Wow, you are some piece of work, Boaz.

The bare-faced cheek!

>>I raised a specific issue.. "Surah 9:29 and Hadith Bukhari which uses that verse to justify/explain an invasion" All you did is attack 'me' rather than look at the issue itself. Shame... you have the incredible lack of integrity to just do an ad hominem and blame me for the 'blindingly obvious' ? <<

The issue with which I took issue (as it were) was your dig at my "lack of knowledge and understanding about how faith communities work."

And far, far from being an attack on you personally, I asked a couple of quite reasonable and rational questions - which in the best Boaz tradition I notice, you sidestepped by attacking me!!

What cheek indeed!!

About your famous Surah, I have no comment. I have never accepted that you are in a position to interpret any of the Qur'an in a credible manner, since you are a Christian, with a Christian axe to grind. You will therefore never find me engaging in a discussion about it, or any of the other verses you so carefully select.

>>of all the cowardly retreats I've seen, that was a classic<<

Of all your attempts to divert attention to your own shortcomings, yours was a classic.

It is good to see someone engaging with you on the detail of your selection and interpretation blindness. But as I said, I am unable and unwilling to argue the finer (?) points of interpretation and misinterpretation with you, or anyone.

But what I can and will do is continue to point out two things about your posts.

One, that your interpretations are inconsistent, one moment deeming this a metaphor, the next deeming that a historical fact.

Two, that you proceed to use those idiosyncratic interpretations to vilify another's religion, and to stir up fear and hatred against it.

Dear Pericles

I guess this says it all:

<<About your famous Surah, I have no comment. I have never accepted that you are in a position to interpret any of the Qur'an in a credible manner, since you are a Christian, with a Christian axe to grind.>>

Now, did you not notice in my 'questions' post, that I simply asked if you noticed it was not MYYYYYYYY (sorry but ur not getting this) 'Interpretation'..but that of a companion of Mohammad!

It has nothing to do with 'Christian axe to grind' whatsoever.

It has everything to do with what an astute observer of the plain language and context of the text will see......

I think you should by now, realize that what I am REPORTING (as opposed to 'saying') from a Muslim, in an Islamic source, is in fact.. true.

Now.. just in case you had not noticed, when Kaysar tried to rebutt/refute my assertion about the invasion, he avaded the charge with: and I quote:

<<The Persians were a threat to the Holy-land which they kept invading and also to their neighbours.>>

Yet the Islamic sources tell us UMAR was invading them. (based on Inteligence from Muthana who had already made raids himself)

BIASED SOURCES Kaysar? :) Sheikh Fehmi will growl at you mate as my sources are ONLY Quran and Hadith..in case you had not noticed.

PROBLEM.
1/ Kaysar is admitting here that the Persians were attacked/invaded because they were a threat, NOT because they invaded the Muslims.

2/ The justification for the attack however, was said to be specifically Surah 9:29 as quoted by Al Mughira in the hadith I mentioned.

OUTCOME. Thus, based on this thinking, ANY nation or person which is considered 'a threat' by the Muslim community can jusifiably be attacked or murdered .(Theo Van Gogh is a modern Example)If it was the 7th century in Medina it was Ka'b bin al Ashraf. Murdered at night on Mohammad's orders.

SKID..welcome back:)
CJ.. you are TOOOOOOooooo gullible:) read for your'self' mate.
Love to all:)

K Trad: Thank you. That took just 132 words to clear up.

Graham Y: Is it true that Bronwyn Winter’s article was changed?

Querying the Qu’ran does not an “anti-muslim fundi” make. It is the realm of the NON-muslim:

"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith." (Surah 5:101-102).

"The Holy Prophet himself forbade people to ask questions ...so do not try to probe into such things." (The Meaning of the Qur'an, Maududi, vol. III, pgs. 76-77)

"The prophet was asked about things which he did not like, and when the questioner insisted, the Prophet got angry. (vol. 1, no. 92) The Prophet got angry and his cheeks or his face became red. (vol. 1, no. 91) "Allah has hated you...[for] asking too many questions." (vol. 2, no. 555; and vol. 3, no. 591, Bukhari's Hadith commenting on Muhammad’s reaction to hostile questioners.)

The intention here is not to tread on Muslim sensibilities. However, the Christian tradition encourages scrutiny, observation, debate and discussion and allows for the freedom to NOT believe.

Nevertheless, I’m prepared to be labeled an “Anti-Muslim Fundi” just by attempting to respond to KT.

There is no concept of abrogation in the work of Christ. All the verses you mentioned do not contradict, any of the gospel from Matthew:

5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them to but fulfill them. “

22.37 Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

22.38. This is the first and greatest commandment.

22.39. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself”.

22.40. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

A Christian has no need to justify or deflect the criticism by attacking their opponents.

In understanding the motivation of questioning the Qu’ran, you need look no further than this.

It's a wonder you can look yourself in the mirror, Boaz.

>>It has nothing to do with 'Christian axe to grind' whatsoever.<<

How on earth can you say this with a straight face?

Or perhaps you didn't, you were so convulsed with laughter at your ability to say that black is white and white is black, time after time.

You choose your quotes. You choose your translation. You choose your interpretation.

You ensure that the quote, translation and interpretation all meet your strict selection criteria...

- does it make Islam look bad

- does it make Islam look dangerous

- does it encourage people to fear and hate Islam

At the same time, you blithely bat away any similar approach to the Bible with "ah, you just don't understand that either"

And you have the gall to tell me "It has nothing to do with 'Christian axe to grind' whatsoever"

If it doesn't have anything to do with your incessant promotion of Christianity, and your equally incessant denigration of Islam, what on earth IS it all about?

Sad.

katie0, yes the article was adjusted in a minor way. Keysar objected to something being stated as a fact. I asked Bronwyn what her source was, and she suggested that it be changed in the way that it was. It was minor editing and I did not feel the need to note it. That's why you should note the time at which you have accessed a website, if you are going to cite it.

That's my editorial position.

Can I say as an individual that while I don't endorse Boaz_David's comments, the difference between the Christian bible and the Koran is that while the Old Testament has a lot in common with the Koran, the New has very little. It is the New Testament that Christians believe in. It is the new convenant. We study the Old Testament, the old covenant, because it gives context to the new. We do not follow the old.

I'd like to know from Keysar where the Moslem equivalent of the New Testament is. Where is the corresponding body of work which says that you should observe the spirit, not the letter, of the law, and which says that God is love? I think that is a crucial difference between Christianity and Islam, and Christianity and Judaism.

Graham: the internet introduces some new rules to the journalistic game. Some should be “sacrosanct”:

(1) the protection of sources
(2) retractions to be cited

BB: One of the non-negotiable aspects of the Christian life is centrality of the bible. If it is not the Word of God, then we are all fools, believing in lies. It is therefore sad and pathetic to be Christian if you don’t believe the bible to be the very Word of God.

The non-believer expects the Christian to have a more compelling argument than “I’m not a total idiot” for believing. Having lost the audience completely with the first belief statement, any further clarifications are just as unpalatable. I’ll take a shot at it (it’s probably at this point that I lose any credibility – however small – that I may have had….so that risk not withstanding): the bible is the word of God, revealed by his Holy Spirit through prayer and belief. It’s a bit circular as far as logical arguments go, the original “chicken and egg” statement: I believe because God tells me to believe, therefore I believe.

So those in the category of “Christian who doesn’t believe in the divine inspiration of the bible” are ….not.

Edifying? I hope this shows that the bible has NOTHING in common with the Qu’ran.

(GrahamY: It is the new covenant which makes sense of the old - it was ALWAYS about Christ, but I think that is what you meant by “context” anyway).

On the face of it, it is not with levity that BD engages in a book that (if the bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth) is well outside the Christian tradition. I think that shows enormous respect. There is nothing selective about quoting, muslim-defined “key” tracts, by muslims, with the full weight of muslim scholarship brought to bear in the analysis. And until this becomes a muslim state, it is a great privilege to be able to examine the Qu’ran and ask some pertinent questions (and expect some answers).