Islam According To The Qur'an/hadeeths Interpreted By:

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1288950' date='Jun 5 2007, 06:58 PM']Still more denial, yet no proof. This is well-established history. Simply saying it ain't so isn't going to cut it.[/quote] I did provide proof, I gave you a link to a George Town University Professor [and could even give you links to Muslim scholars if you would like, but I thought I'd tap into a less bias perspective first] that proved your thoughts on history to be lacking, and that Islam spread more through merchants, then through violence.

[quote]That was the practice at the time. The fact that some "moderate" Muslim scholars would decide centuries later that they had previously been "misinterpreted" is hardly convincing. Why'd it take the Muslims so long to get it right?[/quote]No it wasn't the practice of that time, it was what you think the practice was but that I'd provided evidence [even though the Qur'an] that that wasn't the practice of that time. It seems that you're trying despirately to hold onto your stereotypes, rather then take the Qur'an for what it says...

[quote]you admitted earlier that practice of the Christian Faith was strictly "contained" (i.e. restricted) in Muslim territory.[/quote] I said that it was contained in the sense that it is in Egypt, to where Christians are kept from Proslytizing, but had Christian children for centuries to come that were Christian, and from time to time, against the will of the gov even Proslytized.

[quote]You told which battle one of the verses quoted was written after. You put in in "historical context" and I have done the same, showing that this practice was hardly confined to the aftermath of one battle. You have not refuted anything.[/quote]No, I gave the proper interpretation and context of the scripture, you went on a tangent into your stereotypes, based upon nothing in the Qur'an and a very dense version of Islamic History.

[quote]The sack of Constantinople was not called for by the Crusades, and in fact was solidly condemned by the Pope.[/quote] What about the mass murder of Copts? Was that condemned by the Pope and if it was, give proof.

[quote]The great Muslim Conquests of the 7th-8th Centuries were fully supported and by the leaders of Islam - the Caliphs.[/quote]Caliphs of Sunni Islam, not Muslims as a whole... as Shiites weren't part of it.

[quote]College professors have said all kinds of nonsense in the cause of political correctness. Simply giving a vague quote from a college professor proves nothing.[/quote]

Read the link before you rush to judgements.

[jeffpugh]

Okay, Okay. I'll say something
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1288968' date='Jun 5 2007, 10:41 PM']...
What about the mass murder of Copts? Was that condemned by the Pope and if it was, give proof.[/quote]

I just gotta say as I follow this debate, "what is the point of this statement?" Seriously, I don't know anything about the mass murder of Copts, but I'm sure that would be condemned as well. The main Idea of the "Crusades" (a very modern term btw) was to help our Eastern Brethren. Now it's villanised as the greatest Roman Catholic scandal next to the Inquisition (in which they used sharp instruments to torture people, according to common belief). Let's keep this thread topical. I'll crack open a thread on Crusades if you will.

God Be with you my friend.

+

Edited June 6, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1288977' date='Jun 5 2007, 07:50 PM']Okay, Okay. I'll say something
I just gotta say as I follow this debate, "what is the point of this statement?" Seriously, I don't know anything about the mass murder of Copts, but I'm sure that would be condemned as well. The main Idea of the "Crusades" (a very modern term btw) was to help our Eastern Brethren. Now it's villanised as the greatest Roman Catholic scandal next to the Inquisition (in which they used sharp instruments to torture people, according to common belief). Let's keep this thread topical. I'll crack open a thread on Crusades if you will.

God Be with you my friend.

+[/quote]

I definately think that we should keep this on topic, and it's topic is about the Quran, but if people are going to over-stereotype Muslim history [which this thread isn't about history of Islam], then the Crusades does apply to some degree.

Reza

[misereremi]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1288176' date='Jun 4 2007, 11:33 PM']Islam it's about interpreting the Quran and Hadeeths properly[/quote]
With my simple and very basic reasoning, I can't see how there can be one authoritative proper interpretation of the Qur'an when we no longer have any of the original texts since Uthman, and the order of the suras has been changed, and one verse can abrogate another, which contraddicts one of the sura's on Allah's word being perfect- so doesn't need changing. When I ask these questions to my Muslim friends, they tell me I'm wrong about this...am I?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='misereremi' post='1289333' date='Jun 6 2007, 03:04 AM']With my simple and very basic reasoning, I can't see how there can be one authoritative proper interpretation of the Qur'an when we no longer have any of the original texts since Uthman, and the order of the suras has been changed, and one verse can abrogate another, which contraddicts one of the sura's on Allah's word being perfect- so doesn't need changing. When I ask these questions to my Muslim friends, they tell me I'm wrong about this...am I?[/quote]

That's a key question... Muslims will say that no scriptures in the Qur'an contradict each other, others would obviously disagree and take the view that scriptures in the Qur'an definately have contradictory statements. The key lies in understanding the start of Islam, from before the time the Qur'an was written.

Reza

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1284674' date='May 30 2007, 07:39 PM']Being that several individuals [not just mortify] believe that the only method to true Muslims being peaceful, is to denounce their religion, I decided the only proper thing to do is to dedicate a thread to him [and those that agree with him], as to give him [them] an opportunity to prove everyone else wrong. Since Muslims don't believe in the supremacy of a man, but are sola scriptures as Protestants but with the Qur'an as their Holy Book, this shouldn't be difficult for Mortify [and the others] to prove everyone else wrong. It might even be educational to those of us that were raised Muslim or among Muslims that fundementally disagree with them.

I'm very much looking forward to this discussion, so that these matters can be put to rest once and for all.

Reza[/quote]

With respect, what does it matter whether Muslims are "sola scriptura" with respect to the Koran. It is false. Scientologists might be "sola scriptura" with respect to "Battlefield Earth," but since that book was spawned in the fevered imagination of L. Ron Hubbard, so what?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1289380' date='Jun 6 2007, 07:30 AM']With respect, what does it matter whether Muslims are "sola scriptura" with respect to the Koran. It is false. Scientologists might be "sola scriptura" with respect to "Battlefield Earth," but since that book was spawned in the fevered imagination of L. Ron Hubbard, so what?[/quote]

Because the Qur'an is the key to understanding Muslims and their belief, and it's not completely false, not to mention you don't know it's false till you know what's written. You can't judge a book by it's cover, you have to read it and decide for yourself, what you think about it. Islam began as a sect of Christianity, so it has to be seen as such, in order to defuse it. I once heard someone say, in order to untie a knot, you first have to know how it was tied.

Reza

[misereremi]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1289347' date='Jun 6 2007, 01:12 PM']That's a key question... Muslims will say that no scriptures in the Qur'an contradict each other, others would obviously disagree and take the view that scriptures in the Qur'an definately have contradictory statements. The key lies in understanding the start of Islam, from before the time the Qur'an was written.

Reza[/quote]
What is your view on the origins of Islam? I have a friend from North Africa who told me they used to honour the soul of Jesus, as they believed Jesus was not human- yet not quite Divine either. I can't remember the Arabic name for this but he mentioned it. This is not supported by the Qur'an.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1289383' date='Jun 6 2007, 08:39 AM']Because the Qur'an is the key to understanding Muslims and their belief, and it's not completely false, not to mention you don't know it's false till you know what's written. You can't judge a book by it's cover, you have to read it and decide for yourself, what you think about it. Islam began as a sect of Christianity, so it has to be seen as such, in order to defuse it. I once heard someone say, in order to untie a knot, you first have to know how it was tied.

Reza[/quote]


Islam is false and so is the quran face the facts. They do not believe Christ as God, they are not a sect of Christianity. Muhammad being a greater prophet than Christ is another great error of blasphemy.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1289383' date='Jun 6 2007, 08:39 AM']Because the Qur'an is the key to understanding Muslims and their belief, and it's not completely false, not to mention you don't know it's false till you know what's written. You can't judge a book by it's cover, you have to read it and decide for yourself, what you think about it. Islam began as a sect of Christianity, so it has to be seen as such, in order to defuse it. I once heard someone say, in order to untie a knot, you first have to know how it was tied.

Reza[/quote]

OK, while I agree it's a good thing to know where someone else is coming from in order to have a meaningful and respectful conversation, I don't necessarily need to read the Koran to know that its false. What does it say about Jesus? Prophet? Wrong. Ipso facto, false. And even if we grant that Islam began as a "sect" of Christianity, it is at best a heresy, again, false.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287867' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:08 AM']According to you, not according to most scholars.[/quote]

However historically the quran has been used to spread Islam by force and the sword.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287867' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:08 AM']I did use history, but in relation to the Quran, the history debate that you're attempting to turn this into isn't based upon the Quran but the sources that you consider credible.[/quote]

Socrates and I, as well as yourself, and my sources sited verses of the quran and history along with it.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287867' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:08 AM']Not nessessarily, Sola Scriptures doesn't say that all scriptures must be taken literally, which is why most Protestants take a significant amount of the scriptures to be figurative [such as the Eucharist].[/quote]

Actually in talks with protestants it would seem they still believe in the literally sense just in a completely different way, they believe Christ was speaking of his spiritual body because He mentions the word "spirit."

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287867' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:08 AM']No, I went through several of them, and gave the proper interpretation, not my opinion.[/quote]

By several there are only two verses which you have responded to which Socrates provided. 4:47 and 9:29. And in that you did use opinion with historical events. In your opinion you concluded that those verses only applied to the Christians of the time, however that same tax has been used on many Christians through out time. The other verse has also been used to war against and kill Christians. Again the quran is a false book it has no one true meaning. It has been used in times past and today for war.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287867' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:08 AM']No, I provided the interpretation that most Qur'anic Scholars take, that was factually accurate.[/quote]

The quran is not factual or accurate, your scholars may have their interpretation, but others have had theirs to spread war and their faith.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287867' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:08 AM']This is a flip flop position of yours, first you say that either they were forced to convert or they were executed, now you're saying the opposite, after I'd proved you wrong, I believe the truth has spoken for itself [no offense].[/quote]

No, actually what was said was they were given the choice to convert, submit or die. Some submitted and became second class, Its not a flip flop if you were able to comprehend my whole of my argument and not what you think my argument is you would be able to see that. It would be quite impossible kill everybody of every city that did not convert so some submitted by choice and other forced to submit. Again those that did not convert were still put into a second class citizenship.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287867' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:08 AM']No they did not both still continue to spread Islam by the sword, the Shiites fled to Persia to take refuge.[/quote]

The Kharijites were Shiites, originally and they did spread Islam by the sword.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287867' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:08 AM']What do you mean it was never said? It was said over and over again, would you like me to quote you and Socrates?[/quote]

Waste your time, you wont find it.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287867' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:08 AM']I never suggested that he was a prophet or that he placed Christ as Lord, rather I wrote from the Muslims perspective [which was very clear], since you had made a statement that was contrary to what they believe...[/quote]

I was only stating facts about Christ and mohammed if groups of people believe otherwise oh well.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1287867' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:08 AM']This is your interpretation and even more so propaganda. Most Muslims do not interpret it to say the spreading of Islam by the sword. Even most Islamic Scholars don't, so you're kinda on your own here.[/quote]

Anything you dont like is propaganda and thats lame. Historically the quran has been used to spread Islam by force and the sword, sorry you can not understand this..

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1289483' date='Jun 6 2007, 12:36 PM']OK, while I agree it's a good thing to know where someone else is coming from in order to have a meaningful and respectful conversation, I don't necessarily need to read the Koran to know that its false. What does it say about Jesus? Prophet? Wrong. Ipso facto, false. And even if we grant that Islam began as a "sect" of Christianity, it is at best a heresy, again, false.[/quote]


Yeap.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='misereremi' post='1289424' date='Jun 6 2007, 09:49 AM']What is your view on the origins of Islam? I have a friend from North Africa who told me they used to honour the soul of Jesus, as they believed Jesus was not human- yet not quite Divine either. I can't remember the Arabic name for this but he mentioned it. This is not supported by the Qur'an.[/quote]

Muslims used to pray towards Jerusalem, rather then Mecca. The term "Qur'an" came from a Syriac Orthodox book known as the "Quryana", it mentions several Syriac Martyrs. Muhammeds uncle was a Priest [I think a bishop if I remember correctly]. Praying 5 times a day, came from Syriac Orthodox Monks that prayed seven formal prayers... and the list goes on and yes, Islam began as a Christian sect.


[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1289467' date='Jun 6 2007, 11:28 AM']Islam is false and so is the quran face the facts. They do not believe Christ as God, they are not a sect of Christianity. Muhammad being a greater prophet than Christ is another great error of blasphemy.[/quote]

No not everything in the Qur'an is false, there is lots of facts. They began as a sect of Christianity like Protestantism and evolved into what is seen now. The problem is obvious, you've never read the Qur'an, so you don't know what it contains.


[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1289483' date='Jun 6 2007, 11:36 AM']OK, while I agree it's a good thing to know where someone else is coming from in order to have a meaningful and respectful conversation, I don't necessarily need to read the Koran to know that its false. What does it say about Jesus? Prophet? Wrong. Ipso facto, false. And even if we grant that Islam began as a "sect" of Christianity, it is at best a heresy, again, false.[/quote]

How can you know what it says about Jesus until you've read it? Again... you've got to know how the knot was tied before you can begin to untie it.

Reza

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1288968' date='Jun 5 2007, 08:41 PM']I did provide proof, I gave you a link to a George Town University Professor [and could even give you links to Muslim scholars if you would like, but I thought I'd tap into a less bias perspective first] that proved your thoughts on history to be lacking, and that Islam spread more through merchants, then through violence.[/quote]
That article did not provide much of a refutation of anything I posted.
It gave an extremely short (and blandly p.c.) one-page account of the history of Islam. It did not refute any of the facts I and KnightofChrist mentioned, but essentially glossed over the "hows" of the early spread of Islam. None of the facts of the battles of Muslim aggression nor repressive policies towards Christians were refuted, but simply not mentioned at all.

And the passage from the article you quote as "proof" against my claims is not even about the same period of history I was referring to, as is evident when the sentence before is included in the quote:
[quote][b]From the end of the effective power of the caliphs in the tenth century to the beginning of the sixteenth[/b], the size of the Muslim world almost doubled. The vehicles for expansion were not conquering armies so much as traveling merchants and itinerant teachers.[/quote](emphasis added)
That's right, he's talking here about the spread of Islam [i]specifically from the 10th to 16th centuries[/i], [i]after[/i] Mohammed and [i]after[/i] the great military Muslim expansion of the 8th-9th centuries.
Hardly a refutation of anything I've posted.

[quote]No it wasn't the practice of that time, it was what you think the practice was but that I'd provided evidence [even though the Qur'an]that that wasn't the practice of that time. It seems that you're trying despirately to hold onto your stereotypes, rather then take the Qur'an for what it says...[/quote]
You have provided not a shred of evidence to prove me wrong.
The source I was using was Dr. Warren Carroll's [i]The Building of Christendom[/i], using for this statement the source John Baggot Glubb's [i]The Great Arab Conquests [/i]and Phillip K. Hitti's [i]History of the Arabs from the Earliest Times to the Prese[/i]nt, 5th Ed.

From Wikipedia:[quote]Jews and Christians living in Muslim lands had the status of dhimmi and were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy".[95]They were guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, [b]in return for paying tribute (jizya) and acknowledging Muslim supremacy. Dhimmis were subject to legal restrictions such as prohibitions against bearing arms or bans against giving testimony in court in cases involving Muslims[/b].[96]

Regarding religions other than Judaism and Christianity, Islamic law states that unless there is a pact between members of these religions and Muslims, they are to be fought and compelled to accept Islam. However, in practice the status of dhimmi was extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus, and members of other scriptural faiths as well.[97] Outspoken atheists and agnostics, though, were considered beyond the pale of tolerance.[98][/quote] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Other_religions"]Go here to read the Wikipedia article and check its sources from the footnotes.[/url]

And I am the one who has been "taking the Q'ran for what it says" while you have been trying to explain these passages away ("it only means fighting in a spiritual sense", etc.).

[quote]I said that it was contained in the sense that it is in Egypt, to where Christians are kept from Proslytizing, but had Christian children for centuries to come that were Christian, and from time to time, [b]against the will of the gov [/b]even Proslytized.[/quote]Even you admit here that Christians were not allowed by the Muslim law to "proslytize" - i.e. spread the Gospel.

[quote]No, I gave the proper interpretation and context of the scripture, you went on a tangent into your stereotypes, based upon nothing in the Qur'an and a very dense version of Islamic History.[/quote]You told what battle one of the passages was written after, and gave statements without proof concerning its "proper interpretation." (Which apparently most of the early Muslim leaders did not agree with.)

[quote]What about the mass murder of Copts? Was that condemned by the Pope and if it was, give proof.[/quote]
I don't know what you're talking about here, but whatever happened, it sure as hell wasn't ordered by the Pope. If you claim it was, the burden of proof is on you, yet this has nothing to do with the subject on hand but is a diversion. Start another thread if you wish to discuss this. (Who's "going off on tangents"? -Sheesh!)

[quote]Caliphs of Sunni Islam, not Muslims as a whole... as Shiites weren't part of it.
Read the link before you rush to judgements.[/quote]
And the large majority of Muslims are Sunni.
Are you now going to claim that the Sunni are not "true Muslims"?
The Sunni claim to follow the Qu'ran, as do the Shiites.
And as far as I'm aware, the Shiites aren't pacifists.

Anyway, unless you can provide specific evidence that any of my claims are false - rather than giving broad denials and dismissing any history which claims the spread of Islam was less than peaceful as "propaganda" - I am afraid this debate with you has run its course. You have hardly been convincing.

Edited June 7, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1289612' date='Jun 6 2007, 04:33 PM']and the list goes on and yes, Islam began as a Christian sect.
No not everything in the Qur'an is false, there is lots of facts. They began as a sect of Christianity like Protestantism and evolved into what is seen now.[/quote]
Once again you are wrong.
The Muslims explicitly deny the Divinity of Christ - they only honor Him as a Prophet, but claim that Mohammed is a greater prophet.

They do not even claim to be Christian.