Translate

Saturday, February 28, 2009

The Qur'an Challenge

10 comments:

  1. Anonymous12:57 AM

    So I would just like to mention, as someone who takes interest in religions of all nature to learn more about them, that from what was stated in this video it is true that people could infer that Muslims are a violent people. Unless that is, you look at another Sura or two. For instance:
    [2:190] "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors."
    [4:90] "Exempted are those who join people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, and those who come to you wishing not to fight you, nor fight their relatives. Had GOD willed, He could have permitted them to fight against you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them."
    While only two instances, there are others I could have posted. I just thought I would bring this to your attention, and point out that just like the media tends to do, this video only points out the things they want you to hear without telling the whole story.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting that you are commenting on only what you want to comment on rather than all the points brought up in the video. Diversionary methods: "Yeah but look at this over here." Isn't this what you are accusing the media of doing? So at the most the Qur'an is inconsistent and morals are based on Mohammad's relativism? Okay. Now, what about the wife beating and the six year old wife? Those darned pesky women!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Debbie Espen1:47 AM

    There are some questionable things in the Bible, too. I won't list the obvious Old Testament stuff, but how about the New Testament supporting that hideous institution of slavery? Jesus never spoke out against it, and Paul supported the institution. Not to mention other cultural things of the time, such as women and men sitting apart, women having to cover their hair, etc.
    I think that all scriptures need to be understood within the context of the time and culture in which they were written. Glean the good and discard that which is not so good. At least that is my approach to ALL scriptures of all religions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous6:31 PM

    It's interesting, A Sinner, that even though some of this video's "facts" were proved wrong, you still stand by his others. Does it take more than one lie to make a liar? Especially when his only "proof" is sarcasm and wordplay.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon,
    First, why is it interesting? Secondly. If you have information as to how the "facts" were "proved wrong" share them with us. Thirdly, in reading from the actual text, you may be able to accuse him of taking something out of context and the like, but not of "only... sarcasm and wordplay." A six year old girl...hmmm...beat them but only slightly...hmmm...were those accurate?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous6:18 PM

    It's interesting because if you were to write an article and even one of your "facts" were proven wrong, then it discredits the entire article to the minds of the people you're trying to prove anything to. The fact is, the media plays with the minds of it's viewers. Case and point, 9/11, not long after the planes hit Fox News played "live coverage" of Muslims in Iraq dancing in praise about how the towers were hit. It doesn't take a genius to realize Iraq is on the other side of planet. Whats the point? In the video it was day time, it was also daytime in America; however, due to the time difference, it was actually night time in Iraq. The so called "live coverage" was a video from the Muslim holiday Eid from the year prior. It's interesting just as you think the first anonymous point was interesting. (We are not the same people)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon,
    You have said why it is interesting to you, but without answering the other two substantive questions you just seem evasive. So to keep our focus on the issue, here are the second two questions again:
    2. If you have information as to how the "facts" were "proved wrong" share them with us. 3. In reading from the actual text, you may be able to accuse him of taking something out of context and the like, but not of "only... sarcasm and wordplay."

    And your response it...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous4:52 PM

    This video implies what he says are facts. Many Muslims have spoken up against him and proved that he doesn't know what he's talking about in the comments on the video, or have you not read them?

    3. This isnt a question. But I'll refer to your first post with a third question which states:

    "Thirdly, in reading from the actual text, you may be able to accuse him of taking something out of context and the like, but not of "only... sarcasm and wordplay." A six year old girl...hmmm...beat them but only slightly...hmmm...were those accurate?"

    Are you being sarcastic in asking if those are accurate? Of course they aren't.

    But for the record, one cannot compare Muhammad and Jesus in terms of their respective religions for they are not viewed to the same extent. Jesus is God to Christians while Muhammad was a prophet. A human, not anything more and is not supposed to be treated as anything else.

    But if it seems I'm being evasive, I'm not. I'm no coward. I just wasn't clear enough apparently. But I have a question. I noticed that you didn't accept one of my previous posts and was curious to know under what basis do you decide whether or not to accept a post. This question does not regard this article's topic; however, I am not ignoring. It's only fair you don't ignore my questions since I've answered yours as there is no general comment section on your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nathan Lewis said...

    Anon, I will not take the bait and allow you to diatribe off the subject. You're the one who said they are false so don't refer me to others claims. You still have not answered the questions so let me assist you one final time:

    You said:
    "It's interesting, A Sinner, that even though some of this video's "facts" were proved wrong, you still stand by his others. Does it take more than one lie to make a liar? Especially when his only "proof" is sarcasm and wordplay"

    I said"
    Anon,
    First, why is it interesting? Secondly. If you have information as to how the "facts" were "proved wrong" share them with us. Thirdly, in reading from the actual text, you may be able to accuse him of taking something out of context and the like, but not of "only... sarcasm and wordplay." A six year old girl...hmmm...beat them but only slightly...hmmm...were those accurate?"

    Your last post was a mixture of subterfuge, dodging, misdirection and an attempt to draw me into an off topic debate. But still you have said nothing to back up your original accusation that what the speaker says is false. Here are his points. They are seven. You have an opportunity now to refute them to the JTO readers. Again I ask: Which have been "proved wrong" as you said?

    1. Mohammad was married to a six year old girl
    2. The Qur'an says be struck her and caused her pain.
    3.The Qur'an says to beat your wives...lightly for disobedience
    4. Mohammad had multiple wives
    5. Mohammad had slaves
    6. Mohammad slaughtered Jews
    7. Mohammad's last words included cursing Jews and Christians.

    There ya go. Refute them, back up your claim that they are false or your words mean nothing.

    My bet is that you will answer this with another attack on the messenger which I have found to be the most common technique of Islamic apologists who visit JTO.

    ReplyDelete
  10. For reasons of security and accountability in conversation, "Anonymous" posts are no longer allowed on JTO. To post a comment you must either have a Google account or have an OpenID

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to JTO. The ability to comment is currently open to all. All comments are filtered prior to posting. Anonymous posters are asked to sign their comment with an identifying name (first name is okay) to prevent confusion in the discussion.