you forgot about these
What about the right hand and what it possess? What apologetics are you going to apply to this passage?
I think you merit a response when any sign of learning begins to become apparant. After the 26 pages only superficial flailing and true scottish arguments. I think a manicure is better use of time than pouring water into the sand for any flower to blossom.
That you’re still claiming that 9:5 is a general instruction to kill all unbelievers, after extensive posts holding your hand and walking you through the context of that passage, is disgusting.
I learned the phrase here, the Gish gallop. It seems to apply en grosso modo here with the idée fixe…
The Koran clearly commands the killing of non-believers*:
“If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.”
*Oh, wait, this is from the Bible. Never mind.
Let’s just save time by repeatedly cutting and pasting the following:
Person A: Islam is an exceptionally violent religion, and that’s why all Muslims either are terrorists or support terrorism.
People B: Other religions are equally violent, and most Muslims are neither terrorists nor support terrorism.
Person A: You don’t think any Muslims have ever done anything bad! You’re an apologist!
Person B: <headdesks>
What about the passage I posted from the Bible that calls for killing non-believers? And many others in the Bible?
My point is that it’s utter nonsense to think you understand a religion just from reading its text.
What do you mean he is ignoring the fact?
What you are doing here is using an accusation of Islamophobia as a moral shield to deflect perfectly legitimate criticism of your religion. Khuldune is a Muslim who lives in a Muslim majority country. His friends and family are Muslim. He risks his life to promote reform, to lessen the damage done by Islam as it exists today. He is one of the bravest authors alive today, and for you to try to brush aside these criticisms using accusations of bigotry is an act of deep intellectual cowardice.
No, he does not. Not even close. Nowhere does he say that the Taliban are following the only true version of Islam. In fact he says the exact opposite:
How does this make them not propagators?
They were not ALL? So what? You are not addressing his arguments in the slightest here. Do you understand this?
He does not seem aware? Why? Because he does not include every exception that exists in some tafsir? Nonsense. You are displaying a blatant double standard here, where any criticism of Islam must meet some impossible standard of completeness, while the opposite criteria is applied to apologia.
Regardless of how you try to justify it, it is still provocative language, which is what he is claiming here.
Well, show me where Mohammed says it is not. Do that and then feel free to lecture and chastise. Until then, perhaps you could keep such rude remarks too yourself.
Even if you are right, which i am not saying you are, but even if you are right and the bible is just as barbaric, wicked and savage as the Koran:
THIS IS NOT A GOOD DEFENSE OF THE KORAN… it would simply be a condemnation of religion in general.
No, it’s utter nonsense to think you can understand it apart from the text. The text is the word of god (according to them). Divine authority. Divine Authority has only one accounting. ONLY one source.
**Exactely. **
This is a pointless exchange.
Well then this means some commands for violence came after commands for peace
well then this negates the idea you have that Islam is not violent:
it was often the case that a peaceful command abrogated a violent one
You’ve just admitted 2 things:
there are violent passages in Islam, and, they are often - not - discarded.
I don’t care who he is, I care what he has written. And what he has written there is a load of nonsense which is basically a regurgitation of all the usual Islam-hating talking points spewed by the likes of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Daniel Pipes.
In that article you linked to, he certainly does. He basically goes to some lengths to justify the Taliban’s version of Islam as legitimate, and accuse Muslims who reject their interpretation as “apologists” who refuse to acknowledge that the Taliban are scripturally justified (and in fact asserts that Muslims who refuse to accept the “violent” parts of scripture that the Taliban use as justification are basically wrecking their entire religion).
I’m not a fan of Qadri’s vicious animosity towards the Ahmadiyya (to say the least), nor of his support for Pakistan’s blasphemy law and his role in its expansion (which was intended by him to specifically target the Ahmadiyya). But that article is also bullshit: whatever his faults when it comes to Pakistan’s blasphemy law, he’s an honest and active campaigner against all forms of terrorism carried out in Islam’s name, and such a relentless promoter of interfaith understanding that his Deobandi enemies have given him the derisive nickname of “Tahrir-ul-Padri” (“Padri” being the Urdu loanword for a Christian priest).
The particular video linked to and talked about in that second article is actually a railing condemnation of the murder of Salman Taseer for the latter’s opposition to the blasphemy law. Qadri was furious that self-appointed vigilantes were carrying out assassinations of those accused of blasphemy, and the screenshot in the article was from a part of the video where he was giving his bona fides as someone who could condemn such murders because he was involved in Zia-ul-Haq’s expansion of the law, in a “only Nixon could go to China” way.
Because at that point it already was propagated; it was developed right in the middle of lands that had been Muslim for centuries at that point, and was directed at and discussed among other Muslims.
So his assertion that the Qur’an is violent (and Islam is violent) because the later “violent verses” all replace the earlier “peaceful verses” per his boneheadly wrong understanding of naskh is total crap.
Uh, no, I’m directly addressing them: he made claims about the chronology of verses in the Qur’an and the use of naskh regarding their verses, and I’m showing you quite clearly how he was wrong.
Because he makes a blanket assertion as if those tafsir don’t exist. Meaning either he is unaware of them (in which case he’s not knowledgeable enough to talk about the subject, especially not as authoritatively as he does), or he is aware of them and deliberately refused to mention or acknowledge them, which makes him a flat-out liar.
Yes, and?
It’s certainly not more violent than Christianity or Judaism. You know, like I’ve said multiple times already in this very thread.
Please, go back and read what I’ve actually written.
Wow!
Imagine if you applied this same standard to Mohammed!!!
Oh, so you admit it is violent then? How can it be a religion of peace and be a religion of violence???
Muhammad didn’t write anything.
The same way Christianity and Judaism can.
They are equally legitimate. If, they use the same Koran as you use.
You just admitted Islam is a violent religion. Now it appears as if you are trying to ignore parts of the book again.
See posts 719, 741, 745, 752…basically, pages 15-17 of the thread. This was gone over already, at length.
If you merely forgot that, rather than maliciously disregarding it so as to preserve an anti-Muslim talking point you knew to be discredited, then I apologize for my harsh tone.