Society/Culture At Least 42 Dead And Hundreds Injured In Church And Hotel Bombings (Now 259 Dead)

Mar 5, 2011
30,159
22,808
Australia
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fremantle, WA, Associates
Seemed to have a relatively intimate knowledge of Judaism/Christianity to have written the Qu'ran.

I wouldn't be able to do the same for Islam.
It wasn't that intimate. I think I mentioned in one of the other posts, but there is a passage in the Quran (Surah 9:61) which talks about Muhammad being 'an ear/all ear' (ie. he believes everything he is told). In Arabia the time there were stories from Jewish tribes which can be found in the Talmud and other extra-Biblical sources, which can now be found in the Quran. There were also Christian heretical cults in 7th century Arabia that told similarly non-Biblical stories about Jesus and Mary, which are now in the Quran. The Sabians, the Persians, and other pagan tribal groups in the area had practices like circling the black stone and praying five times a day, and believing in a paradise with perpetual virgins. Those are now in the Quran (and the hadith) too.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

FalcoX

All Australian
Aug 16, 2009
813
626
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
What you see here, folks, is a Muslim - sorry, a "person with Muslim friends" - who is desperately trying to wrangle something acceptable to Western culture out of a religion that is naturally at odds with the West
Interesting you say this because I recall not too long ago on this very forum clearly stating that Islamic punishment for adultery is 100 lashes. Would I really do that If I were so inclined to portray Islam in the manner you are describing. I am just stating my understanding of the Islamic religion based on facts and research.

so much so that he has to throw century after century of Islamic scholarship away, including even the most respected modern commentators along with those from earlier times, ignore Islam's most trusted sources
We have already established that you yourself do not believe in the historical reliability of Islam’s ‘most trusted sources” so let’s not get into that again.

try to obfuscate with the 'real Arabic' - essentially treating Allah as a deceiver by allowing Muslims to believe in and adopt practices based on the hadith
I have already provided evidence that the Quran says nothing of following the hadith but using the Quran as the only guidance for mankind.

which were passed down and written in the exact same way as the Quran was, via the same people.
Shows how much you know. Even putting aside the fact that the Quran states that with God rests the responsibility for shielding its message from corruption (no such claims for protecting the hadith) or that the it clearly states that it was written down by noble scribes during the messenger’s life (surah 80:13-16), there is the fact that there is an entire tradition of hafiz or memorisers of Quran from the very early times. Currently there are estimated to be millions of hafiz worldwide. The Quran was memorised by many of Mohammad’s companions across the muslim lands. It would have been impossible for those verses to be changed without Muslims everywhere noticing and correcting them. The number of hafiz has only grown thereby ensuring that the message of Quran remains intact.

"The Hadith" are a different classification. The Qur'an itself is a "hadith" because the Arabic word just means saying/statement/narrative.

The "science of Hadith" has to do with determining the authenticity of sayings based on the reliability of the transmitters and the chain of transmission. The most authentic collections of the Hadith are the Bukhari ones and they weren't compiled until nearly two centuries after the prophet's death, ample time to allow interpolations, additions, subtractions, forgeries, etc. to take place. Very few hadiths are classified as "mutawattir" - those with the most reliable authenticity. There is a range of reliability from "mutawattir" to "daif", or weak, and many still remain in the collections although they are classified as forgeries. The Qur'an itself is classified as a "mutawattir hadith", considering the sheer number of transmitters who reported it in precisely the same way word for word, but it is a "hadith" attributable to God - hence it being described as "the word of God" - whereas the "hadiths" of the prophet are just sayings allegedly attributed to him and distinct from the latter, often having just one or a handful of sources.

Allah wouldn't mind being called a deceiver (makr), given he calls himself the best deceiver in Surah 3:54. Of course, many Muslim scholars find this untenable as well, so they change it to "planner", but it undoubtedly deceptive to make it appear as though Jesus was crucified when he wasn't, as that passage claims Allah did, in a game of oneupsmanship with the Jews. They schemed, and he schemed better - according to the Quran.
Unnecessary criticism. Is it really so bad to plan/sceheme/plot against evil which sought to put to a slow and torturous death a messenger of God? Or “scheme’ against those who plotted to imprison/evict from your home/murder you as in Surah 8:30? Its like putting down law enforcement authorities for “scheming” against drug cartels or human trafficking rings. I understand your keenness to frame everything about Islam/Quran in a negative way, but now and then you ought to sit back and think before you post.

it's also just poorly written. Bad grammar, unusual use of Arabic words, unfinished sentences and so on
I would ask for you to post your credentials as they pertain to the knowledge and understanding of classical Arabic but we both know you have none so I will leave this as it is.

So, despite the Quran claiming to not need explanations beyond itself, reality forces Muslims to do exactly that, because Allah wasn't as clear as he could've been.
Thanks for agreeing that the Quran states clearly it does not need anything other than itself for explanation. You need not have bothered going beyond that because the rest is superfluous. If the Quran does not allow for outside sources, let alone those collected hundreds of years after the messenger’s death, then clearly those who do refer to such sources are not following Quranic guidelines and going beyond their boundaries.

aka "let's see how far I can stretch the word 'hadith….Not really. It denies that anything afterwards could be the word of Allah (though affirms that the Jewish Tanakh and Christian Gospels are the word of Allah, which raises some massive contradictions. Like, sky high contradictions), but Muslims don't claim that the hadith are the word of Allah.
I believe I have made my case clearly that Quran asserts that only the message contained within the Quran is to be followed. You have failed to argue otherwise so there is not much to be discussed here.

It is super convenient for you to ignore the hadith given the context of the first two passages you quote here. Alas, you don't seem to grasp the implications of your own logic.

If Muhammad's duty is to "convey the message and act on its guidance", then his followers should do as he does, because he is acting on the guidance he is given. This is affirmed not only by 24:54, but also 33:21. Muhammad is warned against contradicting Allah, which is amusing given how often the Quran contradicts itself. But if his actions do not contradict the message of Allah, then surely they are to be followed, because if he was at any point contradicting Allah in his actions and his explanations of the message of Allah, Allah would either tell him so or kill him. So the Quran is, at best, silent on the issue of following Muhammad, and can quite reasonably be understood to be telling Muslims to follow the actions of Muhammad as best as possible across their lives, because he is the model of conduct in his life and Islam involves submitting to the will of Allah across all of life, as affirmed by the Quran.

Furthermore, if the Quran is so clear, it should be clear from the text that it is only the message that is to be obeyed, not the messenger. It is not, because it keeps saying to "obey the messenger".”
I have addressed this already as being in relation to his role as the messenger to his people and relaying to them the message of Allah contained within the Quranic scripture. Mohammad would not have been preaching beyond what has been delivered to him or acting in contradiction of the Quran so obeying the messenger = obeying Quran. Arguing that you are obeying the messenger by following hadith the accuracy and reliability of which is highly doubtful is asinine position to take.

Given the vast majority of those in authority use the hadith to exercise their judgement by using them for clarity on the Quran (which is 'referring to God and his messenger'), including the imams who taught the Sri Lankan suicide bombers, this logic doesn't work.”
Exactly, they are going beyond what they are instructed to do and mixing non-verifiable outside sources with what Quran strictly orders them to follow.

The shahada does not exist in full in the Quran, so whenever a Muslim recites "and Muhammad is his messenger," they are not reciting the Quran. Furthermore, Muslims are never even told to recite the shahada as a ritual in the Quran.
That may be true however the entirety of the shahada is compatible with the Quran, as I am sure it might have been mentioned once or twice that Mohammad is Allah’s messenger, making this a moot point.

The Quran only prescribes three daily prayers and never describes what they are to look like, so if any Muslim prays five times a day in a prescribed way, they are not following the Quran.
There is certainly allusions to more than those 3 prayers(I am assuming you mean Fajr, Maghrib, Isha) i.e:

30.17-18

“Therefore glory be to God when you enter upon the time of the evening and when you enter upon the time of the morning. Unto Him be praise in the heavens and the earth! - and at night and in the noonday (i.e. duhur)”

050:039

“Therefore be patient of what they say, and sing the praise of your Lord before the rising of the sun and before the setting (i.e. Asr)

020.130
“Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of thy Lord, before the rising of the sun (i.e. Fajr), and before its setting (i.e. Asr); yea, celebrate them for part of the hours of the night, and at the sides / parts of the day that you may have (spiritual) joy”

I further reject your argument that if muslims pray in a certain way they are not following the Quran. While the Quran may not detail the ritualistic form of prayer most muslims perform today, all the necessary aspects of prayer are indeed found in the Quran and if those aspects are adhered to, they are meeting Quranic guidelines.

The Quran mentions the zakat on multiple occasions, that it is compulosry, and even saying who it should be distributed to...but it never says what the zakat actually consists of. Quran-only scholars don't even agree on whether the poor need to pay the Zakat or not, because the Quran alone doesn't make it clear.”
You are probably mixing zakat with sadaqat. The quran does indeed state who sadaqat (voluntary) should be distributed to but not zakat (obligatory). There is wisdom in Quranic silence in the matter which is clearly deliberate and it is left to those in governance to work out the details of Zakat depending on the needs of their society and state. This silence also allows for the passage of time where changing conditions and circumstances may require changes in the amount of Zakat levied rather than imposing a one for all rate.

That makes absolutely no sense. This passage is about knowing who has fathered a child, which is why there is a waiting period of three months for divorced women. 65:4 is clarifying what to do in the case of women who "no longer expect to menstruate," "have not menstruated," and "are pregnant." These are three very clear categories, and the Arabic makes it clear that the second group has not yet menstruated ie. they will menstruate in future. It is both only logical and possible that the second category refers to young girls, not yet at puberty.

This means that not only are girls who have not yet menstruated valid candidates for marriage and consummation, it also means they are valid candidates at a young enough age for them to have more than one husband before reaching puberty. Surah 33 confirms this, because married women who do not not consummate the marriage have no waiting period. And yet here in 65:4, a girl who has not yet menstruated has a waiting period of three months - therefore, the marriage with her has to have been consummated beforehand.”
I have bolded the major flaw in your argument so thank you for admitting that the passage refers to “women”. Also read up on primary amenorrhea and delayed menstruation.

“Yes, the Quran is contradictory, and Muhammad himself was happy to contradict his own teachings.”
This is not so much a contradiction as you pulling things out of your behind in a very strained attempt at inventing contradictions out of thin air to suit your agenda. The Quran is clear cut on marriageable age and it in no way promotes marriage with minors. The hadith you are so desperately clinging on to are just plain fiction and go against the teachings of Quran. Even the most ardent hadith supporters would agree that if there is inconsistency between the Quran and hadith then Quranic message takes precedence.

Nice try, but no, this verse is making no such distinction.
It does not need to. It is clearly a continuation of and bound by the early theme of the surah and the overarching message of Quran which does not support aggressive warfare.

8:59-60 (yes, directly before the verse he selectively picks above)
Let not the disbelievers assume that they are ahead. They will not escape. And prepare against them all the power you can muster, and all the cavalry you can mobilize, to terrify thereby God’s enemies and your enemies, and others besides them whom you do not know, but God knows them. Whatever you spend in God’s way will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged.
You are reaaaaallly bad at this. Let’s see for a clarification of which disbelievers the verse is referring to:

8:56 (yes a few verses before the verses he selectively picks above)

“The ones with whom you made a treaty but then they break their pledge every time…”

Entirely consistent with the verses in surah 9 btw.

8:65
O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will overcome two hundred: if a hundred, they will overcome a thousand of those who have disbelieved, because they are a people without understanding.”
We have already established which disbelievers are being referred to here (8:56).

008:061

"And if they incline to peace, then you also incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing"

8:62
And if they intend to deceive you-- then surely Allah is sufficient for you; He it is Who strengthened you with His help and with the believers



4:89
They would love to see you disbelieve, just as they disbelieve, so you would become equal. So do not befriend any of them, unless they emigrate in the way of God. If they turn away, seize them and kill them wherever you may find them; and do not take from among them allies or supporters.”
The very next verse:

8:90

“except those who are allies of a people you are bound with in a treaty or those wholeheartedly opposed to fighting either you or their own people. If Allah had willed, He would have empowered them to fight you. So if they refrain from fighting you and offer you peace, then Allah does not permit you to harm them.”

9:5
When the forbidden months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayers, and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Refers to treaty breakers, not polytheists as a whole:

9:4
Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
9:6
And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.
9:8
How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.
9:10
They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.

I believe I have made my point and it is now crystal clear to me that you are a typical 'critic' of Islam who cannot be trusted to have a honest discussion about the Quran with the way you are cherry picking verses out of context to suit your agenda so I am not going to waste more of my time on you.

I don't know if you believe in internal Quranic abrogation
I do not.

If you do not, then you have, as I mentioned before, a contradictory Quran that still preaches warfare and slaughter.
Debunked, along with other points you have raised.

Good day.
 
Mar 5, 2011
30,159
22,808
Australia
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fremantle, WA, Associates
Interesting you say this because I recall not too long ago on this very forum clearly stating that Islamic punishment for adultery is 100 lashes. Would I really do that If I were so inclined to portray Islam in the manner you are describing. I am just stating my understanding of the Islamic religion based on facts and research.
I don't recall ever saying such a thing, I would've thought if your recollection is good you would've provided a quote for it.

Although I suppose having a faulty recollection would help your argument against the hadith. :drunk:

We have already established that you yourself do not believe in the historical reliability of Islam’s ‘most trusted sources” so let’s not get into that again.
Once again, my belief in the accuracy or otherwise is totally irrelevant to the question of whether Muslims believe that they are true, and why they would believe that they are true. Your inability to understand this simple fact of whose belief matters does not speak well of your argument.

I have already provided evidence that the Quran says nothing of following the hadith but using the Quran as the only guidance for mankind.
That doesn't address why Allah would allow his followers to be deceived for so long by the hadith.

Shows how much you know. Even putting aside the fact that the Quran states that with God rests the responsibility for shielding its message from corruption (no such claims for protecting the hadith) or that the it clearly states that it was written down by noble scribes during the messenger’s life (surah 80:13-16), there is the fact that there is an entire tradition of hafiz or memorisers of Quran from the very early times. Currently there are estimated to be millions of hafiz worldwide. The Quran was memorised by many of Mohammad’s companions across the muslim lands. It would have been impossible for those verses to be changed without Muslims everywhere noticing and correcting them. The number of hafiz has only grown thereby ensuring that the message of Quran remains intact.

"The Hadith" are a different classification. The Qur'an itself is a "hadith" because the Arabic word just means saying/statement/narrative.

The "science of Hadith" has to do with determining the authenticity of sayings based on the reliability of the transmitters and the chain of transmission. The most authentic collections of the Hadith are the Bukhari ones and they weren't compiled until nearly two centuries after the prophet's death, ample time to allow interpolations, additions, subtractions, forgeries, etc. to take place. Very few hadiths are classified as "mutawattir" - those with the most reliable authenticity. There is a range of reliability from "mutawattir" to "daif", or weak, and many still remain in the collections although they are classified as forgeries. The Qur'an itself is classified as a "mutawattir hadith", considering the sheer number of transmitters who reported it in precisely the same way word for word, but it is a "hadith" attributable to God - hence it being described as "the word of God" - whereas the "hadiths" of the prophet are just sayings allegedly attributed to him and distinct from the latter, often having just one or a handful of sources.
I am already aware of how the hadith collections were made, but the Quran does not say it was written down in Muhammad's lifetime. The Quran was given as oral recitation, and the verse you use to back up that writing claim says nothing about it being written down during Muhammad's life after hearing it from him, which is why pretty much every scholar understands this as referring to the angels who gave the word of Allah to Muhammad, not to corruptible people.

While I could continue down this line, I don't especially want to because I commend you for rejecting the hadith. Not because I think you're on solid ground, as you aren't, but because you clearly recognise that the hadith are a death knell for Islam, and therefore for the beliefs of the vast majority of Muslims worldwide, including the Sri Lankan terrorists whom this thread is about, remember?

I would ask for you to post your credentials as they pertain to the knowledge and understanding of classical Arabic but we both know you have none so I will leave this as it is.
I don't need to point to my own 'credentials', there are plenty of scholars who say the same thing. Do you think that the Quran is a wonderfully written, perfectly clear text, as it claims to be?

Thanks for agreeing that the Quran states clearly it does not need anything other than itself for explanation. You need not have bothered going beyond that because the rest is superfluous. If the Quran does not allow for outside sources, let alone those collected hundreds of years after the messenger’s death, then clearly those who do refer to such sources are not following Quranic guidelines and going beyond their boundaries.

I believe I have made my case clearly that Quran asserts that only the message contained within the Quran is to be followed. You have failed to argue otherwise so there is not much to be discussed here.

I have addressed this already as being in relation to his role as the messenger to his people and relaying to them the message of Allah contained within the Quranic scripture. Mohammad would not have been preaching beyond what has been delivered to him or acting in contradiction of the Quran so obeying the messenger = obeying Quran. Arguing that you are obeying the messenger by following hadith the accuracy and reliability of which is highly doubtful is asinine position to take.

Exactly, they are going beyond what they are instructed to do and mixing non-verifiable outside sources with what Quran strictly orders them to follow.
As I said, the Quran forces its adherents to look beyond itself for an explanation on how to live, because it is unclear. It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of them would do what they have done and look to the hadith as a historically reliable explanation of how the messenger of Allah lived in accordance with the Quran, especially given they can see verses which would justify them doing so.

That may be true however the entirety of the shahada is compatible with the Quran, as I am sure it might have been mentioned once or twice that Mohammad is Allah’s messenger, making this a moot point.
Interesting, because that means you're willing to accept something that other Quran-only Muslims believe is shirk. I thought you said the Quran was perfectly clear?

There is certainly allusions to more than those 3 prayers (I am assuming you mean Fajr, Maghrib, Isha) i.e:

30.17-18

“Therefore glory be to God when you enter upon the time of the evening and when you enter upon the time of the morning. Unto Him be praise in the heavens and the earth! - and at night and in the noonday (i.e. duhur)”

050:039

“Therefore be patient of what they say, and sing the praise of your Lord before the rising of the sun and before the setting (i.e. Asr)

020.130
“Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of thy Lord, before the rising of the sun (i.e. Fajr), and before its setting (i.e. Asr); yea, celebrate them for part of the hours of the night, and at the sides / parts of the day that you may have (spiritual) joy”

I further reject your argument that if muslims pray in a certain way they are not following the Quran. While the Quran may not detail the ritualistic form of prayer most muslims perform today, all the necessary aspects of prayer are indeed found in the Quran and if those aspects are adhered to, they are meeting Quranic guidelines.
That's fair, although again the specific command of 5 prayers is not given in the Quran, which is why some Quran-only Muslims refuse to adhere to it. I don't see any reason not to pray to God more often than that, but my understanding of the purpose of prayer is different to a Muslim's.

You are probably mixing zakat with sadaqat. The quran does indeed state who sadaqat (voluntary) should be distributed to but not zakat (obligatory). There is wisdom in Quranic silence in the matter which is clearly deliberate and it is left to those in governance to work out the details of Zakat depending on the needs of their society and state. This silence also allows for the passage of time where changing conditions and circumstances may require changes in the amount of Zakat levied rather than imposing a one for all rate.
Thank you for confirming that you are a Muslim. You should have been honest about this earlier, because at the moment you appear rather like a George Galloway type.

I wasn't confusing them. As far as I know, Surah 9:60 describes to whom zakat is distributed. Given zakat is mandatory and made distinct from sadaqat, one would expect the Quran to explain precisely what zakat is in order for it to be a necessary part of the faith. But the Quran never explains what zakat precisely consists of. That is not a positive, and again suggests the Quran isn't as clear as it should be.

I have bolded the major flaw in your argument so thank you for admitting that the passage refers to “women”. Also read up on primary amenorrhea and delayed menstruation.
I'm not surprised that you are running away from not only the very point which started this thing, but also the one which is a piercing lance in the acceptability of Islam. Would you have preferred I say 'little girls', given that's what everything about the passage indicates it means?

This is not so much a contradiction as you pulling things out of your behind in a very strained attempt at inventing contradictions out of thin air to suit your agenda. The Quran is clear cut on marriageable age and it in no way promotes marriage with minors. The hadith you are so desperately clinging on to are just plain fiction and go against the teachings of Quran. Even the most ardent hadith supporters would agree that if there is inconsistency between the Quran and hadith then Quranic message takes precedence.
As stated above, the Quran is contradictory, because it clearly implies that females who have not yet menstruated are of marriageable and divorceable age. Even if you refuse to accept this, that is what can be quite simply read in the text, including by many Muslim commentators, which means that once again the Quran is, at best, unclear despite its claims otherwise.

It does not need to. It is clearly a continuation of and bound by the early theme of the surah and the overarching message of Quran which does not support aggressive warfare.
I'm happy that you like peace, but there is nothing about this passage that closes doubt. It is entirely open-ended. It doesn't say "these specific people and them alone". That is why a Muslim can read this verse and decide to slaughter unbelievers. For there is no doubt that the continuous word of Allah is that Christian and Jews are the lowest of the low, for it says in Surah 98:6 that the disbelievers from among the People of the Scripture (ie. Jews and Christians) are the worst of creatures - well, except for the fact that other verses of the Quran indicate that those same people are actually among the saved. Yet again, the Quran on its own is, at best, lacking in clarity.

Let’s see for a clarification of which disbelievers the verse is referring to:

8:56 (yes a few verses before the verses he selectively picks above)

“The ones with whom you made a treaty but then they break their pledge every time…”

Entirely consistent with the verses in surah 9 btw.

We have already established which disbelievers are being referred to here (8:56).

008:061
"And if they incline to peace, then you also incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing"

8:62
And if they intend to deceive you-- then surely Allah is sufficient for you; He it is Who strengthened you with His help and with the believers

The very next verse:

8:90

“except those who are allies of a people you are bound with in a treaty or those wholeheartedly opposed to fighting either you or their own people. If Allah had willed, He would have empowered them to fight you. So if they refrain from fighting you and offer you peace, then Allah does not permit you to harm them.”

Refers to treaty breakers, not polytheists as a whole:

9:4
Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
9:6
And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.
9:8
How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.
9:10
They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.

I believe I have made my point and it is now crystal clear to me that you are a typical 'critic' of Islam who cannot be trusted to have a honest discussion about the Quran with the way you are cherry picking verses out of context to suit your agenda so I am not going to waste more of my time on you.
No, sorry, you're trying to have it both ways. Much like earlier, you insist that any verse relating to warfare can only relate to Muslims at the time of the revelation, but there is nothing textually which indicates that Allah's word is shifting from a direction to all Muslims, to just Muslims contemporaneous with Muhammad. Surahs 4, 8 and 9 continually feature the word of Allah being directed to "you who believe" - if this is only referring to Muslims of the time, then whole sections of the Quran are useless as revelation for any Muslim living today, because he uses the same language for any command, whether warfare or ablutions or whatever. Why would Allah send down a message but make the majority of it is useless for Muslims one generation after Muhammad and onwards?

I do not.
That may cause you some problems. Do you believe that Jews and Christians will be saved or not?

Unnecessary criticism. Is it really so bad to plan/sceheme/plot against evil which sought to put to a slow and torturous death a messenger of God? Or “scheme’ against those who plotted to imprison/evict from your home/murder you as in Surah 8:30? Its like putting down law enforcement authorities for “scheming” against drug cartels or human trafficking rings. I understand your keenness to frame everything about Islam/Quran in a negative way, but now and then you ought to sit back and think before you post.
Allah shouldn't need to act in the way of human 'law enforcement', he claims to be God. Over and over again in the Jewish Law, Prophets and Writings, along with the Christian Gospels, all of which are affirmed by the Quran as the 'word of Allah', we see God (who never calls himself a deceiver) acting in great power to overcome plotters and schemers. He has no need for deception, because deception is evil. And yet Allah, who Muslims claim is the same God as the Jewish and Christian God, calls himself the greatest deceiver on multiple occasions.

Worse than this, Jesus not dying on the cross but only appearing to do so is a terrible idea. Not only is it blatantly anti-historical - there are very few ancient history scholars left who do not think that Jesus was crucified, which given your interest in historical accuracy should make you sit up and pay attention - it is also completely illogical and turns Jesus into a totally incompetent failure. Allah's deception was apparently so successful that his disciples saw him resurrected, thereby spawning what was to become the largest religion in the world, built on the basis that Jesus Christ had died and was resurrected. Jesus, the Quran tells us, was a Muslim from birth, and yet we have no historical record of Muslims or the message of Islam existing in his time, or in the time immediately afterwards. What we do have records of is Christianity. Lots and lots of Christians started appearing after Allah's apparent deception. Given that, according to Islam, Christianity is heretical for a vast number of reasons, this means that Jesus totally failed in spreading the message of Islam during his lifetime, and Allah totally failed to protect his message, because it wasn't his message that spread, but the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus - Christianity.

I do not want you to be deceived, brother. I do not say any of these things because I dislike you; on the contrary, I want you to be saved, and I want to honour God, as I'm sure you do too. I am telling you these things because you need to know the truth. Jesus died on the cross to pay for your sins and mine, and was resurrected on the third day so that we could have eternal life. He is God the Son, and reigns eternally on the throne even now. You know that Allah is a deceiver, and that he can even deceive you. Know this: he has deceived you by claiming that Jesus was not killed. The Quran has led you astray and cannot show you the path to salvation. Only Jesus can show you the way, and the only way to know what he says is to read the gospels, which even the Quran affirms has been preserved as the word of God in Surah 3:3. You have affirmed that you believe that none can change Allah's words, and so the gospels are His words - read them, and you will discover the truth.
 

petedavo

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2008
1,479
1,761
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Reports of ethnic riots coming in from Sri Lanka of mobs attacking Mosques, looting and burning of shops of Muslim traders.

Sri Lanka government has reportedly shut down social media in an effort to curtail the violence.



Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
 

petedavo

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2008
1,479
1,761
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Island wide curfew has just been imposed in Sri Lanka.
Not that it'll have any effect, because it's quite obvious that the government is not in any sort of control of the situation.
Reports coming in of more riots and mob attacks.


Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)


Top Bottom