing something here? Perhaps it doesn't matter that one verse is not true? Or are these verses not talking about the same incident (the 'vision' of Paul on the road to Damascus?

Cheers,
Shafique

For freza - I didn't realise I had posted a contradiction from the Bible in the post above (my memory must be going! )

Anyway - I'd be interested in your explanation of the above. I think it shows that at least one of these verses isn't true and therefore isn't the word of God.

Cheers,
Shafique

your memory is not the only thing that has been "going"....


This is clearly a case of lost in ancient Greek translation. No contradiction, not if you look at the correct translation. Have you?

Here's a word per word analysis: http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Act ... b=analysis

I love the way to try to stir things up. keep trying...I'm sure it serves a very significant and self-important purpose. *smirk*

Freza - good try, but no cigar. The translation I give is accurate according to the ancient Greek - even your link says so!

If you hover over the note in the translation (in the link you gave above) which they say is 'understand' the note says:

" tn Grk “did not hear” (but see Acts 9:7). BDAG 38 s.v. ἀκούω 7 has “W. acc. τὸν νόμον understand the law Gal 4:21; perh. Ac 22:9; 26:14…belong here.” If the word has this sense here, then a metonymy is present, since the lack of effect is put for a failure to appreciate what was heard."


i.e. The correct/accurate translation is "did not hear" but as this contradicts the other verse, we choose to interpret 'did not hear' as 'did not understand'.


Thanks for showing that the word for word translation I posted is correct in the original Greek. I presume you do not know ancient Greek and that you didn't check the note - so I don't blame you for believing that the translation I quoted above was not accurate. You can now see that it was (and in any case, the quotes are from a standard Bible).


Do you want to try again? Or will you accept that there is a literal contradiction in these verses that can only be explained by changing the meaning of 'hear' in Greek? [And yes, I did do my homework before posting the contradiction above and did check that both verses use the same Greek word for 'hear', so there is no 'wriggle room' here.]

[And it also interesting that you chose a 'newer' translation that is less accurate than the King James, New Standard Bible etc that all give the correct word for word translation. I suspect your chosen translation just seeks to hide the contradiction(but they did give a note to show it wasn't a literal translation)! I wonder how many other intentional 'mis-translations' there may be?]

Cheers,
Shafique

Actually the reason why I like NetBible is because it does include several different versions of the Bible including the King James version (did you notice that KJV was there??? and did you read the word analysis on it?) And of course I read the commentary - the commentary does not at all support your views on contradiction. Following is why..

Now I do not know ancient Greek. But I assume you do as you seem to be a person who has an extremely profound knowledge of all things related to the Bible. *cough* Even so, let me quote for an actual theologian who explains this supposed contradiction of the Acts in question.

Fr. John Echert writes:

"...The question naturally arises as to whether those who were with Paul heard the voice from heaven or not. Since Luke, who was systematic and skilled in writing, writes both accounts this seeming contradiction is all the more striking. First of all, let us admit that the distinction as to who is relating the episode--the narrator or as spoken by St. Paul--can account for minor differences due to perspective, while of course we recognize that Luke as author of Acts has recorded and written all three. But obviously it was not a true contradiction from Luke’s perspective, since he wrote it as he did. It would seem that the solution lies in what is meant by “hearing." In the Greek, the word for hearing can mean to physically hear and it can also mean, by extension, to perceive or understand what is heard. As such, both accounts can be accurate but from two perspectives: those with Paul heard some sound from the heavens but it was only intelligible to Paul, for whom the message was intended. A similar situation can be found in the Gospel of St. John (12:27-30), in which the voice of God is perceived as thunder by some and the voice of an angel by others, but it is clearly intelligible to Jesus.

Some further examples of this two-fold way of hearing or understanding this Greek word (akouo) are the following:

St. Paul writes the following in his first letter to the Corinthians: “14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands (akouo) him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

As recorded by St. Matthew our Lord used this Greek verb interchangeably: “13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing (akouo) they do not hear (akouo), nor do they understand (suniami).

This reminds me of a modern idiom I heard years ago out in Washington D.C. One radio station used to run an ad in which the speaker said, "I hear what you are saying but I do not hear what you are saying." The translation: I hear words from your mouth by they make no sense to me. A simple analogy but accurate, I think.

Beyond the issue of the Greek meaning of the word for “hearing” there is the additional consideration of the Greek word for “voice,” (phona) which appears grammatically different in Acts 9 and Acts 22. Sometimes “voice” is rendered as “sound” or “noise” which in not intelligible and other times it is a voice that is understood. So we see that the Greek text of the Word of God is ambivalent enough to account for any apparent discrepancies, as we may perceive them within the limits of an English translation."

freza - the theologian comes up with an explanation for the contradiction, but agrees that the translations I posted are accurate.

In a nutshell the argument is 'did not hear' does not mean the opposite of 'did hear' - but rather means 'did hear, but did not understand'. Also the quote from Mat 13.13 shows the distinction between the words for 'hearing' and 'understanding'!

I understand that those 'with faith' will agree with such tortuous logic, but I have to say I remain unconvinced.

All it shows is that the Bible does contain contradictions which require some fancy logic to overcome.

Next you'll be trying to convince me there is a population problem!

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,

The words in question clearly have other meanings which have been used before in the Bible with their alternate meanings. How can you have missed this so obviously???

you're like a blind man who's blind because he refuses to see!!!
hopeless!

To hear a sound and to hear the voice of God are two distinct things. The way God has appeared or has communicated to people throughout Biblical history has been in mysterious and unique ways. From burning bushes to thunder to languages that sound like gibberish to people that can not "hear" the voice of God. Sorry but a ridiculously inflated but deluded ego is nothing against theology who has academic value and a long history of examination of Bible literature and semantics. you are attempting to pit this non-contradiction against other texts that actually support this trend of using alternate forms of a word to imply that of voice, sound and actually hearing/not hearing what is meant to be heard and by whom throughout the Bible.

I hate to point this out, but Answeringislam has an explanation to a dude who has wrote things..well who is as obsessed with prejudice of things not his, kinda like you are. But then, again, he's been instructed to do so, well, then again, just like you have...

http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... 1.2.7.html

Why all these personal insults freza?

what do you consider a personal insult nucle?

I'm only stating the truth, uncomfortable maybe, but not an insult. besides, Shafique likes it, it makes him want to save more souls.

revisiting....

shafique wrote:'Never accepted of him' means exactly what it says - God will not accept another religion above Islam and 'they will be among the losers' means exactly what it says 'at the day of judgment these will be among those who will be rewarded less'.

So 'full rewards' means the maximum rewards you could get by fully following God's laws and wishes.

Can you tell us exactly where in your teachings does "full rewards" equal this definition here.

shafique wrote:[And yes, 'virgins', is a metaphor as well..

who determines what is a metaphor and what is not in the Quran? A metaphor must be interpreted, so why claim the Quran requires no interpretation? What is your criteria for what is a metaphor and what is not? And why criticize the Bible for exactly this, its metaphorically language and its need for proper interpretation?

You didn't answer why it is stated that Christians and Jews were friends. or maybe I missed something, was this a metaphor? Does not sound like one, sounds like an error. Where again does it state that Christians and Jews were mocking Islam?

And on to a different contradiction. Blood sacrifices, quoting again:
[5:27] "Recite for them the true history of Adam's two sons. They made an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, but not from the other. He said, "I will surely kill you." He said, "GOD accepts only from the righteous. "

a "flesh" or more appropriately "blood" offerings was accepted by God it seems...

shafique wrote:I understand that those 'with faith' will agree with such tortuous logic, but I have to say I remain unconvinced.

the height of irony

in the quran, the question of which was made first earth or heaven (i dont normally bring this one up, because its a pathetic argument if you ask me, but its about as pathetic as the hear did not understand argument)

Heaven in 79:27-30


Earth in 2:29 and 41:9-12


there's heaps of these little one word glitches in the quran that other people brought up before and you gave some explanations that makes teh above statement of faith causes some tortuous logic - coming from you, is a bit VERY rich.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:[And yes, 'virgins', is a metaphor as well..

.

you cant be serious?


is this in relation to the promises of the afterlife?

mate i have heard, COUNTLESS friday lectures from cleriks on tv, telling people how to abstain from everything because the after life will have everything they abstained from including alcohol, virgins, BOYS (in a twisted way making it ok to be a homosexual in heaven).... countless i tell you.

i love friday lectures, they're seriously hillarious.




in conclusion, it dawned on me that islam is now like how christianity was in the middle ages in europe.... i came to this realisation when i thought of the state of the people that listen to things like fatwas, that allow cleriks to run their lives due to their personal opinion and nothing else.


in the middle ages the church had all the control, a king couldnt lift his finger without asking the priest first, people were commoners, farmers, uneducated, and they just followed what the priest tells them blindly. then the church lost its grip, people got educated, broke free, and moved on.


islam still hasnt broken out of that cycle, some 500 years on... and the fact that where muslims are at their highest concentration (and extremism) are extremely backward 3rd world countries - just goes to prove that lack of proper education and knowledge is the determining factor of such backward culture - people only find light in knowledge, and the vast majority of these people barely have a secondary education....

huge generalisation, but for the most part accurate, i cant imagine any pakistani taxi driver or truck driver here ever having enough brains to question his faith - he just goes on with what he got taught... same goes with pakistan, afghanistan, indonesia, gulf countries doing whatever they can to censor anything that is slightly off their beliefs (internet and TV here being prime example)


i should prepare a thesis on this.

freza wrote:I'm only stating the truth, uncomfortable maybe, but not an insult. besides, Shafique likes it, it makes him want to save more souls.

freza - I have to point out that you weren't stating the truth when you said I had quoted a wrong translation.

I am happy to concede that Christians have an explanation for this contradictory verse - I am personally not convinced by it, and others can make up their own minds. For me, given it is the same author and that the Greek word is the same, and it describes the same event - it is a clear contradiction. In one they heard but did not see, in the other they did not hear.

Therefore, I cannot understand why I am being called a blind man for quoting an accurate translation and you are somehow more enlightened for telling us something that was not correct.

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics - I agree with you that Islam is going through the equivalent of the Middle Ages in Christianity when religion was being misused.


quote="freza"]revisiting....

shafique wrote:'Never accepted of him' means exactly what it says - God will not accept another religion above Islam and 'they will be among the losers' means exactly what it says 'at the day of judgment these will be among those who will be rewarded less'.



So 'full rewards' means the maximum rewards you could get by fully following God's laws and wishes.

Can you tell us exactly where in your teachings does "full rewards" equal this definition here.

[/quote]



The verses I quoted before from the Quran saying that Christians etc will go to heaven provided they don't worship other Gods etc.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:[And yes, 'virgins', is a metaphor as well..

who determines what is a metaphor and what is not in the Quran? A metaphor must be interpreted, so why claim the Quran requires no interpretation? What is your criteria for what is a metaphor and what is not? And why criticize the Bible for exactly this, its metaphorically language and its need for proper interpretation?

The Quran itself - as I stated before, the Quran is internally consistent and does not contain contradictions.



The Quran itself says there are clear verses and metaphoric ones:



The Quran also says that the after life will be 'like nothing we can imagine' - and also says in a few places that the descriptions of the after-life are metaphorical. I'll get the quotes for you and post separately.

freza wrote:


You didn't answer why it is stated that Christians and Jews were friends. or maybe I missed something, was this a metaphor? Does not sound like one, sounds like an error. Where again does it state that Christians and Jews were mocking Islam?

I think you will find I did address this question explicitly. I think Valkyrie or Flying Dutchman raised the question.

freza wrote:
And on to a different contradiction. Blood sacrifices, quoting again:

[5:27] "Recite for them the true history of Adam's two sons. They made an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, but not from the other. He said, "I will surely kill you." He said, "GOD accepts only from the righteous. "



a "flesh" or more appropriately "blood" offerings was accepted by God it seems...

Sorry, can you explain what the contradiction is. The Quran is quite clear on the subject of sacrifices and their meanings, so this is an interesting one for me - please let me know what verses are contradictory so I can clarify this point for you.