Monday, December 22, 2008

Denial ad Absurdum: When Muslims Undermine Their Own Religion

There is a growing trend among Muslim debaters that demands our attention. Muslims are denying virtually all their early sources (apart from the Qur'an).

As earnest investigators of Islam, we ask our Muslim friends: "What should we turn to in order to investigate Islam?" We are told "Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim are the most trustworthy traditions of the prophet." But as soon as we turn to these collections for information about Muhammad, the Muslims deny their usefulness!

For example, when quoting Sahih al-Bukhari regarding the punishment for apostasy, even scholars and sheikhs have been known to deny the authenticity of the traditions (e.g. Jamal Badawi). When quoting Sahih al-Muslim regarding the punishment of Christians and Jews for the sins of Muslims (#6666), an immediate declaration of "daeef" or "weak hadith" is issued from a Shia Muslim. When quoting al-Muslim concerning the hadith in which Muhammad hits Aisha on her chest, causing her pain, Sunnis have said this tradition cannot be true. But these are the most trustworthy collections of ahadith!

Then what must we do as honest investigators of Islam? We must turn to the earliest biographies of Muhammad - indeed, this is what any historian would do to begin with! But when quoting Ibn Ishaq, Waqidi, and Ibn Saad, the Muslims insist that we not use these sources, stating that they are even less trustworthy than the above collections of ahadith!

This is not a rare occurrence - in fact, denial of sources is one of the most common responses Muslims provide to challenges against Islam's foundations.

But there are at least two over-arching problems that result from this position. The first is that investigators are left with no sources that they know Muslims will consider trustworthy except for the Qur'an itself. But "Qur'an Only" Islam looks nothing like the actual religion. When Muslims state that we must turn to commentaries and ahadith to understand the context of the Qur'an, their simultaneous insistence that other parts of those compilations are untrustworthy makes investigating Islam into a game of "guess what I'm thinking."

The second problem is more insidious: when Muslims deny the trustworthiness of virtually all the early Muslims (stating that they were unable to filter out blatant lies like the Satanic verses, the verse of stoning, etc.) they are denying the trustworthiness of those who recounted the Qur'an. But one must ask, how do early Muslims go from being regularly untrustworthy when recounting ahadith and sirah to being 100% trustworthy when recounting the Qur'an?

In conclusion, Muslims' denials of early Islamic sources have far reaching consequences. By these standards, investigators cannot trust any source enough to be able to gather accurate knowledge of Islam except the Qur'an, they cannot use anything in aiding their interpretation of the Qur'an, and in fact they have no reason at all to trust the Qur'an itself.

50 comments:

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I am pretty sure that Muslims in near future will begin separating the Qur'an into reliable and less reliable stages. Their contemporary treatment of the Hadiths is just the beginning.

Seems from all this that Islam is in a much weaker position than the one they ascribe upon Christianity.

Anonymous said...

Sam pointed this out in his debate with (I think it was) Nadir Ahmed - they live in the West, they have no other choice.

Anonymous said...

Some thoughts:
Isn't it amusing that people like Shabir Ally have to rely on the most radical atheist scholars when it comes to the New Testament, but they reject the most reliable early islamic sources when it comes to the Quran?

Nakdimon said...

That is a very interesting observation on Shabir, Matthew. It is very unappealing to be a muslim nowadays.

And I thought I have said quite a time ago, that since muslims have no problem at all to deny the validity of Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari, they would soon also deny Bukhari and Muslim. Well, we are slowly seeing that happen. All of a sudden Bukhari and Muslim aren't as "Sahih" as they are claimed to be.

by the way: I will be debating Yahya19 on Paltalk @ 7 pm eastern time on the topic "Is Ishmael part of the Covenant of Abraham?" Be there in the debate room. It will be my first official audio debate on Paltalk ever. Everyone is invited.

Nakdimon said...

oops: the debate has just been re-scheduled and will be saturday december 27, @ 7 pm eastern time in the debate room on paltalk, God willing

Abdul Aziz Rahmi said...

in Islam apostates are executed, because apostasy is considered to be treason. Bassam has an article about apostasy on his site. only apostates that denounce Islam opnely under Islamic law should be killed. Some will use Noble Verse 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. as an argument against the killing of apostates but this verse is only for joining the religion.

the hadiht that says that jews and christians will be punished for the sins of the Muslims contradicts the Noble Quran. "Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger."(17:15).
A hadith cannot contradict the Quran.

The Prophet(P) never hit Aisha(ra) the hadith says that The Prophet(P) pushed Aisha with a push that made her sore. the translation is wrong.

Ibn Ishaq is not trustworthy. he was condemnd by his contemporaries, like Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

george said...

i fear one day muslims will reject quran and bring out their own handmade quran to save their face!!!

Fernando said...

george said: ""i fear one day muslims will reject quran and bring out their own handmade quran to save their face!!!""... after readeing what Abdul Aziz Rahmi said I guess you're absoluttely true my friend...

Unknown said...

Abdul Aziz Rahmi:in Islam apostates are executed, because apostasy is considered to be treason. Some will use Noble Verse 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. as an argument against the killing of apostates but this verse is only for joining the religion.

Surah 2 verse 256 is not the only evidence from the Quran that contradicts the gratuitous killing of apostates. There are other verses, such as Surah 60 verse 8, and so forth. Those who support the execution of apostates, primarily the Salafis, interpret 2:256 in the light of some obscure traditions, rather than allowing the Book to speak for itself. Considering the plethora of verses supporting freedom of religion, it is essential that we interpret the traditions in the light of the Quran, and not the other way round. Accordingly, it can be said that the traditions about killing apostates is specific to situations in which apostasy is combined with active hostility towards the state. Only then is there justification of executing renegades.

Anonymous said...

"Isn't it amusing that people like Shabir Ally have to rely on the most radical atheist scholars when it comes to the New Testament, but they reject the most reliable early islamic sources when it comes to the Quran?"

I have to correct this, he rejects early islamic sources about the hadith (and therefore Muhammed). But I am pretty sure that he would also reject early sources on the Quran.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Abdul Aziz wrote:

in Islam apostates are executed, because apostasy is considered to be treason. Bassam has an article about apostasy on his site. only apostates that denounce Islam opnely under Islamic law should be killed. Some will use Noble Verse 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. as an argument against the killing of apostates but this verse is only for joining the religion.

Elijah replies:

Lets consider your statement. If the latest statistics are correct, there are approximately 20 million Muslim converts to Christianity in the world today, and probably a similar number of Muslim converts to atheism, the majority of these living in Muslim countries.

What you are encouraging and moralizing here is the genocide of at least 15-25 million people.

Apologize for my outburst here, but based upon your statement you are either sick in your mind (after all the Second World War nazies genocided a similar number of people and we consider them the demons of human history, in your reply you just placed islam in a similar category)or you have not had the time to sit down and think and filter away the voices that influence your mindset into such a direction.

Many of these individuals you want murdered are fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, grand fathers and mothers.

Come to your sense man, for goodness sake.

I am not sure about your life experience but I have stood in midsts of blood and gore of Christians who were murdered by Muslims just because they were Christians; the evil and the effect of such attrocities make your statement at bit less of a fairytale in my mind, it speaks reality, something you and many muslims have not grasped yet.

If you live in the West you ought to be exposed and treated like a nazi and so ought Bassadi, if had the authority such a person would be arrested for influencing global genocide, sorry but that is just reality.

Sorry for any offence, but to call for the murder of my Christian brothers and sisters is certainly offencive. You want them butchered (fathers, mothers, sons and daughters) I have only criticised and rebuked you harshly for moralizing such acts of evil.

Imagine if I moralized and defended the killing of all converts to Islam in the West, nice isn't it.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Matthew wrote:

Matthew said...
"Isn't it amusing that people like Shabir Ally have to rely on the most radical atheist scholars when it comes to the New Testament, but they reject the most reliable early islamic sources when it comes to the Quran?"

I have to correct this, he rejects early islamic sources about the hadith (and therefore Muhammed). But I am pretty sure that he would also reject early sources on the Quran.

Elijah replies:

In fact in Shabir Ally's debate against Shorrosh in Glasgow 2004, he conceded that the Qur'an is only an attempt to write down the wisdom of Allah.

I cannot remember every detail of the debate but he certaily indicated the possibility that the Qur'an has not been fully preserved. He conceded that there are Arabic variants between the majority version of the Qur'an and other Arabic versions used in North Africa.

In other words, push the Muslim missionaries far enough and they will soon start applying their critic and rejection of the hadiths on the Qur'an.

Abdul Aziz Rahmi said...

to Ibn and Hogan

apostates that denounce Islam openly commit treason. that is the reason why they should be killed, because they rebel against Islam. ofcourse this should be under Islamic law. Apostates who denounce Islam in secret are not to be harmed, because they don't rebel against Islam. This is the ruling considering apostasy.

if there are people who denounce Islam secretly under Islamic law thay are not to be harmed and the apostates who want to demonize Islam still can go to countries without Islamic law and there they are not to be killed.

Fernando said...

Abdul Aziz Rahmi said...

apostates that denounce Islam openly commit treason. that is the reason why they should be killed, because they rebel against Islam. ofcourse this should be under Islamic law (...)nand the apostates who want to demonize Islam still can go to countries without Islamic law and there they are not to be killed

there's the concrette examplle of whate my friend Ibn calles the plethora of verses supporting freedom of religion

but coulde that plethora have been abrogated my latter surahs?

hummm... I know what will be saide: it all depends on wordes like "primarily", "obscure traditions","situations", etc...

thanks my friend Ibn...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Abdul Aziz wrote:

apostates that denounce Islam openly commit treason. that is the reason why they should be killed, because they rebel against Islam. ofcourse this should be under Islamic law. Apostates who denounce Islam in secret are not to be harmed, because they don't rebel against Islam. This is the ruling considering apostasy.

if there are people who denounce Islam secretly under Islamic law thay are not to be harmed and the apostates who want to demonize Islam still can go to countries without Islamic law and there they are not to be killed.

Elijah replies:

Firstly can you provide evidences from reliable Islamic sources (if they exist)that clearly state that execution due to apostacy only includes those who openly leave Islam.

Let me also say that I find this defence of your statement a bit inconsistent. Obviously if a Muslim in a Muslim country converst to Christianity he cannot be killed according to Islamic law since his conversion is secret. Whereas if his conversion was revealed he would still be killed, hence Islam still calls for the killing of every apostate, those who openly convert and the secret believers as soon as their conversion is no longer secret.

Can you please define secret apostasy. These apostates whom do they secretly announce their decision to?

Simply this defence of you is absurd, mildly speaking.

Bottom line is you are openly declaring on the internet that you want to kill hundreds of thousands of those who are my brothers and sisters in faith.

Here you are encouraging genocide and you defend it by saying that we only kill those apostates whom we know off. Now think about it, what does that make you?

Also you state that killing all these Christians is ok because they rebel having converted to Christianity.

Now think about all the UK muslims who travelled to Afghanistan to support Taliban in their fight against the Americans and the British. Many of these muslims are British citizens, now based on your sympathy to kill rebels, those who betray, would you show sympathy if all these Muslims were dragged to the streets in uk or USA and hanged by cranes?

Watch what you are saying!

Unknown said...

Abdul Aziz Rahmi:apostates that denounce Islam openly commit treason

Treason and apostasy are two different issues. A person can leave Islam without necessarily becoming disloyal to the Islamic state. Harming such people is in clear violation of the Quran which says in 60:8

God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just.

Fernando said...

My friend Ibn... youre quotation of sura 60:8 is tottaly out of contexte when dealling with the subject of appostasy... as you well knowe...

but then you agree thate treason to islam (and what's thate?... if we may know...) is worth capital punishment? Or only visible treason?

Can we then translate the muslim morality with these words: "do whateevere you want as long it is away from other peoples eyes" ? Maybee it has some connection with "taqqiya"... but on a reverse side...

perhaps, my friend Ibn, you can ellusidate all of us... even though it's getting far away frome the point of this professor's Wood post...

thanks!!!

Unknown said...

so what about the statue of Apostasy in the bible especially in the Old Testament
namely Deuteronomy 13:1-6 , Exodus 32:28 , and Deuteronomy 17: 2-7??
so why are you guys attacking Islam for killing the Apostasy if you have the same belief in Christianity????

Fernando said...

jojo123 said... «so what about the statue of Apostasy in the bible especially in the Old Testament, namely Deuteronomy 13:1-6 , Exodus 32:28 , and Deuteronomy 17: 2-7?? so why are you guys attacking Islam for killing the Apostasy if you have the same belief in Christianity????

My der friende... you're so distante frome the light of true thate you don't even have a shadow...

I also notice in youre wordes somme agressivity... that's a shame... trulie... but maybe that's how one feels when confronted withe the darks paths of its one religion...

I believe that more importtante than giving a fish is teaching how to use a fishinf tool... so, please, my friend jojo123, could you learn the

a) christiane doctrinne of revelation;
b) the diference between discriptive passages and normative ones...
c) the difference between the old and the new convennent;

maybe then one could respondd to youre words withoute --and please, my friend jojo123, accept this humourous words of mine-- beggining to giggle...

may the true God guide you to the light... are my best wishes to yous, my friend jojo123, speciallie in this Christmas time!!!

Anonymous said...



In fact in Shabir Ally's debate against Shorrosh in Glasgow 2004, he conceded that the Qur'an is only an attempt to write down the wisdom of Allah.

I cannot remember every detail of the debate but he certaily indicated the possibility that the Qur'an has not been fully preserved. He conceded that there are Arabic variants between the majority version of the Qur'an and other Arabic versions used in North Africa.

In other words, push the Muslim missionaries far enough and they will soon start applying their critic and rejection of the hadiths on the Qur'an.


Ouch.

El-Cid said...

jojo,

Have you actually bothered to READ Exodus and Deuteronomy? If yes, then I think you should find someone qualified in the field of exegesis to clear things up for you.

Even under the MOST literal interpretation of those verses, they apply ONLY to the nation of Israel, only within the land of Israel, only when a Sanhedrin of 70 elders is present to make rulings, and even then ONLY when Israel is operating as a THEOCRACY (and that's if you take the most literal reading possible).

There is not a single person on this earth that lives under the above conditions. I think you are safe.

Furthermore, can you present us with one single reputable Christian theologian that advocates killing apostates? I've never even met a single Christian that would suggest such a thing.

No, when you read Exodus and Deuteronomy in light of ALL of Scripture (including the New Testament) it is very clear that Christians are to have no part in establishing some sort of "Christian Country" that kills apostates. In fact, the message is the opposite: 1)Don't bother mixing Church and State; 2)Legal rulings based on the Bible will not occur until until the Messianic Kingdom arrives on earth with the return of Jesus (At which time HE judges people Himself. Keeping in mind that Christians believe Jesus is God, there is no moral issue with letting God judge what He Himself created).

Now Islam on the other hand? There is no limit or borders established for where the Shariah should be established. On the contrary, faithful Muslims are admonished to bring the whole world into Dar al-Islam, under the rule of Shariah. Hence those Muslims that believe the death to apostates ruling (which is an orthodox position REGARDLESS if all Muslims accept it), are prepared to apply it to all the earth via a commanded world-wide spread of Shariah.

"..why are you guys attacking Islam for killing the Apostasy if you have the same belief in Christianity????"

No one is "attacking Islam" here, jojo. In fact, it was Abdul (whom I'm assuming is Muslim) that first mentioned the issue of apostasy in this thread. It's funny how even daring to mention the Hadiths that the death-to-apostates ruling is based on, is automatically an "attack". We are mearly discussing an issue of morality and faith....and no we do NOT have the "same belief" in Christianity. I'm glad I could clear up your misunderstanding.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Perhaps Jojo could show us where in the New testament Christians are to kill apostates?

True we recognise the Torah as coming from God, yet we also recognise that the Torah is not the foundational doctrine of a Christian, today we follow the standard of what Jesus referred to as the Kingdom of God, namely the teaching you find in the New Testament.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Within this thread itself we see Abdul Aziz saying that apostates can be killed, and Ibn disagreeing and saying that this is a distortion of the Shariah.

Ibn says we should read the plethora of verses in the Quran which support religious freedom and then interpret the traditions in light of these verses. Abdul Aziz disagrees.

The point of this thread, though, was regarding the sources which clarify these matters. Bukhari, Muslim, and in fact all of sahih sittah document the punishment for apostasy: death. One wonders what Ibn would say to these sources - just throw them out?

So I ask you, Ibn: What do you say about all the books of sahih sittah which support death to apostates? Are these traditions corrupted?

Unknown said...

Fernando:My friend Ibn... youre quotation of sura 60:8 is tottaly out of contexte when dealling with the subject of appostasy... as you well knowe...

You haven't read the Quran, have you? Please explain how I took 60:8 out of context.

Fernando:but then you agree thate treason to islam (and what's thate?... if we may know...) is worth capital punishment? Or only visible treason?

No,I said active hostility towards the state is tantamount to treason, not mere apostasy.

Fernando:Can we then translate the muslim morality with these words: "do whateevere you want as long it is away from other peoples eyes" ? Maybee it has some connection with "taqqiya"... but on a reverse side...

Your knowledge of Islamic concepts is worse than your English. Let me quote the eminent middle east historian Gordon D. Newby on the meaning of Taqiyya, "The practice, found chiefly among the Shii and the Druze, of using dissimulation to preserve oneself in a time of danger or persecution. According to this doctrine, the preservation of life overrides a duty to bear witness to one's faith and be a martyr." (The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, p.202)

Unknown said...

Nabeel:What do you say about all the books of sahih sittah which support death to apostates? Are these traditions corrupted?

No, they should be understood in the light of history. As Reza Aslan writes, "Like territorial expansion and proselytization , apostasy and treason were nearly identical terms in 7th century Arabia. However, the relationship between the two has endured in Islam, so that even today there are some Muslims who continue to make the unsubstantiated and unQuranic assertion that the two sins-treason and apostasy-deserve the same punishment:death." (No God but God, p. 119)

As usual (yes, I have been aware of this site for a long time)Wood is blowing things out of proportion. Just because it so happens that the traditions he relies on to attack Islam are inauthentic doesn't mean Muslims deny their own sources.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn wrote:

No, they should be understood in the light of history. As Reza Aslan writes, "Like territorial expansion and proselytization , apostasy and treason were nearly identical terms in 7th century Arabia. However, the relationship between the two has endured in Islam, so that even today there are some Muslims who continue to make the unsubstantiated and unQuranic assertion that the two sins-treason and apostasy-deserve the same punishment:death." (No God but God, p. 119)

Elijah replies:

Let me just elaborate a little on your approach here Ibn.

Muslims continually enforce Old Testament events of war and killing on Christianity, clearly misunderstanding that Christians are not called to follow Torah but the fulfilment of the Torah which is the Kingdom of God.

Furthermore, when we look at the events in the Old Testament they are situational, they certainly do not apply for Israelites of all time, even less for Christians.

Now when we point out verses from the Qur'an that indicate the killing of apostates or genocide or offensive Jihad against non-Muslims it is suddenly not a problem since these need to be seen in the historical light of its situation.

Now if that is the case why do Muslims continually complain about the Old Testament?

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Hogan:Christians are not called to follow Torah

Even though Christ said in Matthew 23:2-3 that you should do as the teachers of the Law command you to do?

Hogan:Furthermore, when we look at the events in the Old Testament they are situational, they certainly do not apply for Israelites of all time, even less for Christians.

Even though it is said in Pslams 119:160 that all righteous laws are eternal? If all laws are eternal, they are to be applied at all times, no? Of course, you could escape this predicament by admitting that the laws of the Old Testament are not righteous.

Hogan:Now when we point out verses from the Qur'an that indicate the killing of apostates or genocide or offensive Jihad against non-Muslims it is suddenly not a problem since these need to be seen in the historical light of its situation.Now if that is the case why do Muslims continually complain about the Old Testament?


I understand where you are coming from, but from what I have seen, a few Muslims appeal to the brutality of the Old Testament only to show how duplicitous some Jews and Christians are when they argue the Quran is a book of violence and therefore cannot be from God even though their own Scripture, the Old Testament, is regarded as Divine despite the violence contained therein. As James White would say, "inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument."

Fernando said...

My friend Ibn... sorrie for my poor english... I didn't ment to bother you... and thnaks to your very polite notice to that...

Yes... I read the Qur'an because I am a former muslim... In sura 60:8, like some muslims schollar say (such as Mohammad Bahr al-Ulloum; Ali Fallahian and Mohammad Bahr al-Ulloum) its words were/are cronological limited and are to be appliede only to those from the Quraysh who have note fought muslims... nothing to do to our days appostates...

and what is "active hostility towards the state? Are my words sucha a thing? I think, my friende Ibn, one can put almost everything in that concept...

I now, very cleare, what is "taqqiya"... and I can also quote the famous Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei's "Asfār al-'arba'eh" who sai, and I quote, translatting from its frensh translation (p.365): «it's the duty to all muslim the practice os dissimulation one's inttention when and wherever that can bring an bennefit to the Ummah»...

So I think it's a possible inverse comparieson (as I said with the word "reverse side") between this islamic notion of "taqqiya" (in its "dissimulation" aspect) to the moral principle that onlie actions non dissimulated are in the shadow of deserve detah punishement...

Thanks, my friend Ibn, to this opportunity to clarify my wordes...

Fernando said...

My friend Ibn said

just because it so happens that the traditions (Wood) relies on to attack Islam are inauthentic doesn't mean Muslims deny their own sources

one can invert the sillogism and say:

just because it so happens that the traditions (Ibn) relies on to defende islam are inhathentic does'nt mean Muslims don't deny their own sources

Its amayzing to see latter sources, that were wroten in a specifical political context, being used to refute older sources who were free to reflect the true islam...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hogan:Christians are not called to follow Torah

Even though Christ said in Matthew 23:2-3 that you should do as the teachers of the Law command you to do?

Elijah replies:

You are failing to consider the context here and the situation. This is prior to the existence of the church and future guidance of the Spirit. At this time the Law of Moses and the prophets are still applicable. Notice also that Jesus is referring to the crowds as well as his disciples (23: 1). To the crowd especially the law still applies.

Notice then that when the disciples are commissioned by Jesus Christ in Matthew 28 to a more global mission, they are to present the teaching of Christ not the Torah.

Hogan:Furthermore, when we look at the events in the Old Testament they are situational, they certainly do not apply for Israelites of all time, even less for Christians.

Even though it is said in Pslams 119:160 that all righteous laws are eternal? If all laws are eternal, they are to be applied at all times, no? Of course, you could escape this predicament by admitting that the laws of the Old Testament are not righteous.

Elijah replies:

How do you define 'eternal' in that context? I ask this because I am not sure whether you approach the text here with any hermeneutical logic. For example who speaks here, what is the situation, how does he apply and understand the word 'eternal', how does he want us to understand it in this particular context?

Furthermore, when you say righteous laws versus unrighteous laws you need to define this. Of course certain Mosaic laws were situational, such as the letter of divorce (Matthew 19: 1-12); notice also that Jesus in the sermon on the mountain adds much stricter aspects to the moral law of the Torah.


Hogan:Now when we point out verses from the Qur'an that indicate the killing of apostates or genocide or offensive Jihad against non-Muslims it is suddenly not a problem since these need to be seen in the historical light of its situation.Now if that is the case why do Muslims continually complain about the Old Testament?


I understand where you are coming from, but from what I have seen, a few Muslims appeal to the brutality of the Old Testament only to show how duplicitous some Jews and Christians are when they argue the Quran is a book of violence and therefore cannot be from God even though their own Scripture, the Old Testament, is regarded as Divine despite the violence contained therein. As James White would say, "inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument."

Elijah replies:

I think you are undermine the purpose of these muslim missionaries. The majority of these conclude that the Old Testament laws of war and the events applies to Christians. That is a serious error, since Jesus reference to the law relates to the moral law particularly. Furthermore, the Gospels describe the law and the prophets are as ruling factors until John the Baptist who paved the way for Jesus Christ (the Lord), after that the Kingdom of God applies.

You seem to reason that much like Muslims need to consider passages of violence in Qur'an as situational so we need to consider passages of violence in the Bible as situational, hence we can equate these.

However as I have already pointed out, the passages of violence in the Old Testament are situational; they do not apply to Christianity or our situation. The challenge here is for you to apply the same criticism to the New Testament writings.

However, the gospels and the epistles which we as Christian explicitly follow do not include even situational passages of violence, while the Qur'an you follow contains such passages.

In addition we need to deduce from the Qur'an and the Islamic sources whether these passages are situational; they do not all seem so, which is why we find Muslims turning to denial of their own sources.

Fernando said...

My friend Ibn wrote, with a clear humourous side in his words Even though Christ said in Matthew 23:2-3 that you should do as the teachers of the Law command you to do? No doubt he said that, but who were the "teachers of the Law"? And what were theirs teachings that Jesus was validating? Jesus presented himself and the "new Torah" ("you erd, now I say..."), the real hermeneutical-key of the "old one" that was completely expressed in his words and actions... And with the words you quoted he was only saying that one's words should ve coherent to one's works... no one shoul teach what he doesn't live...

My frien Ibn continued: Even though it is said in Pslams 119:160 that all righteous laws are eternal? If all laws are eternal, they are to be applied at all times, no? Of course, you could escape this predicament by admitting that the laws of the Old Testament are not righteou

No my frien Ibn... Moses's laws were true, all of them, but in a pedagogical sense as Jesus and Paul clarified... the true laws that a goof father teaches to a young child are different in interpretation to the same laws explained to a grown son... Hebrews sai so: «Gog has spoken many times according to the capacity of understandiong his words»; God laws are eternel, but after Jesus they must be read through the lenses os his life as he his the hermeneut of God the father (Jo 1,18)

Ibn continued... Christians argue the Quran is a book of violence and therefore cannot be from God even though their own Scripture, the Old Testament, is regarded as Divine despite the violence contained therein

Yes, my friend Ibn, the OT has violence... but all of them are the cronological situetad consequence of a God admiting the gradual/pedagogical process of educating humans to get free from their predatorial inclinations until they were completelly capable to unsderstad that God is Love and the true human path is living in Love... to bad that 600 years after Jesus God (if it was God... the satanic verses make me somethime doubt...) had to turn back to be hable to be understood by the people os Arabia who were still adoring pagan gods... God's revelation path from grey to white isn't allways cronological...

Unknown said...

Fernando:Yes... I read the Qur'an because I am a former muslim... In sura 60:8, like some muslims schollar say (such as Mohammad Bahr al-Ulloum; Ali Fallahian and Mohammad Bahr al-Ulloum) its words were/are cronological limited and are to be appliede only to those from the Quraysh who have note fought muslims... nothing to do to our days appostates...

I'm curious. Could you actually direct me to their commentaries? I have a feeling that even though they may have said 60:8 is tied to a particular situation, they did not actually mention apostasy. Regardless, theirs is but an opinion. As Reza Aslan says, all interpretations are valid, but some interpretations are more valid than others. Even if the people you cited had actually mentioned apostasy, that still doesn't take away from my argument(s). There is not a single Quranic verse that allows for the wanton killing of deserters.

Fernando:and what is "active hostility towards the state? Are my words sucha a thing? I think, my friende Ibn, one can put almost everything in that concept...

Looking at history, I would say active hostility would include incitements towards armed revolt against the state as well as an actual carrying out of such campaigns.

Fernando:I now, very cleare, what is "taqqiya"... and I can also quote the famous Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei's "Asfār al-'arba'eh" who sai, and I quote, translatting from its frensh translation (p.365): «it's the duty to all muslim the practice os dissimulation one's inttention when and wherever that can bring an bennefit to the Ummah»...

As expected, you didn't pay attention to Gordon Newby's words. He specifically said "Taqiyyah" is a practice prevalent among the Shii and the Druze. The scholar you quoted, Tabatabaei, was a Shii commentator.

Fernando:one can invert the sillogism and say:

just because it so happens that the traditions (Ibn) relies on to defende islam are inhathentic does'nt mean Muslims don't deny their own sources

Two points-that's not a syllogism! and, that didn't even make sense!

Fernando:Yes, my friend Ibn, the OT has violence... but all of them are the cronological situetad consequence of a God admiting the gradual/pedagogical process of educating humans to get free from their predatorial inclinations until they were completelly capable to unsderstad that God is Love and the true human path is living in Love...

That's irrelevant since the argument is if a book is from God, it cannot have violence, regardless of whether there are moral reasons for the violence.

Unknown said...

Hogan:You are failing to consider the context here and the situation. This is prior to the existence of the church and future guidance of the Spirit. At this time the Law of Moses and the prophets are still applicable. Notice also that Jesus is referring to the crowds as well as his disciples (23: 1). To the crowd especially the law still applies.

If that was the case, why did Jesus prevent the stoning of an adulteress in violation of the Mosaic Law?

Hogan:How do you define 'eternal' in that context? I ask this because I am not sure whether you approach the text here with any hermeneutical logic. For example who speaks here, what is the situation, how does he apply and understand the word 'eternal', how does he want us to understand it in this particular context

You tell me! The Jews I have spoken to say the laws in the Torah are for all times, implying (1)that they cannot be subject to abrogation, and (2) they are to be enforced always (but not everywhere since the existence of a state is necessary).

A law is valid so long as it is applied. Since you Christians believe Jesus overturned the Mosaic Laws, or "fulfilled" them, there is no longer any need for these prescriptions and therefore they are logically invalid. If, however, they are invalid, then they cannot be eternal, right?

Hogan:Furthermore, when you say righteous laws versus unrighteous laws you need to define this. Of course certain Mosaic laws were situational, such as the letter of divorce (Matthew 19: 1-12); notice also that Jesus in the sermon on the mountain adds much stricter aspects to the moral law of the Torah

If you say Jesus only abrogated the unrighteous laws, you will have to explain how such laws can emanate from an All Good God in the first place.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn wrote:

If that was the case, why did Jesus prevent the stoning of an adulteress in violation of the Mosaic Law?

Elijah replies:

Yeah I should have included this. You are missing the point here. Read the passage of John 8 again before you make such claims, did Jesus really prevent them from casting the stones?

Hogan:How do you define 'eternal' in that context? I ask this because I am not sure whether you approach the text here with any hermeneutical logic. For example who speaks here, what is the situation, how does he apply and understand the word 'eternal', how does he want us to understand it in this particular context

You tell me! The Jews I have spoken to say the laws in the Torah are for all times, implying (1)that they cannot be subject to abrogation, and (2) they are to be enforced always (but not everywhere since the existence of a state is necessary).

A law is valid so long as it is applied. Since you Christians believe Jesus overturned the Mosaic Laws, or "fulfilled" them, there is no longer any need for these prescriptions and therefore they are logically invalid. If, however, they are invalid, then they cannot be eternal, right?

I don't think you seem to jump into the text without any concern about context, situation, language, basically without any hermeneutical logic. The Hebrew word 'olam' is often translated forever or everlasting, but the word does in fact only refer to a very very long time. Unless the context reveals that the particular thing or person is eternal there is purpose ascribe eternity to it. For example we know that God is eternal. But in what sense is God's law eternal, are we in need of laws in the afterlife?


Ibn wrote:
If you say Jesus only abrogated the unrighteous laws, you will have to explain how such laws can emanate from an All Good God in the first place.

Elijah replies:

Where did you get the idea that I am referring to unrighteous laws? I was referring to situational laws. Well, the Qur'an permits Muslims in its earliest stages to drink alcohol, later the law is abrogated and drinking alchol is forbidden, how could such a law emenate from Allah in the first place?

Fernando said...

My friend Ibn said...

«just because it so happens that the traditions (Ibn) relies on to defende islam are inhathentic does'nt mean Muslims don't deny their own sources

Two points-that's not a syllogism! and, that didn't even make sense!»


a) I'll show the three points of the sillogism:

1) Ibn relies on islamic traditions;
2) the traditions Ibs uses are unauthentic;
3) ergo muslims like Ibn denies (calling them unauthentic) their own sources

b) that makes a lote of sense... to me...

Thanks to your clarification of the meaning of "active hostility"... even thought, also according to history, your interpretation hasn't been always the most common...


My fiend Ibn latter said Could you actually direct me to their commentaries? I have a feeling that even though they may have said 60:8 is tied to a particular situation, they did not actually mention apostasy.

Yes I can... al-Ulum's "Al-Mutazim fi Tarikh al-Umam" II,2,345; and Ali Fallahian's "Jaami’ul Masaneed" page 365... I'm quotting from a book: "Totoong Katha Moro" (something like "the true story of the muslim people"), pages 78 and 91...

and the fact they say that that sura 60:8 doesn't reffer to appostasy its, precissely, whui I said, in the first place, your refference to it when speaking of gratuitous killing of apostates was out of context...

Then my friend Ibn said Gordon Newby specifically said "Taqiyyah" is a practice prevalent among the Shii and the Druze. The scholar you quoted, Tabatabaei, was a Shii commentator I payed attention to your words... specially "prevalent"... not "exclusive"... and if Tabatabaei was a Shii he still is a muslim... but I may be wrong... Sunni may consider him heretical...

Unknown said...

Hogan:Yeah I should have included this. You are missing the point here. Read the passage of John 8 again before you make such claims, did Jesus really prevent them from casting the stones?

No, he didn't. However, is there any mention in the Torah (both the written an oral) that only sinless people can carry out stoning? What if these those who produced the adulteress before Jesus went to the Teachers of the Law instead of him? What would have they stated? Even though a late forgery, I find the passage quite fascinating.

Hogan:I don't think you seem to jump into the text without any concern about context, situation, language, basically without any hermeneutical logic. The Hebrew word 'olam' is often translated forever or everlasting, but the word does in fact only refer to a very very long time. Unless the context reveals that the particular thing or person is eternal there is purpose ascribe eternity to it. For example we know that God is eternal. But in what sense is God's law eternal, are we in need of laws in the afterlife?

Since there is no concept of an afterlife in the Torah, your question is irrelevant.

Do you agree that a law is valid as long as it is applicable?

Hogan:Where did you get the idea that I am referring to unrighteous laws? I was referring to situational laws. Well, the Qur'an permits Muslims in its earliest stages to drink alcohol, later the law is abrogated and drinking alchol is forbidden, how could such a law emenate from Allah in the first place?

About abrogation in the Quran, I'm sure you are aware of traditional Islamic scholars who don't believe there are verses suppressing each other. Although not a scholar myself, I am inclined to this view. Since the Quran is a book of signs, it is only natural that arguments are not made directly. As such, you will sometimes find the premises of a contention, but not the conclusion which is left up to the readers to make; conversely, the conclusion may be directly stated, leaving us to work out the premises. Such is the case with the injunctions revolving around alcohol, in my opinion.

Fernando said...

My friend Ibn latter said: That's irrelevant since the argument is if a book is from God, it cannot have violence, regardless of whether there are moral reasons for the violence ...

I guess you're missing the point, my friend Ibn...

the notions of revelation in the Bible and in the Qur'an are quite different... and that's the clue to make the evaluation of the veracity of one and another book...

violence in the Qur'an is one of the the proofs it can't be from the true God because the Qur'an is said, by muslims, to be the eternal word of Allah... so is, from all eternity, Allah inclined to violence? Even "before" creation? Whith whom? Himself? What is more similar to the eternal life of God? Violence of peace? Good or evil?

Violence in the Bible -- which reflect the eternel will of God but not in an acceptic way, but through the humans channels that recieved and understood it in different periods of time untill the most perfect and transparent hermeneutic of all, Jesus -- is the consequence of the more, or less, cappacity of humans to understand, without being inflenced by their own predatorial inclination, that same eternal will...

My father allways said to me: "be a good muslim"... first i thought that to be a goof "muslim" I needed to follow the Qur'an... then I reallized that to be a good "muslim" I had to reject the Qur'an and give my entire heart to Jesus, my God and Saviour, because the Qur'an was musch more distant from the nature of God in itself... I can't believe that God has an intrinsic violent nature... Does He hattes himself? Is he in violence with himself?... Only if so his eternel word can be the Qur'an...

But these are just one small part of a bigger answer that I can't gibe right now... maybe after Christmas... if my friend Ibn can give me his email... thanks and Merrie Christmas my friend Ibn... to you and to your familie!!!

Fernando said...

Just a final point... my friend Ibn... in your unswer (???) to Hogan you said: Since there is no concept of an afterlife in the Torah, your question is irrelevant. Who limited the OT to the Torah? It looks like you did... In the Psalms, not to mention latter texts, there're clear afirmations of it...

and are you sure there isn't it in the Torah? It might be different from the latter view of it, but all allong it the authors were shoutting aout loud: 'Lord...this life can't be the end..."

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn wrote:

No, he didn't. However, is there any mention in the Torah (both the written an oral) that only sinless people can carry out stoning? What if these those who produced the adulteress before Jesus went to the Teachers of the Law instead of him? What would have they stated?

Elijah replies:

See now you are changing your position, previously you claimed that Jesus prevented the teachers of the Law to stone the women. Now more correctly you concede that he is making a point. The teachers of the Law get point and run.

Then you refer to the teachers who existed prior to Jesus. You are just making my point here. These teachers where subject to the Law, Jesus was not, he adds to it and changes it in the sermon of the mountain. Jesus is introducting the standard of the Kingdom, that was introduced by John the Baptist and began with Jesus Christ. Every Jew was and is still to follow these teachers, yet Jesus is here introducting a power and law much greater than the Mosaic Law.

Ibn wrote:

Since there is no concept of an afterlife in the Torah, your question is irrelevant.

Elijah replies:

You where referring to the Psalms not the Torah.

Furthermore, even though may reference to the afterlife would be irrelevant the word 'olam' still does not need to describe eternity but merely a very long time.

Ibn wrote:

Do you agree that a law is valid as long as it is applicable?

Elijah replies:

I think I have already answered that.

Ibn wrote:

About abrogation in the Quran, I'm sure you are aware of traditional Islamic scholars who don't believe there are verses suppressing each other. Although not a scholar myself, I am inclined to this view. Since the Quran is a book of signs, it is only natural that arguments are not made directly. As such, you will sometimes find the premises of a contention, but not the conclusion which is left up to the readers to make; conversely, the conclusion may be directly stated, leaving us to work out the premises. Such is the case with the injunctions revolving around alcohol, in my opinion.

Elijah replies:

The bottom line is that alcohol in Islam is evil, which is why Allah decided to bann it. Which is why it amazes me that the Qur'an actually permits it. My question was based on your critic (if I may call it that) on Matthew 19 and Jesus' abrogation or removal of the letter of divorce. Based on your over all conclusion I am amazed that such a passage exists in the Qur'an.

El-Cid said...

ibn said: "Since there is no concept of an afterlife in the Torah, your question is irrelevant."

Really? Perhaps someone forgot to mention that to the Pharisees, because they had a developed doctrine of resurrection and afterlife before Jesus' ministry.

Hogan said: "My question was based on your critic (if I may call it that) on Matthew 19 and Jesus' abrogation or removal of the letter of divorce."

I think Ibn needs to brush up on his history of Jewish theology. Rabbi Shammai's school of interpretation (from before Jesus' ministry) followed the EXACT ruling as what Jesus gave in Matthew 19. It was Hillel's school that interpreted the certificate of divorce to be acceptable beyond infidelity. No learned Jew ever, or would ever, accuse Shammai of contradicting Moses. There was no "abrogation" or "removal" of anything in that passage of Matthew 19.

Unknown said...

Fernando:I'll show the three points of the sillogism:
1) Ibn relies on islamic traditions;
2) the traditions Ibs uses are unauthentic;
3) ergo muslims like Ibn denies (calling them unauthentic) their own sources


That's a non sequitur. Ergo, it still doesn't make sense. Lol!

Fernando:Yes I can... al-Ulum's "Al-Mutazim fi Tarikh al-Umam" II,2,345; and Ali Fallahian's "Jaami’ul Masaneed" page 365... I'm quotting from a book: "Totoong Katha Moro" (something like "the true story of the muslim people"), pages 78 and 91...

That's now what I wanted. I asked you to show me their actual words.

Fernando:and the fact they say that that sura 60:8 doesn't reffer to appostasy its, precissely, whui I said, in the first place, your refference to it when speaking of gratuitous killing of apostates was out of context...

Out of context according to who? As I said, all interpretations are valid but some are more reasonable than others. You are yet to demonstrate that the Quran actually enjoins upon Muslims to kill those who merely leave Islam.

Fernando:Then my friend Ibn said Gordon Newby specifically said "Taqiyyah" is a practice prevalent among the Shii and the Druze. The scholar you quoted, Tabatabaei, was a Shii commentator I payed attention to your words... specially "prevalent"... not "exclusive"... and if Tabatabaei was a Shii he still is a muslim... but I may be wrong... Sunni may consider him heretical...

It is meaningless to present the words of Tabatabaei before since I am a Sunni Muslim. As such, I challenge you to show me traditions from the 6 canonical collections that permit lying for the sake of promoting the religion.

Fernando:violence in the Qur'an is one of the the proofs it can't be from the true God because the Qur'an is said, by muslims, to be the eternal word of Allah...
so is, from all eternity, Allah inclined to violence? Even "before" creation? Whith whom? Himself? What is more similar to the eternal life of God? Violence of peace? Good or evil?Violence in the Bible -- which reflect the eternel will of God but not in an acceptic way, but through the humans channels that recieved and understood it in different periods of time untill the most perfect and transparent hermeneutic of all, Jesus -- is the consequence of the more, or less, cappacity of humans to understand, without being inflenced by their own predatorial inclination, that same eternal will...


What does the Quran being God's eternal word have to do with Allah being eternally violent? You are attributing violence to Allah, which is a straw man since we are not discussing His nature but disputing whether a book that claims to be from God can contain violent injunctions. As it seems from your defense of the bible, it can, but under limited circumstances.

Fernando:Just a final point... my friend Ibn... in your unswer (???) to Hogan you said: Since there is no concept of an afterlife in the Torah, your question is irrelevant. Who limited the OT to the Torah? It looks like you did... In the Psalms, not to mention latter texts, there're clear afirmations of it...

I was interpreting the Pslams in the light of the Torah which DOES not endorse a Hereafter. El Cid brought up the point about Pharisees, but so what? The Saducees didn't believe in a Hereafter. You would think that if this concept was as clear cut as some of you make it out to be, all Jews would have believed in it.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MP said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MP said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MP said...

Ibn or Yahya Seymor?

Why do I say this? Loool... so easy to find it out!!!

And Ibn/Yahya... you're the one not understanding other people's arguments...

and Fernando is absolutely correct with is presentation of a TRUE syllogism because the conclusion of it is "Ibn follows false traditions", which is the same like saying "Ibn denies muslim sources" because they say they're all true... Looool

You are yet to demonstrate that the Quran actually enjoins upon Muslims to kill those who merely leave Islam

No he hasn't... It's you who, after quoting surrh 60:8 out of context and ignoring the absolutely orthodox doctrine of "abrogation", still has to prove that islam (which isn't only founded in the Qur'an... there's no such thing as "sola scriptura" in islam... Loooool) doesn't order the killing of apostates...

just one examples that doesn't make any mention to "active hostility towards of islam" (as you said...):

Bukhari 9:89:271 A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism Mu'adh said: "I will not sit down unless you kill him as it is the verdict of Allah and His Apostle"

Ibn said: traditions from the 6 canonical collections that permit lying for the sake of promoting the religion any tradition that allows lying to keep to oneself is religious convictions is a form of promoting the religion... looool

In relation to the connection God/His Words... (and I'm not answering in Fernando's place)... to me it's very clear that God's eternal word can only be an absolutely transparent expression of his true and eternal nature... To muslims, that eternal Word is the Qur'an... full of violence everywhere… to Christians it's Jesus...

And no, Fernando didn't said that violence can be attributed to God... he clearly said the opposite!!! What he said is that God was being progressively better understood in the Bible until God himself in Jesus Christ showed the true nature of God and the way to understand all the previous understandings that were written as God’s word… If I understood Fernando’s words (and I’m not saying I agree with him…) the words in the Bible are all from God, but all through human mediation… so, in some cases, where that mediation was still somehow far from God, God allowed men to understand his words in a way that, in special and absolutely circumstanced situations, looked like He was allowing violence… After Christ there can be no more violence, as he, revealing himself as the true God, showed that that’s not God’s path, and, as so, those cases were to be understood as a consequence of the not totally transparency to his will… In the Qur’an, since according to all orthodox understandings, there was no such thing as an human mediation (the Qur’an being, supposedly, the eternal word of God) according, to But, as I said, I don’t totally agree with Fernando…

And finnaly… la “crème de la crème” of Ibn/Yahya’s straw men attitude I was interpreting the Pslams in the light of the Torah But the psalms were not intended to be interpreted only from the Torah… they’re written to be proclaimed in the Temple in liturgical ceremonies witch granted them an autonomous authority… And saying that You would think that if this concept was as clear cut as some of you make it out to be, all Jews would have believed in it is saying that any muslim passage of the Qur’an that have more than one interpretation is false… hum… so the Qur’an is almost, in his totality, false… Loooooool… The passages of the OT must be, to a Christian, read according to Jesus’s teachings and he not only resurrected but also gave numerous teachings that show the reality of the afterlife…

But even in the Torah are the roots of that belief: see, for example, Gen. 25:8, 25:17, 35:29, 49:33; Deut. 42:50; 2 Ki. 22:20 and then contrast it with, for example, Gen. 17:14; Ex. 31:14… etc. etc…

Unknown said...

Fernando:Ibn or Yahya Seymor?Why do I say this?

Because you are confused. Yahya and I are not the same person.

Aforecca:and Fernando is absolutely correct with is presentation of a TRUE syllogism because the conclusion of it is "Ibn follows false traditions", which is the same like saying "Ibn denies muslim sources" because they say they're all true... Looool

Actually, "Ibn follows false traditions" is the major premise, not the conclusion.

If you are arguing that because I deny my own sources while following the traditions found therein and, therefore, I follow false traditions, the argument is still wrong since I don't deny my own sources. Either way, neither you nor Fernando has been successful in taking a jab at me.

Alforecca:No he hasn't... It's you who, after quoting surrh 60:8 out of context and ignoring the absolutely orthodox doctrine of "abrogation", still has to prove that islam (which isn't only founded in the Qur'an... there's no such thing as "sola scriptura" in islam... Loooool) doesn't order the killing of apostates...

I did prove, in the light of the Quran, that apostates cannot be harmed unless they display antagonism towards the state. My view is actually shared by a number of prominent Orthodox scholars such as Muhammad Al Hasan Turabi, Sufyan Al Thawri, etc.

Alforecca:just one examples that doesn't make any mention to "active hostility towards of islam" (as you said...):

Bukhari 9:89:271 A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism Mu'adh said: "I will not sit down unless you kill him as it is the verdict of Allah and His Apostle"

See the quotation of Reza Aslan I posted earlier.

Alforecca: any tradition that allows lying to keep to oneself is religious convictions is a form of promoting the religion... looool

What do you mean by lying to keep to oneself?

Alforecca:In relation to the connection God/His Words... (and I'm not answering in Fernando's place)... to me it's very clear that God's eternal word can only be an absolutely transparent expression of his true and eternal nature..

If that is the case, we have to conclude that God changed from a violent deity as expressed in the Old Testament to a benevolent one as expressed in the New Testament. This argument, however, fails since God cannot change. Then again, it also shows that God's nature doesn't really have much to do with some legal injunctions which some people consider violent.

Nakdimon said...

"I think Ibn needs to brush up on his history of Jewish theology. Rabbi Shammai's school of interpretation (from before Jesus' ministry) followed the EXACT ruling as what Jesus gave in Matthew 19. It was Hillel's school that interpreted the certificate of divorce to be acceptable beyond infidelity. No learned Jew ever, or would ever, accuse Shammai of contradicting Moses. There was no "abrogation" or "removal" of anything in that passage of Matthew 19."


That is completely true. Where Yeshua often sided Hillel's interpretations of Scripture, here He endorsed Shammai's interpretation of Scripture. Hillel tended to argue to the Spirit of the Torah, but that often led to too liberal interpretations. Whereas Shammai tended to go with the Letter of the Torah, which led to too strict interpretations. Yeshua usually found a middleground where these two tended to go extreme "left" or extreme "right".

Nakdimon

MP said...

Ibn said... we have to conclude that God changed from a violent deity as expressed in the Old Testament to a benevolent one as expressed in the New Testament

No Ibn... you're missing the all point... God didn't change at all...

The interpretation of his will in the OT was still "mingled" with a lot of the human predatorial side...

His will -- that is unchangeble -- was only completely manifested in his Son, Jesus, the Word, the true hermeneut of the Father that reveals the perfect interpretation of God's will, showing that the OT violence could not be accepted anymore...

ExposedIslam said...

Here's what I always tell "Quran-only Muslims" when he argues that only the Quran is of any significance. You can use this to completely block arguments they will ever have:

Step 1: Explain that Quran verse 106 of Sura 2 speaks about abrogation, which in Arabic means Naskh. This verse clearly states that when the Quran contains two verses that contradict each other, the earlier revealed verse is abrogated (overruled) by the one that came last.

Step 2: Explain that the above means that if you find a contradiction, you have to know which verse came first and which came last, to know which one applies today.

Step 3: Tell me what they should already know, which is that the Quran is not presented to us in chronologic order. Nor is there a time mark given with the verses of the Quran.

Step 4: Conclude that the Quran alone will never give you enough information.

If they argue that they havent found contradictions, you'll know that they havent read the Quran entirely, at least not academically.

If they don't believe you regarding abrogation, simply tell them to read Ibn Kathir's Tafsir on Naskh.

CC