Quote:
Originally Posted by abu-afak";p="
I don't suppose you even know how to use Google Even though you found this message board.
|
Never mind that it is considered polite to provide actual reference links when making a claim, I did Google something quite similar to that, but didn't come up with that hit even if the first three pages. Thanks for the link, sans snarkiness.
To the link:
The site self-identifies as being "created by ex-Muslims to warn people about Islam." No agenda there....
It then constructs a tortured chronology for the Koran based on hadiths and other commentary, even though it notes that "there is no standard and accepted chronology of the Koran."
So how they then can claim that Chapters 5 and 9 are the last chapters in any definitive sense is beyond me.
Quote:
|
"....According to this doctrine, certain passages of the Koran are abrogated by verses revealed afterward, with a different or contrary meaning. This was supposedly taught by Muhammad himself, at Sura 2, verse 105: 'Whatever verses we cancel or cause you to forget, we bring a better or its like.' …Now we can see how useful and convenient the doctrine of abrogation is in bailing scholars out of difficulties- though, of course, it does pose problems for apologists of Islam, since all the passages preaching tolerance are found in Meccan (i.e., early suras), and all the passages recommending killing, decapitating and maiming, the so-called Sword Verses are Medinan (i.e., later)."
|
Of course, there is great dispute over what constitutes a clear "abrogation" and what it means, not to mention several classes of abrogation.
http://www.ummah.com/forum/archive/i.../t-103174.html
Some schools of Muslim thought, in fact, believe there are *no* clear abrogations, because all such abrogations must be clearly traceable to the Prophet or his Companions. As my link notes:
Quote:
However, there is a difference of opinion about the extent to which al-nasikh wa-al mansukh does in fact occur in the text of the Qur'an. The information concerning al-nasikh wa-al mansukh must be treated with great caution as, for all reports concerning the text of the Qur'an, two independent witnesses are required. Many of the examples which the scholars have drawn upon to illustrate this question (and I have quoted them for the same purpose) are based on one witness only. 'A'isha alone reported that 10 or 5 sucklings had been part of the Qur'anic recitation, and only 'Umar reported that the 'verse of stoning' had been included in the Qur'anic text.
These legal rulings are not included in the Qur'an precisely because they were not considered reliable, being based on one witness only. Similarly, other examples about naskh, based on the words of Ibn 'Abbas or Mujahid alone, are to be judged by the same measure.
|
Quote:
|
Instead of holding you breath, use your brain.
|
Likewise. There is no one Islam, just as there is no one Christianity. Islam is in fact even more chaotic and confused than Christianity, because while Christians have tended to hold up only the Bible as authoritative, various sects of Islam have grown to revere various (and contradictory) hadiths, sunnas and other commentary as well as the Koran. Even more so than with the Bible, you can pretty much find anything you want in that huge mess.
Can you find Islamic sects that interpret the Koran the way your link does? Of course. Does that indict Islam as a whole? No. Just like Christians object to critics who point out the myriad violent and just plain mean passages in the Bible.