So I have never in our many discussions about this subject not made false quotes or blatant misdirections then I gather, is that what you mean?lowing wrote:
yes it was, you asked for an example and I gave you one.Varegg wrote:
It was a direct answer to MY post lowing ...lowing wrote:
and I have never claimed YOU did, so I have no need to try again
not that I can immediately point out, noVaregg wrote:
So I have never in our many discussions about this subject not made false quotes or blatant misdirections then I gather, is that what you mean?lowing wrote:
yes it was, you asked for an example and I gave you one.Varegg wrote:
It was a direct answer to MY post lowing ...
Last edited by lowing (2009-11-12 04:24:43)
I'm not saying it can't or haven't happened but I highly doubt it was with intent ...lowing wrote:
not that I can immediately point out, noVaregg wrote:
So I have never in our many discussions about this subject not made false quotes or blatant misdirections then I gather, is that what you mean?lowing wrote:
yes it was, you asked for an example and I gave you one.
are you now claiming that false statements and quotes are not attributed to me in an effort to lie for the intended mis-direction from points that I have actually said or made?
Ok well now you are busted..........Point out where I said "ALL arguments against my opinions are misdirections and false quotes".Varegg wrote:
I'm not saying it can't or haven't happened but I highly doubt it was with intent ...lowing wrote:
not that I can immediately point out, noVaregg wrote:
So I have never in our many discussions about this subject not made false quotes or blatant misdirections then I gather, is that what you mean?
are you now claiming that false statements and quotes are not attributed to me in an effort to lie for the intended mis-direction from points that I have actually said or made?
... if you constantly think all arguments against your opinions are misdirections and false quotes I suddenly understand you way better
You are mistaken. Read again. I highlighted for clarity. I will also explain what I meant by "example": it was not a specific citation from the Qu'ran, but and example of "short" and "long" verses and the chronological relationship being subsumed by the length of the verse rule, rendering the (more important) temporal relationship invalid.Beduin wrote:
...meaning the "Peace and love" verses AND "kill all infidels" are equally valid!FEOS wrote:
Good to see they're addressing the key issues.Beduin wrote:
5 issues that has been "updated" in the quran - few verses "cancelled" by new ones.
1. Direction of the prayers.
2. Period of time a widow have to wait before getting married again.
3. How many enemies should one muslim stand against in battles.
4. Alcohol
5. Charity matter.
If I am not mistaken, it is sura 9 verse 5 where you read "kill all infidels"?
FEOS wrote:
If, for example, there were a revelation that was fairly succinct: "kill all infidels" (just an example), then later in life, a revelation came that said "non-believers should be embraced as fellow humans and given every opportunity to believe and not put to the sword, even should they choose not to believe in Islam" (again...just an example).
Last edited by lowing (2009-11-12 18:27:31)
The Quran is not in chronological order, but arranged roughly longest surah (chapter) to the shortest. That is correct.FEOS wrote:
You are mistaken. Read again. I highlighted for clarity. I will also explain what I meant by "example": it was not a specific citation from the Qu'ran, but and example of "short" and "long" verses and the chronological relationship being subsumed by the length of the verse rule, rendering the (more important) temporal relationship invalid.
Point: Keep your promises, no matter who it is."9:4 But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous."
Point: This verse tells the muslims not to fight all 12 months of the year, but have a 3 months off, to offer peace and for negotiations. If that failed, the fighting will continue after those three months -muslim soldiers get sent home to the families in these three months."9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
Back to sura 9 verse 6During his life, Muhammad gave various injunctions to his forces and adopted practices toward the conduct of war. The most important of these were summarized by Muhammad's companion, Abu Bakr, in the form of ten rules for the Muslim army:[7]
“ Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone. ”
Point: Do not kill all infidels!!"9:6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge."
Last edited by Beduin (2009-11-12 22:33:48)
I don't think we have the same definition of "contradictions" in the Quran. I have posted the issues that were "updated". This is the concept of "abrogation" in the Quran.FEOS wrote:
The issue arises when you get contradictions in the text. There are contradictions in the text of the Qur'an just as there are in the Torah and the Bible. In the latter two, the contradictions are dealt with by the chronological nature of the assemblage of the text--what comes later in the book is more "current" guidance, if you will.
Where do you get this from?FEOS wrote:
That is not the case with the Qur'an--what is shorter is what is the "latest" guidance in the event of a conflict.
Let us look at it this way: It means that I as a muslim, can keep this verse and throw the rest away?FEOS wrote:
The key issue arises, I suppose, when one considers that 9-5 was either the last or next-to-last revelation to Muhammad (depending on which historian you read). When one applies the chronological principle of abrogation, it overrides pretty much everything else.
If one were to read the Qur'an absent an understanding of its construction--assuming it to be constructed in chronological order like all other texts--then one would easily buy in to the concept that the violent aspects of 9-5 were abrogated by the verses appearing "later" in the book. But since those verses actually were revealed previous to 9-5, they are the ones actually abrogated by it.
That's much shorter that 9:5. It says I as a muslim must grant non muslims asylum and make sure they are safe in my land. I also can not stop linking it to the previous verse. It is "infidels" that seek asylum in muslim land while muslims are at war with their "infidel" King or whatever."9:6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge."
you got itATG wrote:
Just so I am clear; be a radical leaning Muslim trying to connect with AQ members and wanting soldiers convicted of war crimes while serving in the military, no problem.
Be a conservative religious person who maybe supports Palin and blogs against obamacare and end up on a watchlist.
to do the other would be racist.lowing wrote:
you got itATG wrote:
Just so I am clear; be a radical leaning Muslim trying to connect with AQ members and wanting soldiers convicted of war crimes while serving in the military, no problem.
Be a conservative religious person who maybe supports Palin and blogs against obamacare and end up on a watchlist.
According to the abrogation doctrine, yes. That is the issue.Beduin wrote:
I can also walk along your path, but then I ask, what about verse 9:6?That's much shorter that 9:5. It says I as a muslim must grant non muslims asylum and make sure they are safe in my land. I also can not stop linking it to the previous verse. It is "infidels" that seek asylum in muslim land while muslims are at war with their "infidel" King or whatever."9:6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge."
Does verse 9:5 cancel this one too?
And where did you get this doctrine?According to the abrogation doctrine, yes. That is the issue.
I lernt it. Maybe you should try it some time.Dilbert_X wrote:
And where did you get this doctrine?According to the abrogation doctrine, yes. That is the issue.
Verse 5 in chapter 9 (9:5) is not that last verse, where do you have that?FEOS wrote:
According to the abrogation doctrine, yes. That is the issue.
Chronologically, 9:5 came after 9:6, thus abrogating any confliction between the two. That is the inherent contradiction in the structure of the Qur'an with Western audiences, as that nuance is not known/understood. One has to know the chronological order of revelation, as the literary order is different. 9:6 and 9:5 being an excellent case in point. To one who does not understand the chronology of Muhammad's revelations and the literary order of the suras--and more importantly, the differences between the two--one would think 9:6 abrogates 9:5, when the exact opposite is actually true.
No shorter/longer, super verse takes out everything!Among the verses in the Quran containing orders or laws there are verses that abrogate verses previously revealed and acted upon. These abrogating verse are called _nasikh_ and those whose validity they terminate are called _mansukh_.
The common notion of abrogation, that is, canceling of one law or code by another, is based on the idea that a new law is needed because of a mistake or shortcoming in the previous one. It is clearly inappropriate to ascribe a mistake in law-making to God, Who is perfect, and whose creation admit of no flaws.
However, in the Quran, the abrogating verses mark the end of the validity of the abrogated verses because their heed and effect was of a temporary or limited nature. In time the new law appears and announces the end of the validity of the earlier law. Considering that Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in ever-changing circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine the necessity of such laws.
It is in this light that we should regard the wisdom of abrogation within the Quran:
"And when we put a revelation in place of (another) revelation and Allah knows best what He reveals -- they say: you are just inventing it. Most of them do not know. Say: The Holy Spirit (Gibril) has revealed it from your hand with truth and as a guidance and good news for those who have surrendered (to God)" [16:101-102]
It is a science on its own in Islam to know the Nasikh and Mansukh.
Hajj Gibril
MMVIII © SunniPath.
Surah At-Tawba (Arabic: سورة التوبة, Sūratu at-Tawbah, "The Repentance") also known as al-Bara'ah "the Ultimatum" in many ahadith is the ninth chapter of the Qur'an, with 129 verses (see, however, the discussion of ahadith 785-787 in Sunan Abi Dawood, relating to merging Suras 8 and 9, and the discussion of numbering the Basmala (q.v.)). It is one of the last Madinan Suras. It is the only Sura of the Qur'an that does not begin with the bismillah. The starting verses of this sura were revealed at the time of war. It is therefore that Allah demands the Muslims to fight under these situations.
Last edited by Beduin (2009-11-17 07:44:44)
You should read more then.Dilbert_X wrote:
I tried that search already, I couldn't find an example which says what you say it does.
Go back and re-read what I said, Beduin.Beduin wrote:
Verse 5 in chapter 9 (9:5) is not that last verse, where do you have that?
It is sura/chapter 9 (Repentance), that is the 2nd last sura revealed to the Prophet.
FEOS wrote:
Go back and re-read what I said, Beduin.
?FEOS wrote:
Chronologically, 9:5 came after 9:6
Did you read why the FBI did nothing about the FT. Hood shooter, basically because they were afraid of the PC backlash. It is not more of the same, it PC run amok.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
ATG and all of the above, did you miss the part where the FBI was monitoring the Ft. Hood shooter?
Did you miss the part where previous administrations monitored radical groups not in line with their ideology? Ever heard of COINTELPRO? Ever read any articles about groups like Code Pink being monitored and infiltrated during the Bush presidency? Ever been to a protest where cops and plainclothes agents are wandering around taking pictures of everybody in attendance?
It's not change, it's more of the same!
Last edited by lowing (2009-11-18 09:12:35)
Yup......lowing wrote:
Did you read why the FBI did nothing about the FT. Hood shooter, basically because they were afraid of the PC backlash. It is not more of the same, it PC run amok.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
ATG and all of the above, did you miss the part where the FBI was monitoring the Ft. Hood shooter?
Did you miss the part where previous administrations monitored radical groups not in line with their ideology? Ever heard of COINTELPRO? Ever read any articles about groups like Code Pink being monitored and infiltrated during the Bush presidency? Ever been to a protest where cops and plainclothes agents are wandering around taking pictures of everybody in attendance?
It's not change, it's more of the same!
IF anyone did anything about this guy BEFORE te shootings, this forum would have exploded with outrage, charges of racism, discrimination, profiling,,..All condemning the US, for its actions against "all Muslims."
Yeah this whole innocent before you commit a crime thing is fucking with the cleansing efficiently.lowing wrote:
Did you read why the FBI did nothing about the FT. Hood shooter, basically because they were afraid of the PC backlash. It is not more of the same, it PC run amok.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
ATG and all of the above, did you miss the part where the FBI was monitoring the Ft. Hood shooter?
Did you miss the part where previous administrations monitored radical groups not in line with their ideology? Ever heard of COINTELPRO? Ever read any articles about groups like Code Pink being monitored and infiltrated during the Bush presidency? Ever been to a protest where cops and plainclothes agents are wandering around taking pictures of everybody in attendance?
It's not change, it's more of the same!
IF anyone did anything about this guy BEFORE te shootings, this forum would have exploded with outrage, charges of racism, discrimination, profiling,,..All condemning the US, for its actions against "all Muslims."
Plenty of crimes have been thwarted through intervention, also stopping him before he commits a crime gets him charged with all kinds of shit, that does not have to be murder. Ever here of conspiracy or intent?DrunkFace wrote:
Yeah this whole innocent before you commit a crime thing is fucking with the cleansing efficiently.lowing wrote:
Did you read why the FBI did nothing about the FT. Hood shooter, basically because they were afraid of the PC backlash. It is not more of the same, it PC run amok.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
ATG and all of the above, did you miss the part where the FBI was monitoring the Ft. Hood shooter?
Did you miss the part where previous administrations monitored radical groups not in line with their ideology? Ever heard of COINTELPRO? Ever read any articles about groups like Code Pink being monitored and infiltrated during the Bush presidency? Ever been to a protest where cops and plainclothes agents are wandering around taking pictures of everybody in attendance?
It's not change, it's more of the same!
IF anyone did anything about this guy BEFORE te shootings, this forum would have exploded with outrage, charges of racism, discrimination, profiling,,..All condemning the US, for its actions against "all Muslims."
Can't be bothered, if you can't be bothered to back up your argument I'm not doing it for you.FEOS wrote:
You should read more then.
Nope haven't read that. Link Plz.lowing wrote:
Did you read why the FBI did nothing about the FT. Hood shooter, basically because they were afraid of the PC backlash.
