Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Sales jobs in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Wellness jobs in Dubai Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Philosophy and Religion Forums

For shafique - contradictions in the Koran


event horizon God in the Koran is clear indeed. God clearly says that war is to be waged against unbelievers until they are defeated by Muslim military forces, live under an Islamic state and feel themselves subdued.
It should speak volumes that you have not addressed the clear contradictions in the Koran, instead choosing to dismiss them because they do not contain the word 'all', etc.
But since you insist that 9:29 is not a general command, for which groups of Christians and Jews was the passage revealed for? Were the Jews and Christians who were not Muslims in the Arabian peninsula any different from Jews and Christians in other areas of the world, including today?
I think this boils down to denial - and the fact that this hurts dawa efforts. One must choose who to believe, Muslim theologians and jurists for 14 centuries or you. I know whose interpretation of the Koran I side with.

Yes, these are the contradictory passages in the Koran which say for Muslims to attack unbelievers because they are unbelievers vs. a passage which says to attack unbelievers after Muslims have been attacked and to stop after Islamic law has been established - please try and keep up.
Your winky-dink school of arguments are truly breathtaking. Interestingly enough, I used the same arguments (that the New Testament should be interpreted wholly) yet you did not find that to be a very convincing apologetic. Please come back with some better explanations because the majority of people who read the Koran, Muslims included, do not find them to be very logical.
event horizon Shafique claimed the Koran is internally consistent and contains no contradictions.
Although shafique has not presented his argument, instead saying that one must look at the contradictory passages (apparently to highlight the contradictions), he remains persistent in his belief that there are no contradictions in the Koran.
I'll go ahead and use the Koranic verses which most obviously contradict each other - should Muslims fight against unbelievers or only fight unbelievers after they are first attacked?
Koran 9:29:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Koran 9:123:
O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that God is with the godfearing.
Koran 3:151:
Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!
Koran 8:39:
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
Koran 9:111:
God has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon God in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than God? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.
Koran 48:29
Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers , merciful one to another. Thou seest them bowing, prostrating, seeking bounty from God and good pleasure. Their mark is on their faces, the trace of prostration. That is their likeness in the Torah, and their likeness in the Gospel: as a seed that puts forth its shoot, and strengthens it, and it grows stout and rises straight upon its stalk, pleasing the sowers, that through them He may enrage the unbelievers. God has promised those of them who believe and do deeds of righteousness forgiveness and a mighty wage.
vs.
Koran 2:193:
Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God's; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.
I expect either a copy-paste that does not address the contradictions or another analogy to the elephant. : ) shafique Cool - just because you don't have any answers for the contradictions in the Bible does not mean the same applies to Muslims.
I know it must have stung when I quoted Kung condracting your view of the Bible's historiographic pedigree:

But never mind - you want me to show you that the Quran is internally consistent, in contrast to the Bible which contains fabricated verses added over the centuries.
If you are interested, there is a long thread that addresses a list of alleged contradictions in the Quran (Flying Dutchman posed the question and listed the contradictions -I addressed each in turn).
As for the above - let's see what is confusing you...
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Yep.

Yep - and unlike 'eh' I will not use the argument - 'there are no contradictions because Muslim believe there are no contradictions' ;)

10/10 for persistency - but let's see what is confusing you:

Yep - pretty clear verses. Doesn't say anything about fighting all unbelievers all the time - perhaps the Quran clarifies this elsewhere perchance?

So, God says he will cast terror into the hearts of unbelievers - pretty tame stuff compared to some Biblical passages - but hardly a contradiction... unless God says somewhere else that He will never cast terror into the hearts of some people.

Ok - still waiting for the contradiction -can't see where God says fight 'all non-believers'.

God promising the beleivers who have to engage in Holy Wars His support - again, can't see a contradictory verse so far. (Is there another verse that says God will punish those who fight just wars?)

Ok - God is harsh against enemies of the believers. Perhaps ikka/eh is seeing an 'all' in the verse that I can't see?

Ok - so now we come to the contradictory part - I see...

So here God says when fighting needs to stop. No contradiction here with any of the previous verses...
Where's the beef, eh?
I can't see how 2.193 contradicts any of the previous verses - where do any of the verses say fighting needs to continue after persecution stops and religion is God's??
(I'm assuming you do know what a contradiction is - look it up if you are unsure)
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon I'll love to take more time to respond to shafique's quick 'work' to the violent passages in the Koran. To be honest, I thought it was pretty funny that verses which say unbelievers, i.e., everyone who isn't a Muslim does not mean all unbelievers. Perhaps shafique can clarify why Muslim scholars who have understood 9:29 as a perpetual command for the past 14 centuries are wrong and he is right. :lol: event horizon Looks like I have more time.

What don't you understand about two passages that say to fight against unbelievers because they are unbelievers?
Your argument is pretty perplexing. The simple fact that most Muslims have interpreted the passages as the straight forward commands that they are tells me you're now performing some pretty impressive mental gymnastics.

The passages says 'We' will cast terror into the hearts of unbelievers (because they are unbelievers). I assume this to mean God and Muhammad and co. Do you have any reason to believe that this passage does not say for Muslims to cast terror into the hearts of unbelievers?

Already explained. It seems that you're the one to decide that a verse must contain 'all' for it to be a general command. I hope you have found 'all' in the verse from the New Testament, otherwise I'll play the same game.

Yes, I agree with you. Non-Muslims (unbelievers) are the enemies of Islam. If there is a passage that says non-Muslims are not the enemies of Islam, then that would be a clear contradiction.

Yup, God says to stop fighting after Muslims have established Islam:

Of course, the context of this passage is referring to Muslims fighting against the Pagans of Mecca, therefore, this makes the passage a specific coommand to the Muslims at the time and not a general instruction for all times.
I'm sure you must have forgotten about this and the fact that the passage does not contain the word 'all' in it. shafique You really must look up the difference between 'complimentary' and 'contradictory' verses. God is pretty clear about the ethics of war - and just as you seem to be denial about contradictions in the NT, you are similarly seeing things in a 'special' way about the Quran too. If you have other supposed contradictions you'd like me to address, let me know. Cheers, Shafique shafique
You really must progress from your I-spy books on Islam written by Orientalists. ;)
The clue in my post was 'context dear boy, context'.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon
Sure, if you believe these speeches (hadith) to be on par with the eternal word of God.
Just curious, but do Winston Churchill's speeches about fighting the Germans say to fight the Germans *because* they are unbelievers?

Yes, and there are contradictory passages in the Koran which say to fight against unbelievers/unbelief *because* they are unbelievers. Please try and keep up. shafique My post asked you to refer to what was written before - sorry for being unclear. I presume you understand that we can't use Winston Churchill's speeches about defeating the Germans, or Nelson's (or even Henry V's) pep talks about the French enemies - to conclude that the Brits are instructed to fight German and French troops today? If you are struggling with the analogy - shout and I'll explain further. Context dear boy, context. The other Quranic verses that talk about what conditions war can start and need to stop are very clear and again have been pointed out to you ad nauseum, and the military opponents of the early Muslims are also known to you (we've discussed many a time these clashes/wars). Cheers, Shafique

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
event horizon Scanned your post but didn't see an answer, maybe I'll look again. But, in the meantime, perhaps you can answer my last question?

So, in your estimation, which unbelievers were Muslims told to fight against because they were unbelievers (as 9:29 says for Muslims to do)? Please give us references for your views (I've heard Muslims claim that Muhammad was engaged in Jihad against the Romans at the of the of this verse). Perhaps you could also explain why the passage says to wage war against Jews as well as against Christians (Romans) if the passage was sent down to rally Muslim jihadists against some Arab buffer states and a non-existent Roman contingent? shafique
Glad we agree.

Remember I asked you to look at the definition of 'contradictory' vs 'complimentary'.
I'm really sorry I can't help you with your imagined presence of words that aren't actually there.

The meaning of 9.29 and it's application have been discussed many times before - I refer you to all those posts on the subject.

Totally agree.

The mind boggles what the success of Islam would be if 'dawa' wasn't 'hurt' as you say!
I actually disagree - the Orientalist view of Islam actually helps dawa - the inteligentsia who convert (eg. see your own post about the 14000 converts in the UK highlighted those high up in society who converted despite the Orientalist, outdated propaganda - precisely because it spurs those who are genuinely interested in the truth to examine both sides of the argument and choose.)

Exactly. One must choose whether your selective quotes represent Islam or whether God's words in the Quran on the subject as we've explained is what we choose to believe.

Yes, and you don't see any contradictions in the Bible - but insist there are contradictions in the Quran - even when you post extracts from scholars like Kung who disagree with you.
Perhaps you don't see the problem here?

;) previous comments apply.

Hardly a feat of erudition to point out that you haven't actualy shown any contradictions! But perhaps next time I'll break it down even more for you if you are having trouble with the line of argument! ;)

Actually, you will find that I used that argument first - that Christians choose to not follow the verses which your experts say are forgeries. I didn't say there weren't contradictions - but that the contradictory verses are ignored.
You simply haven't provided any contradictory verse - only one contradictory interpretation of one verse, implying the presence of a word that isn't there. By contrast, Paul clearly says women should not speak in Church and Kung et al say this is a contradiction (contradicts an earlier verse) and is a forged verse.

Interesting ego-complex one seems to have - projecting your view of the Quran onto others!
As I asked before, are you an only child perchance?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Yes, I agree. One must go outside of the Koran for this 'context' on the Koran's passages, as shafique has shown by his inability to tell me just who the 'unbelievers' (general term) were and why fighting them because they are unbelievers should not be interpreted as a perpetual command. But unfortunately, we are arguing if the Koran contains contradictory passages. You seem to be arguing that the Koran does and that one must go outside the Koran to consult scholars/commentaries on how to properly understand (interpret) the passages in the Koran. I agree with you on this and I am glad that some Muslims do not read the Koran by itself to understand its clear passages. shafique You keep saying the Quran contains contradictory passages - just because you believe this to be the case does not make it so. The complimentary passages you posted here about war do not contradict each other. You are confusing the fact that the full context of 9.29 is to be found in historical accounts - but these historical accounts are only needed for more background information, not because the verses are contradictory. You imagine there is a contradiction because you want to make a generalisation where there isn't one in the text. You see a 'perpetual command' where there isn't actually one there. That said - the fact that you agree that there are clear Quranic verses that contradict YOUR interpretation of 9.29 makes my case for me regarding what Islam teaches about war. Think about it. By contrast, you have the ability to ignore a general verse in the Bible saying women should not speak in Church (because they should ask their husbands for explanations) - but that is another thread. As I said, I await any more instances you have of alleged contradictions. Thus far you have produced none. Cheers, Shafique event horizon
Woah. Are you saying that passages in the Koran which say to attack unbelievers because they are unbelievers are complimentary to passages which say to fight after being attacked?

Still haven't seen any evidence that 9:29 and other violent passages in the Koran don't contradict less violent passages in the Koran.

My interpretation is shared by mainstream Muslim scholars who correctly point out that 9:29 contradicts and, therefore, abrogates previous passages relating to unbelievers. I agree with their interpretation although I see you have not provided any convincing explanation as to why their interpretation is wrong and yours is correct.

Yes, I agree someone has an amazing ability to ignore general verses.

Correction, in your opinion there have been no verses produced. For everyone else who can read, the verses posted clearly contradict each other.
I see that I have come to the end of your post and you still have not explained why verses such as 2:193, which talk about fighting specific enemies in specific conflicts should be interpreted as general instructions whereas verses in the Koran which say to fight against unbelievers (all non-Muslims) because they are unbelievers should not be interpreted as a perpetual command.
I sure hope you're not one of those types who are all talk and no trousers. shafique ^I searched in vain for a new question/point that has not already been addressed. I couldn't find one that hasn't been addressed a few times already. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink! Cheers, Shafique event horizon Just to make it clear for shafique: Let me ask again - who were the unbelievers that the Koran says to fight against because they are non-Muslims? shafique
Let see if you read what people post - what explanations did rudeboy et al give you for this verse - what was confusing about their explanations? Do you think they didn't address who these people were?
Context, dear boy, context.
You agree with us that God is clear in the Quran about the conditions to start wars, end wars and how to conduct wars.
If you have other questions, let me know.
Now let me go and see whether you have answered the question about who the women Paul refers to are.... perhaps you will surprise me and give me an answer.
[Edit - I find that you haven't answered the question. Disapointed, but not surprised... so to avoid the same accusation of not answering your question, I'll answer it below]
.
.
.
.
Those addressed in 9.29 are the unbelievers who posed a military threat to the Muslims - but you knew this, and who these people are in all the history books.
Context, dear boy, context. Substitute 'unbelievers' with 'Germans' and you could have a war-time speech from an Allied supporter.
Taken in context of all the other verses of the Quran on warfare, there is no contradiction to any impartial reader - only those who think otherwise are those who think they know what Islam is about because their I-spy book on Islam tells them so.
Edit 2 - I'm in a particularly charitable mood today - so to expand on the above, here is an explanation from someone who spells the Quran in the way you do - and he explains, step by step, the context and exposes the selectiveness of your argument. (Note he also points out that the context of 9.29 is given in the verses of the rest of the verse - notably the earlier verses talking about the unbelievers/pagans that were fighting the Muslims..)

You asked, QED.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon The copy/paste provided deserves its own thread. In short, the author unremarkably quotes passages from the first 28 passages of the ninth surah dealing with the pagans of Mekka which are not related to the command in verse 29 to wage war against unbelievers - i.e., all non-Muslims including 'People of the book'. It also bears repeating that this strawman of taking 9:29 and other violent passages that have been quoted in this thread out of context has been dealt with elsewhere on another thread. I politely refer shafique to the other thread so he can read the passages and then read the surrounding passages in the Koran to find out that none of the violent passages I have posted have been taken out of context. If shafique is still confused, I am more than happy to explain the violent passages in the Koran to him (and the context) if he asks. The Koran says to wage war against unbelievers - all non Muslims, because they are non Muslims. The Koran repeats this command several times, including a passage which explicitly says for Muslims to strike terror into the hearts of unbelievers because they are nonbelievers. Shafique has so far only managed to cite contradictory passages in the Koran which say to fight if attacked, etc. Perhaps shafique is not aware that this was the entire point of this thread? I already know that the Koran contains contradictions. This thread already posted one verse that says not to attack until Muslims are attacked by the Pagans and this contradicts passages in the Koran which command Muslims to wage jihad warfare against unbelievers because they are unbelievers. Shafique is free to believe these are not contradictions. Perhaps he'll manage to convince someone.
shafique 'eh' asks for the context, and then complains the answer is too long. Did you forget the succinct answer I gave at the beginning: 'the ones who were a military threat to the Muslims' (and are referenced in the rest of Chp 9). Do you imagine other words in verses, or is just the one word 'all'? ;) As for the attempt at sophistry in the rest of your post - just because you +believe+ 9.29 is unrelated to the other verses in Ch 9, does not make it is so. You similarly +believe+ that there are no contradictions in the Bible - despite what Kung and others have shown.. Let me know if you are still confused. Cheers, Shafique shafique double post event horizon
Where did I say the answer was too long?

Who are the Jews and Christians who were a military threat to the Muslims? Where does the ninth surah say Jews and Christians are to be fought because they are attacking Muslims?

No, not at all. The Koran clearly says Muslims will conquer all other religions:
Koran 61:009 :

Verse 9:29 says to wage war against anyone who is not a Muslim. In other words, all unbelievers are to be fought as the Koran clearly says. Verse 9:123 compliments 9:29 and adds that Muslims are to wage war against unbelievers if the unbelievers live near an Islamic state.
Koran 9:123 :

The Koran says two things in this verse:
1) Unbelievers (all non Muslims) are to be fought
2) Living near unbelievers is enough of a provocation for Muslims to launch wars of aggression against unbelievers.
Verse 9:29 adds to this command by repeating the instruction that Muslims are to fight unbelievers because they are unbelievers but also says to only end hostilities when unbelievers (Jews and Christians) are defeated and live under an Islamic state.
Koran 9:29 :

I am more than happy to address whatever passages you *believe* relate to 9:29 in the ninth chapter of the Koran, but I can not do so until you provide any of your (imaginary) verses. shafique It appears you did not read the long message which answered your question. What particularly confused you? Was it the absence of the word 'all' from the verses in question, or the fact that all the verses compliment each other and there isn't a contradiction? Only your interpretation of verses as being universal is contradicted by the other verses of the Quran on warfare. On that, I agree with you. Your interpretation is definitely contradicted by the teachings of Islam - but this has been pointed out ad nauseum - so, as I advised in the other thread, unless you have a new argument, change the record and enjoy Eid. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Are you having trouble with the question, shafique?
Which verse in the ninth surah does it say that Jews and Christians, those singled out for violence in verse 29, are a "military threat to the Muslims" (your words)?

Still (patiently) waiting. Could you please post the imaginary verses which say Jews and Christians, 'people of the book', are a military threat to the Muslims? shafique As I said, if you have a new question that hasn't already been answered, I'll happily answer it. (And if you missed it - the answer is in the long post, highlighted in red and bold.) But for now (and whilst I wait for X Factor to be uploaded), let me wish you a happy Eid - even though it's Eid tomorrow here in Mauritius. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Are you saying that verse 9:13 refers to the Jews and Christians? Or are they verses 9:5 and 9:6 which you have also highlighted in red? A simple reading of all three verses reveals that the people in question are the Pagans of Mecca. Surely you know this? shafique I've pointed out that your interpretation of the universality of these verses is what is faulty - 9.29 is pretty clear when read in context of all the other verses talking about war. There is a verse which says 'do not pray' in the Quran. Would you argue Islam is unclear about whether to pray or not? Similarly, there are verses in the NT which say 'Women should not speak in church'. (Which you still need to explain which men Paul was addressing when he said this - even though Kung et al say these are fabricated verses) - would you argue that the NT is contradictory on this point? What chapter 9 says about warfare is pretty clear - read all the verses together. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Cool. So we agree that there is no verse in the ninth surah which says the Jews and Christians posed a military threat to the Muslims. Now, the issue is why does the Koran say to wage war against 'people of the book' because they are unbelievers and whether this clear command contradicts the other, less violent commands in the Koran. shafique I've said it before, I'll say it again - You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink! ;) Anyway, if you think you have other verses of the Quran which you think are contradictory, I'll be happy to put you straight. As for the verses here - as shown above, they are not contradictory. The only contradictions that exist are between your interpretation of clear verses (and imagining that a word 'all' is there) and the rest of the Quranic verses concerning war. But you knew that ;) Cheers, Shafique event horizon Still waiting for those passages which say, your words, that 'the Jews and Christians were a military threat to the Muslims'. Are these passages not there and you made the claim up? Or are they there and you're taking your time getting around to quoting them? It appears you want me to believe that verse 9:29 should not interpreted as a universal command because of the word 'all', despite what Muslim scholars have shown. Ok, let's turn this around. Which of the 'peaceful' verses in the Koran which say to fight against unbelievers after Muslims have been attacked contain the word 'all' in them? Curiouser and curiouser. shafique Cool - it looks like I've overlooked your whole intention of this thread, i.e. to show that the Quran contains contradictory verses when it comes to instructions on how to deal with non-Muslims. You are saying that 9.29 etc say all non-Muslims need to be fought by Muslims. You are quite clear that this is a universal teaching in your mind, and that we are wrong to argue otherwise. Correct? Then you argue that these verses are contradicted by other verses which talk about how to treat non-Muslims, and other verses which state when wars should start, how they should be carried out and when they should stop. I'm sorry it took so long for me to realise that I do agree with you after all - God in the Quran DOES indeed contradict your interpretation of 9.29 etc. I totally agree, that if 9.29 was a universal teaching - or if anyone (Muslim or otherwise) believed it to be a universal teaching - then this belief is indeed contradicted by God in the other verses of the Quran. See - we agree after all. (Tell me if there's a flaw to the logic - I agree you think 9.29 is universal, and therefore with this view, there are indeed verses in the Quran that contradict this view) Cheers, Shafique event horizon Shafique, what verse in the ninth surah says that Jews and Christians - two religions 9:29 explicitly gives Muslims the greenlight to attack, are a military threat to the Muslims. I mean, you did say this, didn't you? So, where does the ninth surah say Jews and Christians (people of the book) are a threat to the Muslims? Why does 9:29 say to attack those who are not Muslims? Kind of strange that the verse spends so much time on who to attack and why but the verse and the surrounding verses do not say that Jews and Christians are to be attacked because they pose a threat. shafique You think that 9.29 applies to all Jews and Christians - right or wrong? You are arguing that the other Quranic verses on warfare and how to live with Jews and Christians contradict this interpretation of yours - right? (This is the 'contradiction' you have made in your first point. I agree with your argument - the other Quranic verses do indeed contradict your interpretation. So where's the argument now? Are you now saying the Quran does not contain a contradiction? I totally agree that for there not to be a contradiction, my interpretation of 9.29 requires that the verse only apply to the non-Muslims who fulfil the criteria laid out in other verses of Chapter 9 and the other verses laid out in the previous posts - but you are arguing that there is a contradiction. Please make up your mind - my interpretation of 9.29 etc means there isn't a contradiction, but your interpretation is contradicted by other verses. Can we at least agree on that - I will concede you think your interpretation is right and you think we're all wrong to interpret 9.29 as we do. One of us is 'seeing' the elephant as a snake - but only one set of arguments leads to the accusation of a 'contradiction'. I hope I haven't confused you with the logical conclusion of your argument - if so, let me know and I'll try and simplify it for you. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Ah, come on now shafique. Surely the question is not that hard to answer. You said the ninth surah says the Jews and Christians that Muslims are told to wage war against because they are unbelievers posed a military threat to the Muslims. That's your assertion, not mine. So, which passage in the ninth surah actually says the Jews and Christians that Muslims are clearly told to wage war against because they are unbelievers says that war should be waged against them because they are a military threat? Which passage? 9:13? 9:99? 9:19? Come on, which passage was this again? shafique Please try and stick to the topic - I now agree with you that the Quranic verses speaking about war contradict your interpretation of 9.29 etc. Are you now trying to argue that there are no contradictory verses to your interpretation of the verses? Why do I need to justify that your interpretation is incorrect, when you yourself agree that the other verses contradict your interpretation? (this is not a rhetorical question - let me know if it is unclear). Re-read the title of this thread if you are confused in any way about the subject matter here. Cheers, Shafique event horizon The Muslim belief about the universality of 9:29 and your belief that other verses are actually universal can easily be discussed. But first, I would like you to answer your own claim. Which verses in the ninth chapter of the Koran say the Jews and Christians posed a military threat to the Muslims? Come on, it couldn't be that hard. You made the claim, why can't you back it up? shafique
I agree the above can be discussed, but this thread is about whether there is a contradiction in the Quran - and you cite 9.29 as a verse which is contradicted by other verses.
I agree with you that your interpretation of 9.29 is contradicted by other verses.
Whether you believe your interpretation of 9.29 is correct is your issue -and has been discussed at length in other posts/threads. Here, we see that you are arguing that your interpretation of 9.29 is contradicted by other verses.
On that we seem to be in agreement.
(The questions you ask on why I believe 9.29 to only apply to those who are a military threat has been answered before in the quotes I've given -it's obvious to me that Ch9 in toto and the other verses referring to Jews and Christians that your interpretation of universality is faulty and the general principles of who to fight given by God in the verses you cite apply here as well. I can't help you if you wish to imagine these verses are universal.)
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Ok, so we agree that there are no passages in the ninth surah which say the Jews and Christians were a military threat. That's cool - cuz 9:29 lists the reasons why unbelievers, specifically including people of the book should be fought, and none of the 'grievances' says that the unbelievers were a military threat against the Muslims. Rather, verse 9:29 clearly says unbelief is the reason why Muslims should fight unbelievers - this is similar to another passages which says Muslims should fight against 'fitnah', but that is a different chapter in the Koran. Shafique seems to believe that the passages which say other people pose a military threat to the Muslims - the Pagan Meccans in verse 9:13 should really include the Jews and Christians. Perhaps shafique can specifically cite which passages he believes includes Jews and Christians. As far as I know, every passage that talks of a military threat to the Muslims explicitly says the Pagans of Mecca were a military threat. Nowhere in the ninth chapter, that I know of, does it say that others besides the Pagans are a military threat to the Muslims. The context of certain passages, such as 9:13, this clarifies any confusion and leaves no doubt who the enemies who pose a military threat to the Muslims are, the Pagans of Mecca, and not the Jews and Christians or anyone other 'unbeliever'. But hey, perhaps shafique can argue with the mainstream Muslim interpretation of 9:29, which interprets the clear command to wage war against unbelievers for their unbelief as a perpetual command, and explain why their understanding of Arabic, careful reading of the Koran and their knowledge of outside sources are faulty and shafique's views are correct. It would appear that shafiqe's arguement is not with me, but with mainstream Islam which believes in Koranic abrogation. Anyways, I'm happy that shafique has recanted his previous claim that the ninth chapter says Jews and Christians posed a military threat to the Muslims. One only wonders why shafique would make that claim up? shafique Are you avoiding the logical conclusion of your thread? Your interpretation of 9.29 is contradicted by other verses of the Quran. Attempted obfuscation by asking again for things I have just addressed in the last post won't hide this fact. Do you have another alleged contradiction to deal with? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Sure, 9:29 which says to fight against 'unbelievers' because they are non-Muslims vs. 2:193. Any particular reason why 9:29 is not a universal command but 2:193 is? shafique So you are avoiding the logical conclusion of this thread? Whether I think the Quran contains contradictions is moot - to me it is clear it doesn't, because the verses detailing war fare etc are all complimentary - who, when, how etc all make sense. The point is that you argue that your interpretation of 9.29 is contradicted by other verses. I totally agree with you on that point. Yet you seem to be avoiding this fact. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Wow, that's a winky-dink school of argument. The passages in the Koran do not contradict each other because you do not believe that they do. How long did it take you to come up with such a convincing argument? Anyways, I'll wait for you to explain how a passage which says to begin hostilities against unbelievers because they are unbelievers is complementary to the passages you have in mind. Oh, and who were the Jews and Christians do you believe the Muslims were told to attack? shafique No it is your argument - unless you've changed it. YOU argue that God, in the Quran, contradicts YOUR interpretation of 9.29. Have you changed your argument now? You are right to point out that our reading of 9.29 etc makes the other verses complimentary, not contradictory. But this is your thread about 'contradictions'. Do you still maintain your interpretation of 9.29 is contradicted by other verses or not? (try and make up your mind) Cheers, Shafique event horizon I agree, it is your YOUR interpretation that the New Testament contains contradictory passages. You, therefore, are correct to believe that your reading of the New Testament contains contradictions. However, the truth is that these verses are complimentary, not contradictory. If you need further help interpreting the New Testament or the Koran (contradictory passages included), I do offer my services in helping you to correctly interpret these texts. shafique Again with the mixing up of threads! This YOUR thread about contradictions in the Quran. You have argued that the Quran contradicts your interpretation of 9.29 etc - I understand the desire to hide from this fact. It is amusing though to see you not acknowledge it - I call it the 'ostrich defence' - I'm sure you can work out why! ;) Cheers, Shafique event horizon Shafique, I am glad that you have acknowledged that there is no passage in the ninth surah which says that people of the book pose a military threat to the Muslims - despite your original assertion otherwise.
So, I thought I'd remind you that this thread is about the contradictions in the Koran and you still need to explain who are the Jews and Christians being referred in this verse - which you believe is not a contradiction (and mainstream Muslim scholars have shown is a contradiction)

Who are the unbelievers, specifically the people of the book, that Muslims must fight? shafique What confused you about the last few times I answered your question above? Was it the fact that the other verses of Ch 9 do indeed clarify 9.29 - or are you just still in denial about the logical conclusion of this thread you started, i.e. that the Quran contradicts your view of 9.29? Anyway - I'm glad you don't disagree with my previous post, I agree that the Quran contradicts your interpretation of 9.29. If we agree the Quran contradicts your view of the verse, what else is there to discuss? If you want to discuss the meaning of 9.29 - this seems strange, there are whole threads on what Islam teaches about warfare. Did those answers confuse you as well? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Sorry, which passages relating to the pagan Meccans in the ninth chapter do you believe clarify a command to wage war against unbelievers, specifically Jews and Christians?
I guess your reading of the Koran must not be as convincing as you would like to believe if the majority of Muslim scholars throughout history have understood 9:29 as a passage that abrogates (contradicts) previous passages which relate to unbelievers. shafique I totally agree. You do not seem to understand what has been posted about 9.29 - but in the end - we agree that the Quran contradicts your interpretation of 9.29, which is the point you made in the first post here. Have you now changed your mind? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Cool So, the majority of Muslim scholars and I are in agreement that the Koran does contain contradictions over the issue of waging war against unbelievers, and you disagree with us. No probs, we'll gloss over the fact that you still refuse to answer who is being addressed in this verse (which Muslim scholars say is a contradiction and the previously revealed passages in the Koran should be ignored). Do you want to address other contradictions in the Koran now? shafique Actually, I agree with you that your interpretation of 9.29 (which you are projecting on 'majority of scholars') is contradicted by other verses of the Quran. I'd hate to think how much you'd post if I disagreed with you on this point! Cheers, Shafique event horizon Sorry, you must confuse interpretation to plain reading. In any event, who are/were the Jews and Christians the Koran says Muslims must fight? shafique I agree you think everyone but yourself is confused - but thanks for starting this thread to show that you agree the Quran contradicts your 'plain reading' of 9.29. So - I agree with your initial post that the Quranic verses you quoted contradict your 'plain reading' of 9.29. Is there anything else to discuss regarding this 'contradiction'? Or do you want me to help you understand why we agree there is a contradiction between your 'plain reading' and the other verses? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Sorry, which verse in ch. 9 says who the unbelievers ('people of the book') are that Muslims must fight? shafique ^ You say there is a contradiction to your interpretation of 9.29 in other verses of the Quran, I agree with you. Do you always continue to ask questions when people agree with you?? (It is strange that you are asking a question that was answered in a long quote and even highlighted in bold - perhaps it is a short-term memory problem triggered by the shock that I agree with your premise that the Quran contradicts your view of 9.29) Cheers, Shafique event horizon Cool - it shouldn't be difficult, then, for you to quote the passages in the ninth chapter of the Koran you believe clarify who the Jews and Christians Muslims must fight are. shafique This thread is about contradictions in the Quran right -or is my pc playing up? It seems that eh is really taken aback by the fact I agree with him! (To the extent he's asking for answers which have already been given - fun to watch!) Cheers, Shafique event horizon As I said, I can play your game that 9:29 is not universal command. So, who were/are the Christians and Jews that Muslims are told to wage war against? Curiouser and curiouser. shafique
So you have changed your mind and agree that there isn't a contradiction in the Quran!!?
I thought you'd be pleased I agree that the Quran contradicts your interpretation of 9.29 - but you don't seem to be easily pleased. Why is that ikka/eh?
Cheers,
Shafique shafique Ok, I can understand that eh is a bit confused and is asking the same question again - it was a week ago that I answered it (on the second page of this thread) at Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:30 am Cheers, Shafique event horizon Still waiting for *you* to post the passages from the ninth chapter of the Koran and we can go through them one at a time. shafique Me to post verses from Ch 9? Pour quoi, mon ami? Was my post from a week ago confusing? As I said, I agree with you that the Quran contradicts your interpretation of 9.29. Is this agreement causing you grief? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Still (patiently) waiting for these passages which say Jews and Christians pose(d) a military threat to the Muslims. shafique Berrin “should Muslims fight against unbelievers or only fight unbelievers after they are first attacked?” Wasn’t this your initial question (your first post)…. I provided you the views of Christians both in contrast (even though they were still missing the points as to why and when Muslims would start defence or war and stop. (the writer’s attitude against our prophet and Islam is another issue altogether).. And then provided Muslims perspective… so that you could see the difference.. In those days, the conditions of the Muslims ordered to spread the message of God was very harsh under persecution and their struggle to establish it was of different nature compared to today’s world of teaching and spreading Islam and living with Islam.. This is why I think readers of other faiths get puzzled when reading these verses. It’s clear that the objective of the verses is not set for fighting non believers all the time of their own existence.. If this wasn’t true the God (as the creator we understand in Islam) could choose and wouldn’t continue to populate the Christians, Jews, pagans and atheists, as always happens,… instead he would continue with the Muslims only and make them the heir s of the whole wealth on the earth.. God shows us that this is not the case, no matter what humans believe and do, he continues to create us in all shapes and colour and into different nationalities, in the hope that we will learn from each other and embrace him, understand the purpose of his creation and live our life as ordered through his final revelations and prophet teachings.... From the day Islam was introduced, Muslims are always thought that a non-believer always has the opportunity and intelligence to become follower of Islam whether it be at the age of 10/30/60 etc. The matter of time it takes is a matter of their own jihad (struggle for truth) as their self determination is also being tested in the eyes of God. event horizon
As I said, the individual passages you believe show that the passage in the Koran (9:29) which says to wage war against unbelievers because they are unbelievers does not really mean what 9:29 clearly says can be addressed.
I assume no passages in the ninth chapter exist, otherwise you would have posted them by now, but I suspect you're all mouth and no trousers. shafique eh-oh, it appears that in your world everyone but you is wrong, and what is a contradiction makes sense, and answers can be ignored. It is fascinating to see the way your mind works - Goldstein is not to be condemned, but was influenced by the Quran, you here start a thread saying the Quran contradicts your interpretation of 9.29 - and can't accept that I agree with you. But the funniest one so far is stating that the NT does not contain contradictions - and only coming up with 'I don't believe the contradiction shown is a contradiction'! Cheers, Shafique event horizon
Yeah, that is a pretty funny argument.
So far, that is the gist of yours in explaining 9:29 with the other passages it contradicts in the Koran.
So, where are these verses that put 9:29 in its proper context?
Please post them yourself and we can see if they actually place 9:29 in its literary context or if you are just taking them out of context. shafique I wouldn't call your argument about the contradiction in the NT 'funny' - just plain wierd. "Its not a contradiction, because I don't believe it is a contradiction - but the meaning is contradicted by the other verses" As for whether the Quran contradicts your interpretation of 9.29 - as I've said, I agree with you. Why the insistence that I re-supply you with the quotes I gave 2 weeks ago? Is it because you can't accept I agree with you? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Still (patiently) waiting for those passages. Are you worried about posting them? shafique I'm not worried at all - I'm just glad you keep giving me an excuse to repeat that I agree with your first post (and the title of this thread) that the Quran contradicts your interpretation of 9.29. Thank you. As for me re-pasting the answers I gave earlier - CBF mate. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Still with the ostrich defense, huh? What passage in the ninth ch of the Koran says the Jews and Christians pose a military threat to the Muslims? Very simple question - and yet, it is taking more than five pages to answer. shafique what part of 'cbf' confused you? ;) Cheers, Shafique event horizon
A passage that says to 'fight Jews and Christians because they are unbelievers' sounds like it contradicts a passage that says that Muslims are to fight back after being attacked by the Pagans and only stop until Islamic law is enforced, i.e., the creation of an Islamic state.
What are you having trouble with when understanding these clear contradictions? event horizon One must choose who to believe - those who say the Koran does not contain contradictions or the companions of Muhammad, including his own cousin, who say the opposite:

shafique Totally agree - one should indeed examine the claims and make up one's mind.
That's why I'm all in favour of subjecting the claims of Orientalists and seeing whether evidence supports their views, or whether only a selective reading of history is needed for their (now discredited) views to hold.
Similarly with latter day fallacies - such as Islam being more violent than Christianity say - where someone makes a claim that can be tested (eg there are more Muslim convert terrorists than Chrisitan Convert Terrorists), then the claim should be tested. As we've seen in the Politics thread, the stats speak for themselves - in the chosen period, we have so far only one actual terrorist from Muslim converts who killed 26, whilst the running count for actual Christian convert terrorists (not counting the 'suspects' etc) is approaching 200 with less than half the period counted.
One indeed has to look at the evidence and make up one's mind. I'm sure that Islamophobes will believe what they want despite the facts, and I'm sure they will believe Muslims are the ones in the wrong for doubting Fox News reports.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon So the tafsir's of the earliest Muslim scholars are now 'orientalist'? You really are a laugh a minute. shafique You really like flogging dead horses don't you - I've agreed with you that I agree the Quran contradicts your interpretation of 9.29! I've also pointed out that Orientalists love to selectively quote - and we've seen you do that on many occasions - precisely drawing the wrong conclusions. But hey - at least you are consistent, you do the same with the NT as well. Cheers, Shafique event horizon Again with the misrepresentation? These are not my views but the views of Muslim scholars - that the Koran contains contradictory passages and the verses which are contradicted should be ignored. If you don't believe me, please look up Ibn Abbas's tafseer online. He mentions verse abrogation a number of times in reference to passages which were abrogated 'canceled' out. One must choose who to believe; a companion and relative of prophet Muhammad, who is viewed favorably by both Muslims and Shia or some Indian guy/British agent who proclaimed himself a prophet after Muhammad and died in the lavatory. shafique As I said, I agree with your opening argument - the Quran does indeed contradict your interpretation of 9.29 etc. By extension, it also contradicts anyone agreeing with you (or who you think agree with you). Thanks for the opportunity for allowing me to reiterate this point. I'm still at a loss where you think the argument is - as I agree with you. Cheers, Shafique Berrin Event horizon, how about reading this... THE KORAN AND FIGHTING UNBELIEVERS A RESPONSE TO JUAN COLE’S POSITION Berrin after this christian point of view, there is more to it by the muslims... &pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE event horizon
Sorry, didn't catch that. Are you saying that Ibn Abbas (let alone a majority of Muslims scholars after him) did/do not believe the Koran contains contradictory passages and that some of these passages should be ignored? event horizon
I'm not sure what the point of posting that article is. It would seem that Juan Cole made a few mistakes, including when he said that the command in 9:29 does not apply to Jews and Christians. shafique You are missing the point. I agree with your intial proposition that the Quran contradicts your view of 9.29 etc. But thanks for bringing this fact to our attention once again. Cheers, Shafique event horizon See, it is good to discuss and clarify. You are quite right, I presented my view that 'waging offensive warfare against unbelievers because they are unbelievers' contradicts other verses of the Koran. (See, I too am agreeing with you - good shafique!) Good to see that you don't disagree that my initial view is that of Ibn Abbas, etc - all supported by evidence and quotes saying that the verse is a contradiction. It is most welcoming that you have expressed your belief - and it is a valid one, many other Muslims also believe the Koran to be literally true and don't want to acknowledge the evidence presented by Koranic scholars listed. Some even have convinced themselves that the Koran contains no contradictions. Berrin lets read and find out further event horizon.... Jihad Renegotiated Interpretations of the Related Sunnah; A Revision &cid=1153698300138&pagename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam%2FDIELayout Islam and Terror: From the Perspective of Fethullah Gülen Why are there verses in the Qur’an that encourage Muslims to kill non-believers wherever they find them? War and fighting in the Quran shafique It is good that we are beginning to agree - I totally agree that there are some that share your views about certain aspects of Islam, but as I stated before, this thread is about whether the Quran contradicts your view of 9.29 etc. I agree with you that it does indeed. Now - whether one chooses to believe your interpretation should be followed or whether the contradictory verses are the true teachings of Islam vis-a-vis treatment of Jews and Christians - well that has been debated ad-nauseum in other threads (eg 'the ethics of war in Islam' etc) - and indeed the 'Koranic scholars' have all commented on what Islam teaches in terms of wars - and you have misleadingly quoted a small number of them. But thanks again for posting something that I can agree with - the Quran does indeed contradict your interpretation of 9.29. It is heartwarming indeed that you accept that the view of Muslims that the Quran is the literal word of God is a 'valid' one. I can see that this would be galling for a person who quoted scholars whose studies have confirmed that the same cannot be said about the Bible (you quoted Kung, for example) - and that this is an accepted fact now by all and sundry (that the Bible contains fabricated by Pauline Christians and which don't appear in the earliest manuscripts). But I won't go any further, as this is a thread about the Quran contradicting your interpretation of 9.29. Nice of you to keep bumping this thread. (You are getting better at the copying and pasting - the next step is to improve the comprehension of what you are posting ;) - and perhaps answering the unanswered questions, such as Goldstein etc) Cheers, Shafique event horizon
Actually it's the interpretation of mainstream Sunni Islam. I refer you back to my quote from The Reliance of the Traveler, a classic manual of Islamic sacred law endorsed by al-Azhar university, which says the Caliph is to wage offensive warfare against unbelievers until they live under an Islamic theocracy. If you are having trouble with reading quotes again, as you did recently in the thread on the Toronto Jihadists, I can re-post the link and you can confirm the passage for yourself.
As I said, I have no problem confirming the fact that mainstream Sunni Islam calls for perpetual Jihad warfare against unbelievers.

I can only quote what I find online. If you have another manual of Islamic law endorsed by al-Azhar university that contradicts the manual I quoted from, please post it and we can see why there is a contradiction in Islamic law.

Unlike quoting from two New Testament scholars after doing a bit of googling???

I agree - the mainstream Muslim interpretation of the Koran's passages contradicts the qadiani interpretation of the Koran's passages. But that should not be surprising, qadianis believe in many strange things that mainstream Islam completely rejects.

Oh gawd. You're not actually going to try and claim you're well versed on modern Biblical scholarship now, are you? Let's just stick to the Koran where modern scholarly criticism has had a field day of sorts in dissecting and analyzing its passages.

I don't know. The quotes of the New Testament found in the writings of the apostolic fathers is decades before the earliest extant manuscripts. But I'm sure you knew this.

I agree. Perhaps you can explain why Ibn Abbas and the companions of Muhammad were wrong in their belief that the Koran contains contradictions and your interpretation is correct? event horizon
Well, I don't know about that. Muslims tell me that the passages dealing with fighting in the ninth chapter of the Koran were sent down in the last two or three years of prophet Muhammad's life. During this time, Muhammad had already consolidated power over Mecca and the last existential threat to Muslim hegemony was crushed at the battle of Hunayn and siege of Ta'if.
However, while the ninth surah does refer to one of these encounters by name (the battle of Hunayn, if I'm not mistaken), 9:29 could not refer to this battle since the passage says to attack people of the book as well as other unbelievers in general.
Instead, I am told, 9:29 (and immediate following verses) and 9:123 refer to Muhammad's military campaigns against the Romans - such as the battle of Muta and the expedition to Tabuk. These conflicts were not defensive for the Muslims since Muta was, at best, a campaign of revenge (which included the taking of tributary/spoils of war, ie., 800 slaves from local Christian and Jewish tribes) or a land grab according to modern historians.
Unfortunately, Muslim history not only does not support your belief that these verses were revealed as passages of self defense for the Muslims - which would be awkward since Muslims were already given the green-light by Allah to fight in self defense in verses 2:190-193, Muslim historical accounts also show that Muhammad sent Khalid ibn Waleed and Ali to attack the Christian tribes in southern Arabia, including Yemen and these tribes posed no military threat to the Muslims.
It would seem that Muhammad's general policy at this time, when he was at the height of his power, was to attack all non-Muslim tribes that were not allied to Muhammad. This includes tribes who were neutral during the war between Muhammad and Mecca and tribes, such as the ones on the periphery of the Hijaz or outside of it, who had indeed never even heard of Muhammad or Islam until Muslim cavalry raided their village and plundered their towns. shafique As quoted many times before, I totally agree that you don't accept that your views are Orientalist and have been dismissed by serious scholars of both history and religion. We all agree that you are right that the Quran contradicts your view that Islam teaches violence and totally agree you can produce many quotes lifted from Islamophobic websites that misleadingly quote Islamic scholars. It is highly amusing that you can't defend the Bible against the evidence that it contains inserted contradictory verses - other than to state that you 'believe' these verses are not contradictions - yet, here insist your Orientalist arguments trump the many arguments already presented. But hey - I'm not one to censor people's wish to repeat themselves, so I thank you once again for starting a thread that shows that the Quran does contradict the discredited view of Islam proposed by Orientalists. Cheers, Shafique event horizon
lolz. This unsubstantiated claim comes from someone who was caught copy-pasting Bible passages from a pseudo Muslim website. Not to mention having to run to wikipedia to find quotes from one or two Biblical scholars.
As I said, you're a laugh a minute.

I used the same arguments (copy-pasted) you used in claiming the Koran does not contain contradictions. I agree with you that your own arguments are not very convincing. What can I say other than this was already obvious given the fact that mainstream Islam believes in the concept of Koranic abrogation.

I've come to the end of your post and I still have not seen any actual responses to my last post. Maybe I'll look again.
Can you please address my request to you in my last post?

Hopefully you won't miss my request this time. shafique Thanks for reinforcing the opening point of my last post - that you continue to believe in quaint beliefs such as the Bible being uncorrupted by fabricated verses and that Islam advocates violence against Jews and Christians. You started this thread to highlight that the Quran contradicts this Orientalist interpretation, and you seem to have an issue with me agreeing with you. As for what Islam's real teachings are - I refer you to the many other posts relating to Islam's teachings on warfare and indeed your first post. God's words trump any other 'manual' you want to misquote, and you did a great job in quoting the Quranic verses in your opening post. Berrin also has posted some good links - but these are just a repetition of what has been posted before. You end with a question about a manual of Islamic law that contradicts your view - how about the Quranic verses you posted? They contradict your view and are sufficient for me - God's clear Quranic verses are enough to counteract your misinterpretation of 9.29 etc. After all, this thread is about the Quran and the fact you showed it contradicts the Orientalist interpretation of 9.29. Thanks for allowing me to reiterate this important fact again. Cheers, Shafique event horizon A classical manual of Islamic Law endorsed by the Islamic world's highest center of learning is more than sufficient for me to conclude *how* Muslims *actually* interpret specific passages of the Koran.
Your argument that this is Oriental spin is growing tiresome for me and, I suspect, anyone reading along.
BTW, care to cite another classical manual of Islamic Law that says Muslims are not permitted to wage perpetual offensive warfare or that the Koran does not contain contradictions?

It shouldn't be that difficult of a question if this is indeed my 'misinterpretation' of the Koran. So, why not post mainstream Muslim scholar after mainstream Muslim scholar that claims the Koran's own passages do not contradict each other?
All mouth and no trousers I suspect... shafique I think it is wishful thinking to presume that anyone else is reading this thread eh-oh! Berrin jumped in for a cut and past jobby, but I'd guess precious few others are. ;) I've conceded that you believe your views aren't anachronistic Orientalist views of Islam - but I'm still surprised you keep bumping a thread in which you argue that the Quran contradicts these discredited views of 9.29. I've agreed with you that the Quran does indeed contradict your views - and that you can indeed produce quotes from others that seem to agree with your views. What you have shown is that you and those who seemingly hold your views believe in something that is contradicted by clear Quranic verses. I have also conceded that you think all Muslims should follow your interpretations. That's a bit strange - but it is only one of a number of quaint beliefs (eg. the bible doesn't contain fabricated verses which are contradictions, everyone else is wrong about the NLFT, one numpty convert terrorist is statistically greater than 169 actual Christian terrorists etc etc) Cheers, Shafique event horizon Shouldn't be difficult to find an orthodox Islamic legal manual that agrees with your interpretation of the Koran? shafique I'll stick with the ultimate Islamic manual - the Quran - and am happy to agree with your intial post that it indeed does contradict your view of 9.29 etc. Interesting that you want to quote external manuals in a thread about Quranic verses which contradict your quaint belief. Understandable, but irrelevant. Cheers, Shafique event horizon I agree with you that your interpretation of the Koran contradicts my interpretation of the Koran. It should also be noted that your interpretation of the Koran contradicts the teachings of the Koran and the mainstream interpretations of the Koran in Sunni Islam. One must choose who to believe - 14 centuries of consensus amongst Muslim scholars or Qadiani revisionism/reinterpretation. shafique
Cool. Can't say fairer than that.
Others can make up their own minds which interpretation they choose to believe (including your view that the consensus view is that Muslims share your interpretation).
Cheers,
Shafique shafique verney - firstly, welcome. Secondly, yes - the list of contradictions and absurdities supposedly in the Quran are easily found on the web. Two good lists are at sceptics annotated Quran, and also on Wikiislam: / The former has both categories for 'absurdities' and 'contradictions'. A similar (but longer) list is found for the Bible, Book of Mormon etc at the same site. Wikiislam lists the apparent contradictions and inconsistencies on the opening page. Now, if you do a search here, you'll find that I have explained why these aren't contradictions. However in this thread, I have agreed with the original poster that his argument is valid - to wit, that the Quranic verses on warfare and relations with non-Muslims contradict his view that Muslims are instructed to fight all Christians and Jews. But I totally agree with you that a book which contains absurdities or contradictions cannot be from God - that would be to believe that God is not capable of giving a consistent, coherent message. Cheers, Shafique verney A google search for koran contradictions reveals dozens and dozens of them, some of them quite ridiculous. No different, I'm sure, from many another sacred text. Even if there weren't any, of course,what would that prove other than brilliant editing? I don't suppose there are many contradicictions in the manual to my washing machine but that doesn't make it the word of god. I hope. event horizon
Reader's digest of your 'explanations': The Koran does not contain numerous contradictions because you say so. event horizon
Well, legal manuals are the actual interpretations (implementation) of the Koran's passages. So, of course, I would consult these manuals to see how Muslims actually read the clear passages in the Koran.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that orthodox Islam sides with your view that the Koran does not contain contradictions. I'll leave it to you, since you possess a deep understanding of the Arabic language, why scholars of the Koran are wrong and you are right. shafique I totally agree - the best we can both do is present the evidence and let people make up their minds. I totally agree that some Muslims believe there are abrogated verses in the Quran - but I've shown, in other threads, that in each case that this belief is not supported by logic and clear understanding of the Quranic verses - and that all Quranic verses are complimentary, not contradictory. Readers are free to contrast these explanations with your justification of your quaint contrarian view about contradictions in the Bible (the only explanation you gave was that 'I don't believe they are contradictions' - when faced with historical evidence and conclusions from Kung, O'Conner etc) However, in this thread you argued that the Quranic verses on warfare contradict a view of Islam that says all Jews and Christians should be attacked. On this narrow point, I have to completely agree with you. If you want to re-examine the issue of abrogation in the Quran, I'm happy to do so in another thread. Cheers, Shafique event horizon
^^ Berrin Surah 9:29 Discussed
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day

By Sami Zaatari


Berrin And then you read this event horizon.... what a contrast to what you know or believe eh?
Muhammad's sword
Pope Benedict XVI in the service of George W. Bush
By Uri Avner

&view=article&id=378:muhammads-sword&catid=60:comparative-religions&Itemid=114 Berrin Violence in Islam
By M. AMIR ALI Ph. D.
Published: July 02, 2004
event horizon Berrin, you argument is not with me but Muslims who claim that the Koran is a complete book and its passages are clear - therefore, Muslims do not need to go outside of the Koran to interpret its passages as the author of your first article (who apparently plagiarized a bit from another Muslim) claims must be done by providing the 'historical' context for v 9.29. The author of your last article simply claims that 9.29 is actually connected to the first 28 verses which speak of the Pagan Meccans and Muhammad's treaty with them. To be honest, that's news to me and, I suspect, everyone else. But hey, perhaps the author will manage to convince someone he knows what he's talking about. shafique Thanks Berrin - it is always good to give people the information to compare and contrast with views expressed about Islam's treatment of Jews and Christians. It is enlightening that the Quran has a self-correcting mechanism where if someone tries to infer a wrong teaching upon selected verses, the other verses of the Quran stand in contradiction to this erroneous view. Thanks to eh for making this clear in his first post of this thread. This is reinforced by the fact he has to go outside of the Quran to make his argument stick - and even then he has to selectively quote commentaries etc about these verses. Well, there is enough material now for people to make up their own minds - but I'm sure you agree with eh and I that he is right to claim the Quran contradicts his view that Islam teaches that all Jews and Christians should be fought. Cheers, Shafique event horizon
Yes, that is what is known as a contradiction. Please try and keep up.
I really can't make this stuff up. I spose this is what you call a 'logical' argument.
'Self-correcting mechanism' - priceless.

My bad. I thought I made my argument after posting passage after passage of violent commands to wage war against unbelievers because they are unbelievers and not because unbelievers posed a military threat to the Muslims as you had earlier claimed but then recanted after you were unable to find these passages.
The rest was to show how Muslims actually interpret the teachings of the Koran and showed that my interpretation was actually in line with how the majority of Muslims interpret the teachings of the Koran.

Translation:
"I can't see or hear any contradictions - you are wrong, I am right" event horizon
And just to point out the 'self-correcting mechanism' of the Koran, I'll be more than happy to furnish numerous violent passages to correct any misconception someone may have if they believe the Koran does not teach perpetual jihad warfare against unbelievers.
This is the genius of your argument. Really, which Ahmadiyya article did you take this from? shafique Hey, I just wonder how much you'd write if I didn't agree with your intial post!
As it is, I'm happy to thank you again for pointing out that your quaint Orientalist views of a militant Islam is contradicted by the verses you quoted in your initial post.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon One must choose which interpretation of the Koran to believe - the early companions of Muhammad who believed the Koran contained contradictions and the verses that are contradicted by other verses in the Koran should be ignored or revisionist interpretations of the Koran that go outside the orthodox understanding of the Koran's passages. But I agree with you, the Koran's passages contradict the Qadiani interpretation of the Koran - that Jihad has been abrogated and should no longer be carried despite what the clear passages of the Koran say. As I said above, one must choose to believe if the early Muslims or later Qadiani revisionists were correct. Personally, I think it speaks volumes that their views have not been addressed by shafique and whether shafique believes he is more knowledgeable of the Koran than Ibn Abbas. shafique
Yes - I'm glad this has finally sunk in.
We can believe your interpretation of 9.29 is correct and that the other
Quranic verses contradict this interpretation, or we can choose to believe that your interpretation (i.e. the Orientalist view of Islam) is incorrect.
It is, we all agree, a matter of choice.
I'm not sure whether you are aware that your cutting and pasting from Orientalist/Islamophobic websites are wilful distortions of Islam's teachings - but even if you weren't the evidence posted here and elsewhere is enough for others to make up their own minds.
We are all very clear that you believe you are right. But as I said very early on, I agree with your initial post - the Quran does indeed contradict your interpretation of 9.29, and I thank you again for making this point for us.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon Unfortunately, this only works in favor of Qadiani teachings, for the historians and Koranic scholars tell us that certain Koranic verses contradict other verses. Totally agree with shafique that the Koran must therefore be interpreted - whether to believe, for example, that unbelievers should be fought against in unprovoked offensive warfare or if unbelievers should be subdued and an Islamic state established after Muslims are attacked. Ibn Abbas et al - say that the militant verses are later commands and should be followed. They say these verses are contradictory, but in shafique's fantasy world, there are no contradictions. But, let's not forget that this thread stems from shafique's assertion that there are NO contradictions in the Koran. It is clear that there is no evidence for this belief (he can't even explain away this first contradiction). Therefore, we must admire this blind faith in the Koran and ponder on the fact shafique hasn't quoted one expert who agrees with his view (that there are no contradictions in the Koran). It is therefore a brave thing for shafique to stand alone in his belief - bravo to the boy, why let facts get in the way of a belief shafique? :) shafique :) I see that the Orientalist tactics of copying and pasting quotes to deliberately distort the truth are not dead! Anyway, glad to see some humour in a thread where all the evidence has already been posted for people to make up their own minds. But as I said, the inconvenient truth is that I agree with eh that the Quran does indeed contradict his interpretation of 9.29 - see it is good to agree! Cheers, Shafique Roadtester i have heard that the Quaran is inconsistant on free will, as on the one hand why would you need to be punished for bad deeds etc if you had no choice in the matter? Also that it is implied that god creates djins, bad people - why? Theres a load of contradictions on the understanding islam site I think it is - but its banned here. shafique Islam's stance on free will is quite consistent within the Quran (and in Islamic philosophy generally). One is only punished and rewarded where a person has a choice, and the rewards are guaranteed, whereas the punishment is at the mercy of God. The only sin which God says is unforgiveable is the associating of partners with God (shirk) - but even then the punishment is up to God. The confusion over predestination and free will is not limited to Islam - but simply put, God isn't bound by Time - He sits outside the universe and isn't bound by the Physics of His creation. Knowing what we will choose to do does not mean we don't have free will - nor is it cruel to suffer the consequences of our choices and actions, be they good or bad. As for lists of apparent contradictions - there are pretty comprehensive lists on sceptics annotated Bible (they have a section for the Quran) and also Wikiislam. Most of these have been dealt with in the past - just do a search for 'contradictions in the Quran - discuss', I showed in that thread why these alleged contradictions aren't valid. However, here eh argued that the Quranic verses detailing Islams stance towards Jews and Christians contradicted the quaint (literally) belief that Islam teaches that all Jews and Christians need to be fought against. I'm still grateful he made a valid argument that I cannot disagree with - the Quran does indeed contradict this Orientalist view of Islam. Cheers, Shafique



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy