Hall of FameHall of Fame  Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp  chatChat
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
InterReligious Dialogue
 Whyislam.org Forums : General : InterReligious Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Crucifixtion Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 10 Next >>
Author Message
waheed1  
Admin Group
Admin Group

Whyislam Shura
Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 3986
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote waheed1 Replybullet Posted: 15 October 2014 at 8:35pm
I’m not convinced of much respect Waheed but I was expecting a character assassination. Qureshi is third generation Islamic missionary, he learned Arabic before Urdu (his parents language) and English (he was raised in America). He memorised the Quran at a very young age. He was very well versed in Quranic defence and Biblical attack including the standard 'your Bible is corrupt' and 'Jesus never claimed to be God'. What happened was that on closer investigation he realised the attacks on the Bible were baseless and the case for Islam crumbled. He had every reason to reject Christianity and no reason to accept it other except for the truth.


It's interesting that the argument you posed about 'If you take a life, it's like killing all humanity/if you save a life it's like saving all humanity' as speaking only to the Israelites [thus, implying Islam has an allowance for killing Christians] is also posed by Qureishi. I saw it on one of his videos, maybe you are following his argument [and who knows where he got that argument]. What's also interesting to me is that Quraishi mentions this in context of his going to an Islamic convention [looks like he registered and everything], "undercover" so to speak [since he has a Muslim name] with no other real purpose but to argue with Muslims and post a video about it.

My question is simple, to him, and to you even, why even bother going to Muslim events and- in your case- Muslim websites? You know what Muslims say about Jesus, about a host of other things, why even spend time arguing about what Muslims believe? I mean, I don't go to Churches and debate Trinity or go to Christian websites and go around in circles with them. It just seems so pointless, unless....

It's just an expression or a demonstration of hatred anyways? I hope that's not the case with you, and since I don't know Qureishi I can't ask him the same questions.

If it's not hatred, then please listen carefully. You have been posting here trying to assert something about Islam that has never been said before by Muslims. It's not theological or some opinion on a text, it's  the assertion that [1] Muslims are being unfaithful to the text when they say they are not interested in killing people [2] That the text teaches killing of Christians specifically.

Now, all the Muslims here have refuted those two points. It should have been enough for you to atleast acknowledge that the Muslims themselves understand the texts to say that murder is inherently wrong, but you keep going down this illogical path.

Think about it.
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
muslimapoclyptc  
Senior Member
Senior Member

Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 978
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote muslimapoclyptc Replybullet Posted: 16 October 2014 at 6:06am
Originally posted by Mad Cat

Neither Jesus nor Paul (post conversion) are recorded fighting, or warring or harming anyone let alone killing, torturing or maiming.

The only case we see of violence done by Jesus' followers in his presence is the cutting off of the ear of the servant to which Jesus commanded an immediate end and even repaired the damage.

I think the passage in Romans is a call to not rebel against the authorities. Many people thought the Messiah was going to be a warrior king that would liberate the Jewish people from the Romans but this was not Jesus' purpose and Paul emphasises this.

However neither Prophet 'Eyssa ("Jesus") nor Paul were tasked with managing public affairs. Therefore, the fact that they were not engaged in wars, battles, killing, etc. is as relevant as the fact that Prophet Muhammad didn't engage in those things either before he became the ruler/potentate/"head-of-state" of the city-state of Yathrib (Medina).

In this case, a better comparison would be how "Jesus" , in the Bible, is prophesied to be during his second coming, which is anything but peaceful.

Originally posted by Mad Cat

I don’t agree. For one thing there is nothing but peaceful aspects of Jesus to follow. He never killed nor anything of the sort so even if someone wanted they could not use Jesus as a violent inspiration. Secondly I don’t think we choose Jesus at the expense of Moses etc. They are an essential part of the story that Jesus is the fulfilment of. We don’t just have the Jesus bits in our Bible but include these others too. Not so we can choose a different role model depending on the year or our moods but because they are all important and we need this history to appreciate Jesus all the more.

But they are history. Recordings of what God said to Noah, Moses, David etc, not open commands for all people for all time, that is the difference.

In fact the OT is open-ended and prescriptive in this regard (ex: Deuteronomy 20:10-17, Psalms 149:5-8), whereas the Qur'an precludes its commands of violence with their being "no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256), to only "fight those who fight you" until you either prevail against them or they cease hostilities against you (Qur'an 2:190-193, 4:89-91). This is also proven to be a state-related matter, and not an individual obligation, by the usage of plural terms, including the collective "they" and "them", in reference to those who are being fought. Had it been the obligation of the individual, then individual, singular terms would have been used at least once as prescriptions for the individual always tend to use singular terms. Further evidence is the mention of treaties with them, which are things only those in positions of authority can establish and apply to large collectives of people rather than individuals. Then there is the historical context, which confirms that it was in regards to warring tribes and communities, who could be (and were) referred to collectively as unbelievers, polytheists, hypocrites and/or "people of the book".

Originally posted by Mad Cat

Many would claim this verse is abrogated by the violent ones such as the one in question. But as per my thread on this subject, no one knows which verses are abrogated even after 1400 years. So I presume it will fall on the man wielding the sword to make the decision.

Only few would claim that verse to be abrogated by the violent ones. Abrogation is not subject to opinion, and all the verses in the Qur'an are applicable unless specifically stated otherwise in the Qur'an or in the ahadith.

Originally posted by Mad Cat

However as can be seen by the verse quoted above, barbarism in the form of Crucifixion, murder and dismemberment is actually commanded for the crime of corruption or mischief in the land.

Now what is more mischievous or corrupt than Shirk according to Islam?

It isn't simply "fasad" ("corruption") that the verse is talking about, but "fasad fil-'ard" ("corruption in the land"). Shirk is "corruption", but not necessarily "corruption in the land". The Qur'an associates "corruption in the land" with things like destroying people's livelihood (Qur'an 2:205) and piracy/armed robbery (Qur'an 30:41), which can be generally defined as harming and undermining the fabric of society by transgressing against others. This is further established by the fact that verse 5:32 mentions it together with "murder" (interesting that its mention in this instance isn't focused on) and verse 5:33 mentions it together with "waging war against Allah and His Messenger". It is only such crimes against the fabric of society that can properly be defined as "corruption in the land" in verse 5:33, and would qualify for the punishments the verse appropriates for it.

Since neither "shirk" nor "disbelief" are defined as being punishable in this world, and the fact that there is no compulsion in religion, then it must be concluded that the punishable corruption in verse 5:33 cannot refer to either "shirk" or "disbelief".

Originally posted by Mad Cat

I don’t know how you can say that. The verse mentions three 'crimes'.

  • Waging war against Allah

  • Waging war against Muhammad

  • Causing corruption in the land.

Now how do you wage war against Allah?

Waging war against Prophet Muhammad is the same as waging war against Allah, which is indicated by the fact that they are mentioned together. Waging war against the messenger automatically entails waging war against the one who sent him.



Edited by muslimapoclyptc - 17 October 2014 at 1:05am
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Corinna  
Graduate
Graduate

Religion: Judaism(Orthodox)
Posts: 2184
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Corinna Replybullet Posted: 16 October 2014 at 9:54am
Originally posted by muslimapoclyptc

However neither Prophet 'Eyssa (Jesus) nor Paul were tasked with managing public affairs. Therefore, the fact that they were not engaged in wars, battles, killing, etc. is as relevant as the fact that Prophet Muhammad didn't engage in those things either before he became the ruler/potentate/head-of-state of the city-state of Yathrib (Medina).

In this case, a better comparison would be how Jesus , in the Bible, is prophesied to be during his second coming, which is anything but peaceful.

But they are history. Recordings of what God said to Noah, Moses, David etc, not open commands for all people for all time, that is the difference.[/QUOTE

In fact the OT is open-ended and prescriptive in this regard (ex: Deuteronomy 20:10-17, Psalms 149:5-8), whereas the Qur'an precludes its commands of violence with their being "no compulsion in religion" (2:256), to only "fight those who fight you" until you either prevail against them or they cease hostilities against you (2:190-193, 4:89-91). This is also proven to be a state-related matter, and not an individual obligation, by the usage of plural terms, including the collective "they" and "them", in reference to those who are being fought. Had it been the obligation of the individual, then individual, singular terms would have been used at least once as prescriptions for the individual always tend to use singular terms. Further evidence is the mention of treaties with them, which are things only those in positions of authority can establish and apply to large collectives of people rather than individuals. Then there is the historical context, which confirms that it was in regards to warring tribes and communities, who could be (and were) referred to co

In fact the OT is open-ended and prescriptive in this regard (ex: Deuteronomy 20:10-17, Psalms 149:5-8), whereas the Qur'an precludes its commands of violence with their being "no compulsion in religion" (2:256), to only "fight those who fight you" until you either prevail against them or they cease hostilities against you (2:190-193, 4:89-91). This is also proven to be a state-related matter, and not an individual obligation, by the usage of plural terms, including the collective "they" and "them", in reference to those who are being fought. Had it been the obligation of the individual, then individual, singular terms would have been used at least once as prescriptions for the individual always tend to use singular terms. Further evidence is the mention of treaties with them, which are things only those in positions of authority can establish and apply to large collectives of people rather than individuals. Then there is the historical context, which confirms that it was in regards to warring tribes and communities, who could be (and were) referred to collectively as unbelievers, polytheists, hypocrites and/or "people of the book".

[QUOTE=Mad Cat]


If Jesus really was a Jew and cognizant of Judaism, he certainly had a say in military rule, local laws, commandments applied and those "commands" were definitely open to all people .. read Tahakh for proof.  You all use your own scripture to prove your points and leave Jewish scripture alone. 



Edited by Corinna - 16 October 2014 at 9:54am
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
muslimapoclyptc  
Senior Member
Senior Member

Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 978
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote muslimapoclyptc Replybullet Posted: 16 October 2014 at 3:36pm
Originally posted by Corinna

If Jesus really was a Jew and cognizant of Judaism, he certainly had a say in military rule, local laws, commandments applied and those "commands" were definitely open to all people .. read Tahakh for proof.  You all use your own scripture to prove your points and leave Jewish scripture alone. 


Except this isn't about who had a say in what, but about who was actually managing public affairs. Whatever "Jesus" had a say in, he was not responsible for managing public affairs, and nothing he is said to have said in the gospels pertains to it. The only example of "Jesus" to follow in terms of managing public affairs would be how he is portrayed during his second coming.


Edited by muslimapoclyptc - 16 October 2014 at 3:37pm
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
The_Rock
Mureed
Mureed

Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 4521
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote The_Rock Replybullet Posted: 16 October 2014 at 3:40pm
I'm not sure how waging a war against Muhammad is the same as waging war against God.

Let's take a simple argument. Say I argued with Muhammad about the price of dates...would that be arguing with God?
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
muslimapoclyptc  
Senior Member
Senior Member

Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 978
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote muslimapoclyptc Replybullet Posted: 16 October 2014 at 4:39pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

I'm not sure how waging a war against Muhammad is the same as waging war against God.

I've already explained it. Prophet Muhammad was the messenger of God. Waging war against the messenger is also, by extension, waging war against what he is tasked, as a messenger, to do (i.e. deliver and fulfill the message itself). Waging war against the message is also by extension, waging war against the one who sent it. Hence why the phrase "Allah and His Messenger" is used.

Like a king who sends an ambassador to deliver a message to people, and some wage war against the ambassador. Is that not also waging war against the king as well?

Originally posted by The_Rock

Let's take a simple argument. Say I argued with Muhammad about the price of dates...would that be arguing with God?


That would depend on whether the price of dates was ordained by God or not.


Edited by muslimapoclyptc - 16 October 2014 at 4:44pm
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
The_Rock
Mureed
Mureed

Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 4521
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote The_Rock Replybullet Posted: 16 October 2014 at 5:57pm
So would you say that christians, jews and various other non-muslims that he encountered were fair game in the pursuit of delivering "the message"?

I mean that is how I see it. After all they had every right to forbid him from preaching islam within their communities and causing a ruckus in their communities, and fight him if he didnt desist.

It seems to me very much like the victors have written islamic history, if at all we have any historically accurate stories about islam.

Thats another issue though, we really dont know much about early islam.

Edited by The_Rock - 16 October 2014 at 6:01pm
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
waheed1  
Admin Group
Admin Group

Whyislam Shura
Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 3986
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote waheed1 Replybullet Posted: 16 October 2014 at 8:51pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

I'm not sure how waging a war against Muhammad is the same as waging war against God.

Let's take a simple argument. Say I argued with Muhammad about the price of dates...would that be arguing with God?


No. Your example would not be 'making war against God and the messenger'.

After all, the Qur'an itself mentions, as example,  some of his wives coming up with a plan to cause him embarrassment [due to their mutual jealousy of a certain wife], to the point where he [The Prophet, Sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam]  wanted to divorce all of them, but does not call it 'making war on the Prophet'.

In the hadeeth literature, there's a narration which states that a man was unhappy with the distribution of goods and actually said to the Prophet "O Muhammad, Fear Allah!".

 Who could have more Taqwaa than the Messenger of God.

The point is that some silly thing or even  more serious thing is not 'making war on God and the messenger'. Rather, making war on Allah and the messenger means, in essence, to arrange resources, armies etc.. to destroy, to pillage and create social chaos.
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
muslimapoclyptc  
Senior Member
Senior Member

Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 978
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote muslimapoclyptc Replybullet Posted: 16 October 2014 at 9:05pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

So would you say that christians, jews and various other non-muslims that he encountered were fair game in the pursuit of delivering "the message"?


Depends on what you mean by "fair game". In terms of preaching, then yes, since the religion is basically meant for everyone to follow.

Originally posted by The_Rock

I mean that is how I see it. After all they had every right to forbid him from preaching islam within their communities and causing a ruckus in their communities, and fight him if he didnt desist.


Communities have a right to reject someone's preaching but they do not have a right to forbid someone from preaching. Initiating an armed campaign of repression/elimination against someone and his community of followers, gives that community of followers every right to resist and fight against those attacking them.

Originally posted by The_Rock

It seems to me very much like the victors have written islamic history, if at all we have any historically accurate stories about islam.

Thats another issue though, we really dont know much about early islam.


Islamic history is mostly consistent with the history of everything around it, so it is arguably quite accurate. Islam, unlike Christianity, had the benefit of being exoteric, had its own state early on and was established in its doctrine from the beginning.

No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
The_Rock
Mureed
Mureed

Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 4521
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote The_Rock Replybullet Posted: 16 October 2014 at 10:11pm
Sure they have the right to forbid whatever they wish to forbid.

Why would you think that there is no right to forbid preaching an alien ideology?

Even today islamic societies do not permit freedom of speech.

My thoughts on islamic history are a different issue, discussing islamic history is a long and detailed subject. Suffice it to say that from my understanding islamic history is completely lost and what we have today is a reconstruction.
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
muslimapoclyptc  
Senior Member
Senior Member

Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 978
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote muslimapoclyptc Replybullet Posted: 17 October 2014 at 1:02am
Originally posted by The_Rock

Sure they have the right to forbid whatever they wish to forbid.

Why would you think that there is no right to forbid preaching an alien ideology?


They may have a legal right to forbid it, but not a moral right, and the ones they are repressing have every moral right, but no legal right, to resist the repression.

Originally posted by The_Rock

Even today islamic societies do not permit freedom of speech.


Freedom of speech is limited no matter what society you are in. That is besides the point, as this pertains more to freedom of information and freedom of conscience, which are rights that belong to everyone.

Originally posted by The_Rock

My thoughts on islamic history are a different issue, discussing islamic history is a long and detailed subject. Suffice it to say that from my understanding islamic history is completely lost and what we have today is a reconstruction.


When Islamic sources are avoided or denounced when trying to understand Islamic history, it may appear that the history is "lost". But that counter-intuitive approach erroneously assumes that everything recorded in Muslim tradition is false unless it is corroborated from a non-Muslim source. It is an extremely biased approach, and conclusions derived from it are very unlikely to even be remotely accurate.
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
The_Rock
Mureed
Mureed

Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 4521
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote The_Rock Replybullet Posted: 17 October 2014 at 6:03am
You have lost me.

What is a moral right? as opposed to a legal right?

Can you provide an example.

You mention limitations to freedom of speech.
I am not sure how you divorce freedom of speech from freedom of information.

How can you recieve or disseminate information if your right to speech is limited?

Do you see the contradiction?

No the Islamic sources themselves claim to be a reconstruction of lost history.

Edited by The_Rock - 17 October 2014 at 7:22am
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Mad Cat  
Graduate
Graduate
Avatar
Religion: Christian(Non-Denom.)
Posts: 2468
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Mad Cat Replybullet Posted: 17 October 2014 at 7:34am
Originally posted by Waheed

I did not say the translation should be 'maximum' . I said the explanation is is that the text contains the maximum punishment.

And I am saying that all translators see it as saying the ‘only’ punishment. When you change it to ‘maximum’ you make it seem as though the mentioned crimes could be dealt with by a number of responses that could maybe include ignoring it or a stern word and of all these the maximum punishment is being tortured to death. However the text is clear to eliminate all such mild reactions by saying ‘the only punishment is…’
Originally posted by Waheed

Sure it does. Because on one hand you claim to believe that the Qur'an teaches those who teach the claim of Christ's Divinity are guilty of a crime that demands execution, that they are spreading Fasaad, and on the other you acknowledge that the Muslims have allowed Christians to exist and have allowances to marry and socialize. Those are contrary positions.

No. A Christian who keeps their religion to themselves does not commit shirk publically and so would not be seen as causing corruption until they actively profess their faith.
Originally posted by Waheed

Yes, that's true. There are reasons for this. The Muslim accepts Jesus and Moses and Abraham, but the Christian rejects Muhammad. It would be an unequal situation. Moreover, why is this even being brought up at all? Doesn't Paul himself mention in the NT that one should not be bound together with unbelievers? Doesn't he also say in the same text "What does light have in common with darkness?"

The reason was that you mentioned that Muslims are allowed to marry Christians but this was only a half-truth.
Originally posted by Waheed

I already named one earlier. You have to get out of your bubble and experience life outside sometimes, so you can get a picture that's more nuanced than your black and white explanations.

That was not quite the list I was hoping for.
Originally posted by Waheed

Not really. Just because he knew something typically Muslims say doesn't mean he was some sort of person trained to argue down Christianity. Besides, his sect [or former sect I should say] main focus is on attempting to convince Muslims of the veracity of their founder's claims. After all, the mainstream Muslims and the Ahmadi sect have thousands of things already in common, it would be easier [from their POV] to address us rather than focusing on Christians. That doesn't mean they are against missionary activities to Christians, but their literature, personal discussions with them, leads me to the conclusion that they are mainly interested in getting Sunni Muslims to convert to the Ahmadi perspective.

I would have to say yes. Or else he would not have known these things. If all he knew was trying to convert Muslims he would have been ignorant of what the Christian scriptures said.
Originally posted by Waheed

Because you present him as some sort of Muslim scholar, when he was not.

I don’t think I called him a scholar but your knee-jerk reaction was to dismiss him as someone who knew very little. I think his knowledge speaks for itself.
Originally posted by Waheed

Getting personal or something? lol.

Only because you do the things he said he did as a Muslim like automatically rejecting Hadith that show Muhammad in a poor light. I mean no offence.
Originally posted by Waheed

You mention this a couple times during your subsequent discussions with Magister. Originally, you said the Prophet had 'mutilated people'. I didn't know what you were talking about till you posted a text you found online. After you posted it then I recalled the story. Yes, I automatically reject some assertions as not true. This is not my attempting to create a warm and fuzzy picture of the Prophet, upon whom be peace and blessings, rather, I am employing principles that have been recognized and established by the scholars since the earliest times.

Now, I told you about a particular book called Authentication of Hadith, redefining the criterion, by Israr Ahmad Khan. This person, whose specialty is hadeeth studies, on the basis of these principles, and on issues relating to chain of transmitters [which is beyond the scope of this thread] likewise rejects this assertion you have posted here. As said before, if your really interested in this science, beyond polemics, then please get this work. Reading Bukhari online does not make you an expert on the Prophet's life and teachings.

Please try to understand my situation. I started a thread about hadith and the response I got from Muslims is that Bukhari was a scholar of the highest degree who went to every effort to authenticate each hadith. Bukhari is the most respected collecter of Hadith in the Sunni world and I don’t believe this is disputed at all.
However as soon as you find a Bukhari hadith that a Muslims doesn’t like they dismiss it without giving it a thought. All that praise for Bukhari is dropped like a hot potato.
Should I take your opinion over Bukhari’s?
Originally posted by Waheed

I actually did share with you source, a Non Muslim famous academic and religion scholar, Karen Armstrong, whose biography of the Prophet you said you own.

Whoo there! Not so fast. You mentioned a story of what Muhammad did to the killers of Hamza and I asked you for the source. Are you saying that the source for this story is Karen Armstrong?
Originally posted by Waheed

Your out of focus. They are not only doing this. For sure, because we see this on Television, they also shoot people and but their bodies in water, they also throw bodies off of cliffs. The method of murder does not change the fact that it's a crime. It's still murder, regardless of the identity of the victims or the people doing it.

I never said they only did this. They are doing this however and I was wondering where they got the idea from. They might have got the idea to throw bodies off cliffs from the film 300 but that is not what I am asking.
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Mad Cat  
Graduate
Graduate
Avatar
Religion: Christian(Non-Denom.)
Posts: 2468
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Mad Cat Replybullet Posted: 17 October 2014 at 7:34am
Originally posted by Waheed

It's interesting that the argument you posed about 'If you take a life, it's like killing all humanity/if you save a life it's like saving all humanity' as speaking only to the Israelites [thus, implying Islam has an allowance for killing Christians] is also posed by Qureishi.

I think you are confusing things here. I am not saying the ‘to take/save a life’ gives an allowance for killing Christians. It clearly is very strongly against the killing of anyone BY THE JEWS. It is the next verse that talks about killing, but not specifically Christians.
Originally posted by Waheed

It's just an expression or a demonstration of hatred anyways? I hope that's not the case with you, and since I don't know Qureishi I can't ask him the same questions.

If it's not hatred, then please listen carefully. You have been posting here trying to assert something about Islam that has never been said before by Muslims. It's not theological or some opinion on a text, it's the assertion that [1] Muslims are being unfaithful to the text when they say they are not interested in killing people [2] That the text teaches killing of Christians specifically.

I never said the text says ‘specifically killing Christians’. You keep claiming I am saying things I am not and I don’t know why.
It is not hatred. If I hated Muslims I would probably avoid them or hit them with a hate filled rant. One reason I ask the questions I do is in the hope the Muslims here have good explanations. However I am not prepared to be fobbed off by misdirection or ad hominem or textual butchery and I will call you up on it if you try. When you or the other Muslims here ask a Christian question you don’t simply accept an answer on blind faith, why should I?
Originally posted by Waheed

Now, all the Muslims here have refuted those two points. It should have been enough for you to atleast acknowledge that the Muslims themselves understand the texts to say that murder is inherently wrong, but you keep going down this illogical path.

It is not illogical, just unconvincing.


Edited by Mad Cat - 17 October 2014 at 7:35am
Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 10 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums version 8.03
Copyright ©2001-2006 Web Wiz Guide
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed by members of the Whyislam Forum do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the Whyislam Team, or any of its subsidiaries, or parent organizations.