What one author says about the Muslim "religion"

[planten]

**Distracted had started the thread with: What one author says about the Muslim “religion”.

May I start something with what two authors say about Muhammad and Quran.

1. There is a book titled “100 greatest men of the World.” The author has placed Muhammad at number one in the list of his 100 greatest men.
2. There is a book titled “Bible, Science and Quran.” written by a Frenchman maurice Bucaile (?). In that book, after extensive research, the author has concluded, in the beginning of the book that:

a) There is nothing unscientific in the Quran.
b) There is nothing scientific in the bibleNT.

Then he went on to actually prove the beauty of the Quranic verses. The Author is a doctor.

So we can now forget about what one author says about the Muslim religion. We can go ahead to see what twp authors say about Muhammad and the Quran**.

 

[sedonaman]

Actually, there is the word human being or humanity. It is refererd to as Naas. Like in the Quran it says “Qul autho birabin Naas” meaning “Say, I seek protection in the Lord/Cherisher/Sustainer of Mankind”

If he can be so ignorant to completely over look this fact that there is a meaning for human being in Islam, then how could you believe his other points. We are not allowed to lie, decieve, or kill anyoneif it advances Islam.

Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!. Quran 5:32

If you look at the word in the quran, it says Naas, meaning all of mankind not just believers. When God was refering to all of mankind in delivering a message he would say “Y iyuhan Naas” or “O Mankind”, but when he was speaking to only the Muslims, he would say, “Ya iyuhal lathina imanoo” “O you who believe,”.

Thus the rest of the points of this person can easily be refuted.

Is the word “abrogation” or “abrogate” in the Qur’an?

 

[Contarini]

Is the word “abrogation” or “abrogate” in the Qur’an?

So that’s the best you can do?

First you claim that there is no such concept. Then when you are clearly proved wrong, you argue that the verses in question have been abrogated.

What you don’t seem willing to accept–though it should be obvious–is that Islam is not monolithic. There are many ways of interpreting the Qur’an, just as there are many ways of interpreting the Bible. You have not supported your position (or Warner’s, whoever he is) by reference to traditional Islamic law. And even if you did, you would have to deal with the fact that just as Islamic fundamentalists often reject traditional Islamic law in favor of a harsher interpretation of the Qur’an, so Islamic liberals often reject it in favor of “re-opening the gates of ijtihad” and favoring some of the passages which the hardliners say have been abrogated.

That the Qur’an can be used to support violence is obvious. But here I am going to have to disregard your request to “spare” you the obvious remark that so can the Bible. I understand why you want to be “spared” the reminder of this obvious fact, because it is fatal to your entire approach. And no amount of sophistry on your part can get you out of this dilemma. If the fact that the Qur’an *can *be interpreted in a vicious manner is enough to condemn Islam, then we’re in the same boat. If you appeal to traditional Islamic interpretation, you have to look at traditional Christian interpretation (which often makes our position worse–look at the way St. Thomas Aquinas interprets what look like nonviolent verses in the N.T. to justify executing heretics, for instance, in ST II-II Question 11, article 3). And if you use contemporary exegetical or theological arguments to soften either the original historical sense or the traditional theological interpretation, then you have to let Muslims do the same thing.

I’m not claiming that Christians and Muslims are in exactly the same position. There are lots of differences in how violence is advocated in each tradition and what kinds of resources each of us have to re-interpret those parts of our respective traditions. But precisely because the differences are complex, the only way to make Christianity seem spotless and Islam seem irredeemable (or the reverse) is to engage in highly selectve and strained interpretation.

Edwin

 

[trdchubi]

**Distracted had started the thread with: What one author says about the Muslim “religion”.

May I start something with what two authors say about Muhammad and Quran.

1. There is a book titled “100 greatest men of the World.” The author has placed Muhammad at number one in the list of his 100 greatest men.
2. There is a book titled “Bible, Science and Quran.” written by a Frenchman maurice Bucaile (?). In that book, after extensive research, the author has concluded, in the beginning of the book that:

a) There is nothing unscientific in the Quran.
b) There is nothing scientific in the bibleNT.

Then he went on to actually prove the beauty of the Quranic verses. The Author is a doctor.

So we can now forget about what one author says about the Muslim religion. We can go ahead to see what twp authors say about Muhammad and the Quran**.

Ok now I get it. This is where those zakat and khum money were spent…fund those propaganda materials written by doctors. Saudi oil money are really getting handy this days.

 

[sedonaman]

Ok now I get it. This is where those zakat and khum money were spent…fund those propaganda materials written by doctors. Saudi oil money are really getting handy this days.

Let’s see. His qualifications are 1) he is a Frenchman, and 2) he’s a doctor. I’d say he’s an authority out of his field, which is a logical fallacy.

1. An appeal to authority may be inappropriate in a couple of ways:

• It is unnecessary. If a question can be answered by observation or calculation, an argument from authority is not needed. Since arguments from authority are weaker than more direct evidence, go look or figure it out for yourself.

The renaissance rebellion against the authority of Aristotle and the Bible played an important role in the scientific revolution. Aristotle was so respected in the Middle Ages that his word was taken on empirical issues which were easily decidable by observation. The scientific revolution moved away from this over-reliance on authority towards the use of observation and experiment.

Similarly, the Bible has been invoked as an authority on empirical or mathematical questions. A particularly amusing example is the claim that the value of pi can be determined to be 3 based on certain passages in the Old Testament. The value of pi, however, is a mathematical question which can be answered by calculation, and appeal to authority is irrelevant.

• It is impossible. About some issues there simply is no expert opinion, and an appeal to authority is bound to commit the next type of mistake. For example, many self-help books are written every year by self-proclaimed “experts” on matters for which there is no expertise.

1. The “authority” cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. The now-classic example is the old television commercial which began: “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV…” The actor then proceeded to recommend a brand of medicine.

1. The authority is an expert, but is not disinterested [ah, the Saudi money]. That is, the expert is biased towards one side of the issue, and his opinion is thereby untrustworthy.

For example, suppose that a medical scientist testifies that ambient cigarette smoke does not pose a hazard to the health of non-smokers exposed to it. Suppose, further, that it turns out that the scientist is an employee of a cigarette company. Clearly, the scientist has a powerful bias in favor of the position that he is taking which calls into question his objectivity.

1. While the authority is an expert, his opinion is unrepresentative of expert opinion on the subject. The fact is that if one looks hard enough, it is possible to find an expert who supports virtually any position that one wishes to take. “Such is human perversity”, to quote Lewis Carroll. This is a great boon for debaters, who can easily find expert opinion on their side of a question, whatever that side is, but it is confusing for those of us listening to debates and trying to form an opinion.

Ref.: fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

 

[distracted]

Actually, being politically correct would be a sign that that Christian sect is seriously defective.

“Political correctness” is, by nature, anti-Christian to the core.

the poster was not speaking of PC… but probably political involvment…

if we are not politically involved or at least concerned about what’s going on politically… and pray about it… something is wrong…

politics is just another way of saying Dealing with Issues Affecting the Common Good of Society…

 

[distracted]

Admittedly, it’s a very different kind of political project. But the irony is that you embrace the very attitude you condemn in Muslims. In a later post you predict that Christians and Muslims will have to “duke it out” and that you are confident you will win because Jesus is on your side.

Edwin

you have me confused w/ someone else… i did not say this…

 

[distracted]

know that there are Muslim students in US schools,…

who (over the age of 10) doesn’t know that?

is this some kind of threat or something??

(Oh gee… i wonder why i am so “paranoid”… Could it have something to do with… uh… airplanes… and jihad and… )

nah… probably not…

 

[distracted]

It’s a dangerous thing to believe a book is written by God and that you are a member of a people the book states is chosen by God.

The ultimate goal is conversion or destruction for all others.

If safegaurds to make certain that destruction is the work of God alone are not an obvious part of the teaching, war will rule over peace.

this is why a certain level of Church - state separation is needed…

although the Sup Ct takes this separation thing to ridiculous extremes and mis-applies it…

even so, we should respect the right of all religions to exist in a free society… all except those that are treasonous… against out country … and those who advocate murder…

but then all so-called Crhistian religions that advocate murder (abortion) & euthanasia … well… They should be able to hold those beliefs but not practice them… just as Mormons were disallowed to /practice polygamy in the 1800s…

Muslim-ism is treasonous… to the USA

 

[distracted]

.

Everyone should read the book Not Without My Daughter

It shows the truth about the Islamic religon better than anything i have ever read.

It blew me away…

gave me a renewed appreciation for Democracy… even if it is flawed democracy, as exists in the US

 

[rpp]

.

Everyone should read the book Not Without My Daughter

It shows the truth about the Islamic religon better than anything i have ever read.

It blew me away…

gave me a renewed appreciation for Democracy… even if it is flawed democracy, as exists in the US

Okay, you do not have to shout.

I believe this was made into a made-for-TV movie with Sally Fields. A very unteresting and compelling story, all the more so because it is true.

By the way, and not to take this thread even more off-topic, Democracy in the USA ended on around midnight, Eastern time, on November 4, 2008. The system that replaced is only slightly better than an Islamic regime, at least for now.

 

[jakasaki]

.

Everyone should read the book Not Without My Daughter

It shows the truth about the Islamic religon better than anything i have ever read.

It blew me away…

gave me a renewed appreciation for Democracy… even if it is flawed democracy, as exists in the US

I read that book way back in the early 90’s and there was a movie on it - Sally field played the mom.

You should try to catch it on DVD…

 

[trdchubi]

Let’s see. His qualifications are 1) he is a Frenchman, and 2) he’s a doctor. I’d say he’s an authority out of his field, which is a logical fallacy.

Goes to show how the Saudis follow the principles of taquiya. They make it their policy to employ more fallacy on kaffirs. All for the glory of muhammad and his made up allah.

 

[planten]

**J C, that man who wrote the book “100 Greatest men of the world.” was not a fool. He put Muhammad as number one in his list. It means that for muhammad, all is clean. That writer has wiped out all your false allegations against Muhammad.

Because you could not swallow that bitter pill, you are trying to find faults in that book. Whatever, it was the opinion of an educated person who did some research and placed Muhammad at the top of the list of 100 greatest men of the world. But you do not like that.

It is natural for you to complain. I do not blame you. I had told you about what one author said about Muhammad. That was the topic.**

 

[planten]

** If Muhammad is the greatest man of the world’s 100 greatest men of the world, he would be the greatest man among the thousand (1000) greatest men too. Do you understand that please?. If he is greatest amongst the 100 greatest men then he is greatest of all men.

See it like this.

A list is made out, of 100 greatest men of the world. Of course that list is of the greatest men. Muhammad is on top of that list according to that author. Now suppose, he prepares another list of 1000 greatest men of the world. Do you think that the author could put up some one else at the top? That is not possible.

You are worried about Jesus why he missed the grade. Just relax. One author had given his pure opinion. You cannot beat that author until you write another book on that topic.**

 

[sedonaman]

…
even so, we should respect the right of all religions to exist in a free society… all except those that are treasonous… against out country … and those who advocate murder…

I took a test for officers training school in the US Air Force, and I remember one question on the test was, “Would you still fight for your country if it no longer allowed freedom of religion?” You had to answer “Yes” or “No”.

I think the key word in your statement is “religion” – is a belief system a religion just because people say it is and its adherents worship a god ? Or should it have to meet some objective standards ?

 

[dzheremi]

Planten, Planten, Planten…what are we going to do with you, buddy?

A few points you should recognize

1. The introduction to the book in question, The 100 Greatest Men in History by Michael Pollard, states: “**Greatness” does not always mean “goodness.” **Among the great men in this book are some who left a blank mark on world history. Shi Huangdi, Emperor of China in the third century BC, ruled his empire ruthlessly. Death was the only punishment for disobeying his laws. Peter the Great, Tsar of Russia, had his son tortured to death for treason… These, and others whose stories have a dark side, have been included because, for good or evil, they left their mark on the age they lived in." (source; emphasis mine)
2. Maurice Bucaille wrote the book that you so love while in the service of King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, surely an impartial influence… (And if you believe that this is somehow a coincidence or not of consequence, I’ve got a mosque in Mecca you might be interested in buying)
3. The many, many, many, many (…many!) problems with Dr. Bucaille’s book have been addressed many times over, probably most completely by Dr. William Campbell in his book “The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science”, available for free here.
4. Muhammad is ranked highly in books about influential men not due to his moral rectitude, but due to the number of independent spheres his movement affected permenantly, which is probably greater than any person within recorded history. Author Michael Hart states as much in his book, “The 100: A Ranking of the 100 Most Influential Persons in History”, another book that rates Muhammad at number one due to his status as a military leader as well a religious leader, a dual role which Jesus did not undertake.

 

[cthulhubryan]

** If Muhammad is the greatest man of the world’s 100 greatest men of the world, he would be the greatest man among the thousand (1000) greatest men too. Do you understand that please?. If he is greatest amongst the 100 greatest men then he is greatest of all men.

**

I’ll agree that his greatness is similar to that of Marx, Hitler, Mao, and other mass murderers. That does not mean anyone should respect him or want to emulate him.

 

[sedonaman]

…
First you claim that there is no such concept [as a human being, I assume]. Then when you are clearly proved wrong, you argue that the verses in question have been abrogated.
What you don’t seem willing to accept–though it should be obvious–is that Islam is not monolithic. …

You haven’t proved I’m wrong; you’ve merely claimed I am. And they have been abrogated; the Qur’an says so.
That Islam is not monolithic is not obvious, because Muslims in this forum insist that it is … and that it isn’t. So which is it? How can Muslims adopt a rigid “Qur’an-is-the-unalterable-word-of-Allah” position that claims there is a true original in heaven and the one you have on earth is and exact copy, that hasn’t changed one dot in 1,400 years [because Muslims have memorized it and corrected each other during recitation], and turn around and say there are many ways to interpret it? Muslims like “Sister Amy” in this forum have stated that, “it is what it is and not subject to human interpretation” [never mind that’s what the human brain does whenever you read something].
We have been told by Muslims that the only true Qur’an is the one in Arabic. You told us it was in 7 dialects, and I asked a second time which one is the true Qur’an and received no reply. Muslim claims get even more absurd because the same site says you don’t have to know Arabic to become a Muslim, but “learning Arabic will be an advantage as there is a big difference between reading the translations of the Qur’an and the original text in Arabic.” It is virtually impossible then to convey Allah’s message to a potential convert if he doesn’t understand Arabic [and it would have to be 7th century Arabic, to boot], so how can a person become a believer in Islam if Islam is one thing in his own language, but the real Islam is something else in Arabic? I posed this question to a Muslim on another forum, and he replied that “an Islamic scholar would explain it.” That’s all well and good, but in what language would he explain it since he would have to translate Qur’anic concepts into English and there is a big difference between translations of The Qur’an and the original text in Arabic?
If I say that A is true because X is true, and later say X is “corrupted”, what does that tell you about A? What does it tell you about me? It is Mohammed who is in the inescapable dilemma. He points to Judeo-Christian scriptures as proof of his prophethood, then later denies their validity by claiming they’ve become “corrupted” because they were written by men. If writing by men introduces corruption, how did the Qur’an escape, because it was recited then later written down … by men?

 

[sedonaman]

[continued]
That the Qur’an can be used to support violence is obvious. But here I am going to have to disregard your request to “spare” you the obvious remark that so can the Bible. I understand why you want to be “spared” the reminder of this obvious fact, because it is fatal to your entire approach. And no amount of sophistry on your part can get you out of this dilemma.

That there is violence in the Bible is indisputable, but there is no general call for all time for all Christians and Jews to make war on infidels in order to take over the world by war and terror. Jesus didn’t say “love your enemies” and then when it didn’t work, raise an army and lead it on the warpath to “punish” those who rejected his prophethood, but that’s what Mohammed did.
Be that as it may, whether or not there is violence in the Bible is irrelevant to the invocations to violence in the Qur’an: B cannot excuse his wrongdoing by claiming that “A did it too.” Your mentioning violence in the Bible is merely a poor attempt to drag Christianity down to the level of Islam … period.

If the fact that the Qur’an *can *be interpreted in a vicious manner is enough to condemn Islam, then we’re in the same boat. If you appeal to traditional Islamic interpretation, you have to look at traditional Christian interpretation (which often makes our position worse…) And if you use contemporary exegetical or theological arguments to soften either the original historical sense or the traditional theological interpretation, then you have to let Muslims do the same thing.

Not exactly. If Mohammed used the Bible for validation, then why didn’t Islam learn from Christianity’s supposed mistakes? After all, we even have planten’s assurance that not all the Bible is corrupted.

… There are lots of differences in how violence is advocated in each tradition and what kinds of resources each of us have to re-interpret those parts of our respective traditions. But precisely because the differences are complex, the only way to make Christianity seem spotless and Islam seem irredeemable (or the reverse) is to engage in highly selectve and strained interpretation.
Edwin

In view of the Muslim claim that the Qur’an is the perfect word of Allah and cannot be changed, how can there be an interpretation other than a traditional Islamic interpretation? If there is, what has changed and when? How is an alternate interpretation not “changing the perfect word of Allah”? Then there is the Muslim “perfect” example of Mohammed. Is it not true that the Qur’an says that all Muslims are to imitate Mohammed in every detail of their lives? If so, then a “moderate” Muslim would be one who did what Mohammed did, and not what some new interpretations say he should do. If not, then how is he a “perfect” model for living your life?
Selectivity and straining are not necessary. “In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages.” – Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia.
No one is attempting to make Christianity seem spotless; Church authorities freely state that events like the Crusades and Inquisition were probably bad ideas; but if Islam is peaceful now, where are the Muslim admissions that perhaps Islam’s wars of conquest were also? None are offered because to do so would be to deny Mohammed.