About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 7:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Irfan,

I just carefully read everything you took the patient time to explain to me, and it checks out.  Surah 2:256 is from a surah listed by Ali in the preface as being a Medinan -- and not a Meccan -- surah.  There is quite a contradiction there, as you have said all along.  My relaying of Mark Gabriel's assertion that there is such a clear distinction was dead wrong.

You have been completely right about this point (the inaccuracy of nasikh); I have been completely wrong.  I am greatly humbled, as I should be.  My validity rating goes down quite a bit because of this, and this is not sarcasm in the slightest.

Irfan, you have my sincere apologies, and to you, the victor, should go the spoils. 

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/16, 7:38pm)




Post 21

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 7:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
deleted

(Edited by Irfan Khawaja on 10/19, 3:54pm)




Post 22

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 7:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Irfan,

So then, you have beautifully and completely convinced me that abrogation is rubbish.  How then is a reader of the Qur'an to resolve contradictory verses? 

And if abrogation doesn't really exist as anything remotely reliable, are you saying that bin Laden and his people don't really have as good a leg to stand on, as they seem to believe?




Post 23

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
deleted
(Edited by Irfan Khawaja on 10/19, 3:54pm)




Post 24

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 8:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Irfan,

So are you saying that bin Laden and his people are buying into the abrogation notion as a justification for their actions, when the whole notion of abrogation is rubbish?

Are you also saying that the Qur'an really gives a Muslim just as much confused leeway to be peaceful as to be violent, even though it talks of abrogation?  The Qur'ans self-contradictions -- together with an unworkable and therefore ineffective abrogation rule -- renders these decisions completely arbitrary?

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/16, 8:12pm)




Post 25

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
deleted

(Edited by Irfan Khawaja on 10/19, 3:55pm)




Post 26

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 12:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
deleted

(Edited by Irfan Khawaja on 10/19, 3:55pm)




Post 27

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 1:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Irfan,

Okay, I read your explanations, and all of that is fine, but I have severa other questions:

1) Since Surah 2:256 (the "no compulsion in religion"surah) is listed in the chart as having been "early AH", what if a Surah that is listed in the chart from "late AH" contradicts it, in terms of advocating butchery?

I mean, I understand that two different verses from let's say, Surah 2, can not be said to necessarily have been written at two different times, and are therefore not a support for abrogation.  But let's say that Allah is flakey, and maybe is ambivalent while "writing" Surah 2, and gives contradictions there.  If he then finally makes up "his" mind during the Late Medinan period and says in a later-written surah, "Okay, I've made up my mind... If it's not Muslim, terrorize the hell out of it".  Couldn't that be a clear signal?

2) And by the way, your argument that talks about replacement, and where you say that then earlier verses -- if they were actually replaced -- would not even appear in the Qur'an any more, is not so compelling to me.  Couldn't they have been left in, as a historical record?

3) And also, what are these Satanic Verses you're talking about?  Are you simply referring to the Rushdie book?  Or were these actual verses that were actually removed from the Qur'an?  Are they still around?  And if so, where can I find a translation of them?

4) Oh yeah, were they so horrible that that's why Khomeini issued the fatwa on Rushdie?  If Rushdie's book just borrows the phrase, "Satanic Verses" and doesn't reprint them, what's the big deal?




Post 28

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 2:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Old Testament is much more violent in its prescriptions than the Qur'an, and yet contemporary Judaism has a much milder terrorism problem than does contemporary Islam. So while Scripture explains part of the phenomenon, it's a mistake to focus exclusively on it.
The Old Testament differs from the Qur'an in the limitation of violence toward non-Jews to the conquest of the land of Cana'an. Once this goal is achieved, there is no call for violence against gentiles except in self-defense, just as there is no call to convert non-Jews by force or otherwise. The essence of Judaism was always non-missionary, and gentiles living among Jews were not supposed to observe Jewish laws even in OT times. 



Post 29

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 2:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
deleted
(Edited by Irfan Khawaja on 10/19, 3:55pm)




Post 30

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 3:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
deleted

(Edited by Irfan Khawaja on 10/19, 3:56pm)




Post 31

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Irfan,

Thanks for the response, and the abrogation joke. 

One more question.  You wrote this:
The "no compulsion" doctrine applies within the jurisdiction of a Muslim state, applies to all and only monotheists (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians), and applies only to one issue: whether those people will be forced to profess a belief in Islam or can keep practicing their old religion.

I don't see all of that in Surah 2: 256, and I don't understand where you'd get all that.  All I read is this:
There is no compulsion in religion -- the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error.  So whoever disbelieves in the devil and believes in Allah, he indeed lays hold on the firmest handle which shall never break.  And Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
That's all of Surah 2:256, I don't see anything about what you said.

Finally, I did a google search on the satanic verses, and it said that the main "evil" in them, was that supposedly Mohammad invoked the name of two or three other deities, that should be worshipped, and that that was evil, because it contradicts monotheism.

Incidentally, having one and only ONE way of always doing things, doesn't exactly fit in well with a free and open market, does it?

One other thing:  have you ever heard of an Iranian female doctor named Homa Darabi?  She publicly set herself on fire during the takeover by Khomeini's people, and her sister maintains an anti-Islam website in her honor, detailing all the atrocities of Islamic culture:  http://www.homa.org

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/17, 9:00pm)




Post 32

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
deleted
(Edited by Irfan Khawaja on 10/19, 3:56pm)




Post 33

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 10:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Irfan,

I just checked it out... great site.




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.