dzheremi there are a few things that need a response, but I think there is quite a lot that needs to be said before we carry on.
The medium we use (i.e. writing to each other) is not conducive to understanding, primarily because 80% of communication is non-verbal. As such it is easy to misunderstand and I think we need to be very careful; always re-clarify what we’re saying and if we’re not sure we understand ask for re-clarification, that way we should reduce the risk of misunderstanding. Also since its easy to misunderstand then we need to look with the eye of forgiveness because we are likely to make mistakes when we write. To that end, it may be better to spend more time reading (say at least 3 times) and writing a single response rather than hastily writing pages and pages (we are both guilty of that I think), this will also mean we don’t loose the trail of thought.
We spoke a lot about the use of language and so I was a little surprised by some of your emotive language and use of capitals and bold which just gives the impression that you’re shouting. Also given the sacredness of our own faith it may be best to be a bit sensitive. Being polite friendly and appreciating that the opposition may not like the answer is going to facilitate dialogue, the reverse will only hinder… and in no way take away from doctrine
Can we try our best to leave the incoherencies please. There are loads, but these where a few I remember:
If a Christian becomes a Muslim then he was always a Muslim
If Michael Jackson was black and he became white then he was always white.
The patriarch in Alexandria is oppressed by a Muslim government
An apple is red, so all apples are red. There is also poor use of definition here.
‘Abraham, Jesus, St. John, etc. may have been “muslims”, as in the Christian view “Muslims” are not “muslims”, in that they do not submit themselves to God as we understand such submission to be rightfully lived.’ The tomato may have been a fruit, as in the chief’s view the tomatos are not fruit, in that they do not have a sweet flavour. Sorry this last one is not really incoherent in form, but in meaning; you have tried to refute my point with something painfully obvious and in so doing have confirmed it???
‘There is no injunction in the Holy Bible to love only those who come to share your faith’. There is no injunction in this verse on whom to love, its clearly about whom love you…
‘Mr. Deedat appears to beat a televangelist’ - why mention this? This is crushing to your argument
Yes Mr Deedat is answering with an ignorant fool so its useless. So the dialogue between the monk and the amir is your favourite because…
Could we also please think of what the Christian alternative is. You don’t like our governance (which you called hell for you - does that not seem an exaggeration?) and yet offer no alternative, whilst still not liking democratic secularism??? So the modern US government is superb in every way is it? Its just not fair nor is it trying to understand. Its a bit like atheists (I mean in the true sense) claiming that the world would be better without religion and yet give no indication of how they are to ‘free’ us of our religions, which we are quite content with. Like I said, how would an ideal Catholic or Orthodox regime look like, I can think of a few in history. You have to answer this question in detail with reference to authoritative sources on the subject, not just your mere opinion, since it is the crux of the matter. I generally use Al Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah by Al Mawardi (947-1058) as reference to a classical Islamic governance model, but even this is somewhat problematic because it is medieval, its not modern, and like I said before the nass (scriptural references) are few on Islamic governance thus allowing flexibility and contextualising into the modern world.
I hope you’d appreciate my use of the word Mushrik and instead you seem to think it an insult
I thought you wanted no compromise of doctrine? Just because Salafis use the word kufar like a swear word does not mean it technically means that, it actually means one who has covered over the truth, a conscious hiding of what one knows to be true. You know in Islamic metaphysics its a hierarchy of states (not being as with Aquinas) and thus no error is ever personal. Also by the fact you worship means that you intend the Divine, otherwise you wouldn’t worship, we just say that owing to your incorrect (as we have it) understanding etc it is a veiling for you. And here like before you make no comparison with how Catholics/Orthodoxy view Muslims. This needs answering in the aforementioned form before.
I believe I defined quite clearly what I meant by inter-faith…
You seem to have a different view. If it were like the Monk then you’d listen and highlight incoherency only, would you not? Of course like I pointed out, the Amir should have said the first premis (i.e. that the verses are the same) is false.
By being intelligent and not arrogant one can comprehend the opponent and will listen, other than that is a futile waste of time. As Ali ibn Abi Talib said:
‘I won every argument I had against an intelligent person, but lost every argument against a stupid person.’
God knows best
PS: The last post was much more like the dzheremi I knew and love
)
) back to life, a similar formulation is also used in [42:52] for the Qur’an.
)
I thought my post made it clear that a group of Christians were closest in love THEN came to see the Muslims and on seeing truth became Muslims. Sorry, but I thought that was really obvious 