The more I read, the more it plays out like the local imam is David Duke with a bomb strapped to his chest and a dirty diaper on his head. Verse 140 plays out like the Muslim version of CI (where Jesus – never mind Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob – was not a Jew), and abrogation IMO bears some striking similarities to replacement theology, in its spirit.

The next time some Muslim claims that their religion is “tolerant” or “open-minded”, I’m going to laugh in his face.

1.The Bible clearly indicates that many Jewish sects were corrupt. Christ accused these elders of precisely the same twisting of the Torah. When the Pharisees tried claiming he was implying God had changed his mind, Christ answered that he was not changing any words, but was simply restoring the original meaning. Whereas Christ sought the Torah itself for meaning, the Qu’ran appears to contain whole-cloth new messages. Are we then expected to believe such teachings were to have been applied retroactively to Abraham himself? How is it the Jews are guilty of willfully abandoning Allah, and Christians are only guilty of straying, when Christianity grew directly out of Judaism centuries before Muhammad’s revelation?

2.Judeo-Christian philosophy holds to hate the sin, love the sinner. A good Jew or Christian may speak out against a person’s action, but in the end it is His place alone to render judgement. Islam, however, apparently holds that it is a Muslim’s personal duty to judge not only another human being’s worth, but their fitness to live on Earth. This strikes me as perhaps the most important- and most foreboding- difference between the three.

It seems to me these verses [2:94-96] refer to Christians, not Jews. Shakir’s translation issues the challenge to ‘polytheists’, which could be a reference to the Trinity.

No, 2:94-96 definitely refer to the Jews. Shakir doesn’t issue the challenge to polytheists, he says that the people he is talking about are “the greediest of men for life (greedier) than even those who are polytheists.” And who are these people who are greedier for life than the polytheists? They are the people to whom Moses came with clear signs (2:92) — that is, the Jews.

Verses 94-96 issue a challenge: if the Jews’ claim that Paradise is reserved for them alone, why don’t they seek death, instead of being the people “most greedy for life”?

It seems to me these verses refer to Christians, not Jews. Shakir’s translation issues the challenge to ‘polytheists’, which could be a reference to the Trinity. There is also an accusation of the idolators wishing to live 1000 years. This to me signals the millenial reign of Christ from Revelation 20.

The Koran is the “revealed word of Allah, transmitted to Mohammad through the angel Gibreel [Gabriel]“.

The Hadiths are the recorded doings and random quotes of Mohammad as recalled by his contemporaries (child “bride” Aisha, et al), often repetitious, silly, sexually crude, and brutal.

The Sunnah are biographical details of Mohammad’s life that constitute his “way” -or religious examples- for correct Muslim behavior as determined by emulating Mohammad’s most-Islamic acts and sayings.

Only the Koran is “perfect” and the word of Allah and followed by all mMslims.

The Mohammedans have been at war over the meanings and accuracy and emphases of the Hadiths and Sunnah ever since the family feud for control of Islam began in the 7th century. (A bloody schism between the Shi’ite “heretics”/”fundmentalists” and Sunni “orthodoxists”/”who-also-call-themselves fundamentalists”.)

Much of the Koran was borrowed from the Old Testament and heretical gnostic (New Testament) offshoots.

The sharpest sword gets to say what the Truth is in Islam.

Which makes debate messy.

Since any translation (from the Muslim perspective) in an interpretation–and that was been prohibited for so long — all Muslims are encouraged to memorize and recite in the original language REGARDLESS of whether they understand it or not. Much like the early Catholic Church and the Latin liturgy–the congregations are entirely dependant on their priest/imam to tell them what’s just been read/recited/preached.

Why they converted, off of Answering Islam is some fantastic reading imho.

I thought the Koran and the Hadiths were differnt things, and I have not been able to determine what the “sunnah” is.

Is it just me? Or do Muslims seem to spell things differently at will, and to call things whatever they want at will? If they say it’s in the Qur’an it is. If they say it’s not in the Qur’an it isn’t.

If a Sunni doesn’t like a website they say it’s a Wahabbi site. If a Shiite doesn’t like a website they say it’s a Sunni site.

Do most Muslims even know what’s in the Koran? Because a lot of them don’t seem to.

Where did I mention them? My memory fails me. But anyway, I was probably thinking more of the Thirty Years’ War.

I’m sorry, I should have quoted–you originally mentioned it on June 11,

It is extraordinarily common to hear people affirming that yes, the Islamic world tends to violence today, but Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity, and just look at the Christian world 600 years ago!

This seems to assume that all things that are labeled “religions” will develop in similar ways, along similar time frames. But there is no reason why this should be so.

If we do look at the Christian world 600 years ago (in Europe anyway) they were embroiled in the 100 Years War…which was political…power hungry wannabe monarchs duking it out on the heads and backs of the peasantry–turning them into armies for mere personal gain (says the staunch American girl) ;-) But even two hundred years later–into the 30 Years War–wasn’t it much more about who’s going to rule than about who’s Truth is actually TRUE? These European wars seem much more about politics and excersize of power at the top–rather than about belief. Regardless…it is as you say, Islam is very different from both Christianity and Judaism–and there never was any founding to any supposition that it shouldn’t be or won’t be.

I once got royally ticked off at one of FoxNews commentators for offering her ignorant opinion that had someone “dropped off” a bunch of Jewish boys with “their holy scriptures” “in the middle of the (I forget which) desert” that they basically would have turned out exactly the same as militant Muslims.

This completely and totally ignored the fact that for thousands of years, Jewish boys have been schooled using exactly that–their Holy Scripture –and yes in desert settings as well–and PRECISELY nothing LIKE the Muslims had EVER ocurred. They are not, nor have they ever been even vaguely similar.

It’s Like Alice in Wonderland revised by Winston Smith.

What I want to know is:

Did early Muslims eat the passing goat (as noted in the Hadiths), who capriciously ate one of the now-missing suras of the Koran (written on a piece of bark) as a way of incorporating it into Islam? And how can the Koran be considered complete or perfect without this lost, devoured bit?

Man, the theological knots they tie themselves into in the process of de-legitimizing the Bible is truly something (and gives me a bit of a headache). Thank you for this invaluable service, Mr. Spencer.

crazy_legs on June 25, 2007 at 2:48 PM

The law of non-contradiction doesn’t apply in Islam.

That is indeed a common Islamic view: they were true revelations, at least before they were corrupted by the Jews and Christians, but even in their true forms they are abrogated by the Qur’an.

Man, the theological knots they tie themselves into in the process of de-legitimizing the Bible is truly something (and gives me a bit of a headache). Thank you for this invaluable service, Mr. Spencer.

Uh, I wasn’t being catty. I’m a Christian apologist. I wanted Robert’s take on the Uthmanic rescension, but answering Islam has a good one as well.

PRCalDude on June 25, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Double apologies are in order then.

No, and I apologize. I was responding to PRCalDude’s cattiness about Christian apologists. I’ll be a good girl now.

Connie on June 25, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Uh, I wasn’t being catty. I’m a Christian apologist. I wanted Robert’s take on the Uthmanic rescension, but answering Islam has a good one as well.

Is there something specific in it you’re looking for my take on? The passage you quote from As-Suyuti only underscores for Muslims the idea that Allah miraculously protected the Qur’an from error. Of course, non-Muslims may be tempted to see in it confirmation of exactly the opposite point.

Robert Spencer on June 25, 2007 at 12:05 PM

No, and I apologize. I was responding to PRCalDude’s cattiness about Christian apologists. I’ll be a good girl now.

It does make me somewhat depressed that Allah is so tempermental and arbitrary, though it does bring the general illogic of Islam into sharp relief. If your god is that fickle that he’s changing his own revelations to suit his (and his prophet’s) mood, how can we even hope to engage them in any kind of logical arguement?

This was one of the Pope’s points in his now-notorious Regensburg address.

It also brings up another question – if Allah can change his revelations whenever it suits him, how does Islam get off saying that Judism and Christianity are “distortions of the truth?” Couldn’t they, according to Islam, be true revelations, but Allah just up and decided to change his mind a few centuries later?

That is indeed a common Islamic view: they were true revelations, at least before they were corrupted by the Jews and Christians, but even in their true forms they are abrogated by the Qur’an.

In regard to the integrity of the Qur’anic text, yes.