Just had 4 samosas with salad and a nice mint chilli yoghurt. and a glass of water...now I'm having a Spliff. It's a good feeling after a mouth of chilli.
Fat boy.........I mean seriously is it only fried food you eat! No wonder you visit the obesity clinic! I haven't even had lunch yet!
Anyone fancy having a go at this one? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04...ntc_linkname=audclip_niqabguitar_contentcard1
Not as involved as I'd like, but I think you'll get the main points. The history is selective. Many narratives were gathered, and then the favoured texts selected. I understand he argument for who selected and why, but all the same, they were selected by men, not prophets, and represent their opinion of his word and present their version of the truth. After his death, other people came forward as prophets, and some gathered followers, but these people, and their version of the narrative were destroyed, unless they conformed to the view of mohameds followers. This further limited the available information to the preferred version. Even so, there is still disagreement as to which are 'factual'. Even sites set up to defend islam from critics, mention some of the allegations as factual, but defend why it occurred. Other scholars deny it all completely. Modern examples where similar revisions occur are Ghandi and Mother Theresa, revered as peace loving, gentle people, but scratch the surface, and other sides come to light, and they're not even described as expressing the words of an almighty. In looking round, I see different sites defending their favoured interpretation, and dismissing others, and "scholars" that hold sway, still disagree with each other on facts and interpretation. An example being 'images' of mohamed, when he was one of a number of prophets of equal status, like Adam, Noah, Abraham etc. yet their images can be used. Through it all, there's a decent amount of texts that suggest he did attack people (rather than reacting as a defence), took slaves, forced the religion onto others, and the age of his wife brings other questions on him being a role model. It also suggests that the almighty's attempt to clarify things through mohamed was less than successful, and some of the scientific 'revelations' offered as proof, were more likely from the Greeks, which raises its own questions. So, I'd suggest that in the balance of probabilities on allegations such as Banu Qurayza and the raiding of caravans, there're reasons to believe them to be true more than there are to dismiss them. The terror groups and their activities have been rightly condemned by many mainstream islamic groups, and I certainly wouldn't claim that their views and interpretations are representative of conventional Islam, but I would say that the fact they can offer an argument that the koran justifies them, no matter how perverse, should create questions of the claim that it's the divine, unaltered words of a god trying to clarify things.
To be honest you are jumping from one to another to try and substantiate your claims. You are raising multiple subjects here without coming to conclusion about one. Qur’an does not justify them in anyway but unless you are providing me this thinking with evidence, which you are not doing so at all. We were talking about Banu Qurayza for which i have referred to you with reference as to why the claims are false and why these claims of what happened in that incident from Ibn Ishaq cannot be trustworthy. I would say you probably have made up your mind for this incident regardless, because what you are providing is available on lot of sites like answering-islam etc. Those sites in a similar fashion know lot of information are not correct Ibn Ishaq yet they will quote from him to try and make a point rather than come to a conclusion with what is true and what isn't. History as you say is full of narrative is but just because someone writes their version of the truth doesn't necessarily become the truth, if you are truly looking then you need to understand and look at the source its coming from and whether its plausible. I am not sure what Ghandhi and Mother Theresa has got to do with their story being from almight, i dont think anyone has claimed that Ibn Ishaq work is from almighty. I doubt you will many if at all who agree with using images of any prophets. How people react to different things is a different matter, we are not a borg and nor did all muslims react the same or start killing others. I don't see the argument here either where they are using Qur'an to justify suicide bombings or killing of innocents, there is nothing in Qur’an that states this can be done so i dont see your point here nor have you backed this up with any evidence from the Qur'an that this is the case and can be backed up from the Qur'an. The other thing i would add is that internet is great but its not always the best place learn from, you need read the actual books written by people not selective reading thats on a lot of sites. What you are talking about here is conjecture and not facts.
I think you're guilty of what you accuse me of, and a fair amount of confirmation bias. I'm not making any claims, I'm asking questions. You have decided that your 'facts' are the most valid, despite a fair few scholars holding other views, and that is pretty much the nub of the issue. It needs the interpretation of non-prophets and they don't all agree. It leaves people selecting a version of selected versions. That doesn't seem to fit with the aim of the book, nor a style I'd expect an omnipotent, omniscient being to choose. I hadn't made my mind up, although your responses are leaning me towards thinking it's just not a very good piece of literature. I was hoping for something over and above what has already been said, because so far it's just your opinion, based on another's opinion, against the opinions I have read from others, including islamic scholars. As I said, I tried to check the versions and interpretations from pro, rather than anti-islamic sites. A fair few of the verses seem plagiarised from early documents and information and seem more like the work of mortals, than divine. The mention of Ghandi and Theresa is to show that even in recent history, the perceived and received version of events, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Add 1500 years, Chinese whispers and selected editing, and there's little wonder that there's room for a lot of doubt as to mohamed practising what he preached, and why other, less peaceful versions can be proffered, which may not be accepted by the mainstream, but they're not disproven. History is littered with versions written by the victors, with plenty of room for doubt about some versions of events. The actions of his immediate followers, who should be living by his example seem to point to the 'totally peaceful' version being a selective view. It's interesting to look closer at islam, there's an awful lot I had wrong, largely because I read it as an adaptation of the bible, which lead to some wrong assumptions on my part, creation being one. The overall concept of a creator, with omnipowers, making us so bent and damaged and placed on earth as a test, sounds more like a kid with an ant farm than a benevelont, divine deity.
