Quranic Fallacies

[Story]

Yes, but in Islam there's a system called the science of Hadith which is basically them trying to determine the authenticity of hadith by checking if anyone in the chain of narrators (Isnad) was a liar.

Oh wow. If that happens, how can they even trust the Quran? Wasn't that recited over and over again with changes immediately rectified and thus "kept pure"? Or isn't the Hadith considered inspired/holy the same way the Quran is?

Well Hadith isn't considered inspired or kept pure in the same way the Quran is at all, so it requires checking, but that's just bloody obvious. When hadith like this appear:

"When Allah wanted to create himself, he created a horse that ran till it sweat and he created himself out of horse sweat".

It's going to inspire a sense of "What the fuck is going on here" no matter how convicted you are.

No one could change the Quran, because Muhammed was dead. So they took all the things he recited during his life time (It was all written on bones and leaves and put in a bag) and then got a bunch of people that had already memorised it all and put it all together. Muslims believe this is accurate because any small disagreement about what the Quran had said would result in fighting and they all heard it being recited aloud 3 times a day during prayer (the other 2 prayers have quiet recitation). It's open to criticism, but it's not worth the attempt because we don't know if these traditions were fabricated and whether it's accurate or not isn't really our concern.

To understand the issue better, what is the best source with respect to the islamic faith?

Story is. :V
We've got an ex-muslim here who knows his shit and is able, willing and very decent at showing us wtf is going on. I for one am thankful he's here, and I've sent him questions that popped up during my quran reading more than once.

Thanks

I'll try to help where ever I can.

 

[Shaedys]

The Qur'an DOES NOT condemn or dis-advise drawing the prophet of the Muslim faith or anyone else for that matter.

And thats not in the hadith, or anything?
They just made that up at one point?

 

[Aught3]

The Qur'an DOES NOT condemn or dis-advise drawing the prophet of the Muslim faith or anyone else for that matter.

And thats not in the hadith, or anything?
They just made that up at one point?

Well as I understand it the prohibition is against worshiping images. I suppose at some point it was decided that images of Muhammad would be too tempting for believers and so they were banned. The Hadith mentions that no images of living beings should be made which helps to explain the use of patterns as decoration in Islamic buildings.

 

[Giliell]

The Hadith mentions that no images of living beings should be made which helps to explain the use of patterns as decoration in Islamic buildings.

Which is a perfect example of how some really stupid religious idea leads to something really beautiful

@Wark
Hmm, German's got that wonderful word "jein" whicht blends yes and no.
Those people, mostly women themselves, don't do that because they want to achieve something by inflicting pain. Or sadists who delight in causing pain, but they do it because they think they're doing something good and propper.
That documentary really etched itself into my mind because it started with pictures of a girl being circumcised on a dirty floor with an old razor. Those activists, by not being jedgmental, by not accusing anybody, by not trying to get those people out of their religion but by educating them about their own religion. They also mentioned that they were having a much harder time in Liberia, where circumcision is not linked to islam but only to "tradition"

 

[Nautyskin]

Well as I understand it the prohibition is against worshiping images. I suppose at some point it was decided that images of Muhammad would be too tempting for believers and so they were banned. The Hadith mentions that no images of living beings should be made which helps to explain the use of patterns as decoration in Islamic buildings.

How is this consistent with Muslims finding the images 'offensive'? That's a fair stretch of the bow from 'don't worship images' in my mind.

 

[Story]

The issue with drawing pictures of Muhammed is a mixture of the fact that drawing anything is prohibited and drawing any religious figure has been condemned by Hadith. This combined with the fact that the punishment for slandering Muhammed is death in Islam creates the confusion.

By Islamic standards, the non-Muslim should be allowed to draw a picture of Muhammed as long as it's not offensive, but any attempt will be seen as slander.

 

[Aught3]

How is this consistent...

Seems like the wrong question to be asking about a religion :lol: Or maybe it's exactly the right question to ask?

 

[magicalpants]

I have to say these misconceptions are splitting semantic hairs. There are Q'uran verses which implicitly or indirectly call for some of the 'misconceptions' listed. Honestly if the Q'uran verses I've seen are hadiths then the Q'uran must be short as hell.

 

[Story]

It's useless to say these things if you don't supply quotes...

Even if you have a vivid idea of what these verses are supposed to say then please tell me and I'm sure I'll know where it is.

I've done a whole lot of research and studies on this for my entire life, but I'm not infallible. Feel free to correct me on anything, but please tell us the source of your concerns or I simply can not address your claims at all.

 

[Andiferous]

This interview with Mostafaei supports your points too: Iran must stop stoning executions

 

[Andiferous]

Unfortunately, no... This topic isn't about how many mistakes the Qur'an makes, I'm sure none of us are in doubt that there are mistakes in the Qur'an, however I've noticed that the many people that address the problems with Islam tend to assert a lot of things that simply aren't true about the Qur'an.

I'm looking to put together a list to set everyone straight. Don't feel bad if you believed any of these things, because there are Muslims that believe them too.

I'm making this list in the hopes that people can create stronger arguments and avoid mistakes when debating Islam. It's easy to find a website that will give you ammunition in a debate, but there is mostly nonsense and confusion out there, I'm hoping to clear some of this up.

The Qur'an DOES NOT issue a death penalty for apostasy.*

The Qur'an DOES NOT issue a death penalty for homosexuality.**

The Qur'an DOES NOT issue a death penalty for fornication or adultery.*

The Qur'an DOES NOT promise 72 virgins to anyone under any circumstances.

The Qur'an DOES NOT command Muslims to terrorize non Muslims.

The Qur'an DOES NOT advise or enforce the Burka.

The Qur'an DOES NOT state that men can have sex with pre-pubescent girls.

The Qur'an DOES NOT advise or support honor killings.

The Qur'an DOES NOT slowly change it's message from tolerant to intolerant, the Qur'an is anachronistic.

The Qur'an DOES NOT advise or support honor killings.

The Qur'an DOES NOT order the circumcision of females.

The Qur'an DOES NOT order the circumcision of mailes.*

The Qur'an DOES NOT condemn or dis-advise drawing the prophet of the Muslim faith or anyone else for that matter.

I may add to that list if I'm asked questions about commonly believed fallacies, but until then, here's a list of things that the Qur'an does say.

The Qur'an DOES advise men to beat their wives if they find them rebellious. (4:34)

The Qur'an DOES put men above women. (4:34)

The Qur'an DOES order adulterers and fornicators to be flogged. (24:2)

The Qur'an DOES order the hands of thieves to be chopped off. (5:38)

The Qur'an DOES order the heads of enemies to be cut off in the midst of war. (47:4)

And I'll add more to that list also, upon questioning.

* This is mentioned in Hadith (Traditions) only.
** This was practiced by some followers of Muhammed, after he died.

With this in mind, I think it might be worth pulling out some of our favourite Bible quotes and comparing. It could be interesting.

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 wrote:If two men get into a fight with each other, and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts out her hand and seizes him by his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.

Lev 21:44-6 wrote:Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

But my favourite:

Judges 19:22-29 (King James Version)

22Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

23And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

24Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

25But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

26Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.

27And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.

28And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.

29And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.

Genesis 38 wrote:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

I would be curious to compare point by point really. I don't see that some of these points are that much worse than are in the Christian bible. And most Christians will excuse these by citing need for contextualisation, or saying that the later Gospels correct them. So you know, I'm not sure it's that much different - and I'm not sure the fundamentalists and extremists of either religion are much worse than the other. Are they? What about the Ku Klux Klan? I'm pretty sure there was stoning in the old testament.

 

[magicalpants]

I think I finally understand this issue. Basically it states that later verses have precedent over other contradictory versus, which is why one can say the Qu'ran does not endorse certain acts. The problem is for the large part the bad stuff is later in the book....but then again there's this practice where you're encouraged to lie if it benefits Islam. So yeah...kind of changes this debate doesn't it?

 

[Story]

I would be curious to compare point by point really. I don't see that some of these points are that much worse than are in the Christian bible. And most Christians will excuse these by citing need for contextualisation, or saying that the later Gospels correct them. So you know, I'm not sure it's that much different - and I'm not sure the fundamentalists and extremists of either religion are much worse than the other. Are they? What about the Ku Klux Klan? I'm pretty sure there was stoning in the old testament.

It's hard to compare really. We like to make comparisons of how bad something is against another, because of how they make us feel or perhaps because of how much they affect a person, but in the end it's not exactly determinable.

I think I finally understand this issue. Basically it states that later verses have precedent over other contradictory versus, which is why one can say the Qu'ran does not endorse certain acts. The problem is for the large part the bad stuff is later in the book....but then again there's this practice where you're encouraged to lie if it benefits Islam. So yeah...kind of changes this debate doesn't it?

Again... sources.

As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing that says the the later verses take precedence and even if it did, there is no way to tell what verses are earlier or later. The Quran is anachronous. Furthermore there is no practice where you're encouraged to lie if it benefits Islam and I'm not sure how it would change this debate if there was.

 

[magicalpants]

Again... sources.

As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing that says the the later verses take precedence and even if it did, there is no way to tell what verses are earlier or later. The Quran is anachronous. Furthermore there is no practice where you're encouraged to lie if it benefits Islam and I'm not sure how it would change this debate if there was.

So your just disputing my claim offhand, that's not typical of defending the Qu'ran at all. :roll:
Taqqiya
Qur'an 16:106
Q 3:28
Q 003:028
Q 040:028

Muhammed's so called companion, al-Hassan, wrote "taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment".

And in Hadith's which are even more commonly denied off handedly:
Bukhari Volume 4 hadith number 434
Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 80

As for abrogation, there are some who have decided to do it in favor of earlier verses, or whichever suits them best. For now I'm a little tired of researching this detestable text. If a fair sized group, which historically was larger, found it justified to abrogate the more violent verses, does a switch in that favor however large change anything? Especially considering that it is clear that there was always confusion with it's message, even among those closest to it's sole author? I don't think anyone has the right to claim which abrogation is more accurate, if you'll agree that it is justified both ways depending on what the reader wants it to mean, then that's a fair concession in my opinion.

 

[Story]

So your just disputing my claim offhand, that's not typical of defending the Qu'ran at all. :roll:

You made your claim off hand. I can't prove a negative especially when no positive evidence is produced.

Taqqiya
Qur'an 16:106
Q 3:28
Q 003:028
Q 040:028

None of those verses encourage Muslims to lie whenever it benefits Islam.

16:106 Whoever disbelieved in Allah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith; but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a great torment.

This verse says that if you express that you're not Muslim after being Muslim the wrath of Allah is upon you, unless you were forced to do so. No encouragement to lie for Islam here.

3:28 Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliya (supporters, helpers) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself (His punishment) , and to Allah is the final return.

Whoever takes the disbelievers as Auliyah instead of the believers will not be helped by Allah in any way, unless they fear danger from those disbelievers, No encouragement to lie for Islam here either.

40:28 A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, 'My Lord is Allah.?- when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord? and if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies!

And this verse just talks about a man who had to conceal his religion because he would be killed for it.

The point of these three verses is basically to say that you may recant your religion if you are forced to do so, but if you aren't forced, then there is severe punishment. Which isn't the same as saying "If it benefits Islam, lie whenever possible". i think most of us would agree that a person should lie if their lives were at stake or if they faced some impending danger and even if you don't agree with that, how could you expect anything else from conscious human beings.

Muhammed's so called companion, al-Hassan, wrote "taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment".

That's Muhammad's grandson and there is no harm in that statement.

And in Hadith's which are even more commonly denied off handedly:
Bukhari Volume 4 hadith number 434
Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 80

Please explain to me what these Hadith mean:

Narrated Sa'id bin Al-Musaiyab:
'Umar came to the Mosque while Hassan was reciting a poem. ('Umar disapproved of that). On that Hassan said, "I used to recite poetry in this very Mosque in the presence of one (i.e. the Prophet ) who was better than you." Then he turned towards Abu Huraira and said (to him), "I ask you by Allah, did you hear Allah's Apostle saying (to me), "Retort on my behalf. O Allah! Support him (i.e. Hassan) with the Holy Spirit?" Abu Huraira said, "Yes."

Narrated 'Aisha: A man asked permission to enter upon Allah's Apostle. The Prophet said, "Admit him. What an evil brother of his people or a son of his people." But when the man entered, the Prophet spoke to him in a very polite manner. (And when that person left) I said, "O Allah's Apostle! You had said what you had said, yet you spoke to him in a very polite manner?" The Prophet said, "O 'Aisha! The worst people are those whom the people desert or leave in order to save themselves from their dirty language or from their transgression."

All I see is a person being rebuked for poetry and defending himself and Muhammed being polite to someone he had a bad opinion of. Nothing that I'd particularly object too. I'm polite to people I don't like all the time.

As for abrogation, there are some who have decided to do it in favor of earlier verses, or whichever suits them best. For now I'm a little tired of researching this detestable text. If a fair sized group, which historically was larger, found it justified to abrogate the more violent verses, does a switch in that favor however large change anything? Especially considering that it is clear that there was always confusion with it's message, even among those closest to it's sole author? I don't think anyone has the right to claim which abrogation is more accurate, if you'll agree that it is justified both ways depending on what the reader wants it to mean, then that's a fair concession in my opinion.

Yes, this is true. The texts are really confusing and can be interpreted to mean anything, but there are things that it doesn't mean like we know that this text:

3:28 Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliya (supporters, helpers) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself (His punishment) , and to Allah is the final return.

This text does not mean that the sky is blue because blue light from the sun is dispersed in the atmosphere, although it doesn't particularly object to that scientific notion. However, some Muslims take it to mean that you can drink alcohol, eat pork and do anything you want to do to make yourself seem like you're not Muslim just so as to further your aims. Does the text say that? No... Would you assume that when reading it for the first time? No... But if someone wanted to do that and read this text, could he see that? Yes.

 

[magicalpants]

The point of these three verses is basically to say that you may recant your religion if you are forced to do so, but if you aren't forced, then there is severe punishment. Which isn't the same as saying "If it benefits Islam, lie whenever possible". i think most of us would agree that a person should lie if they're lives were at stake or if they faced some impending danger and even if you don't agree with that, how could you expect anything else from conscious human beings.

Look, I didn't decide to invent the practice of taqqiya, nor did I decide which verses give justification for it. The fact remains, it's a practice which people justify by verses in the Qu'ran. The question isn't so much what the Qu'ran endorses, to the same extent one can say it does not, another can say it does. If we're going to deny that there exists any possible endorsement then we might as well say it endorses nothing. I'm not hear to explain how reasonable the basis for this practice is, I've shown common examples of what some Muslims use to show what they believe to be reasonable. Think about it this way, just because Christians don't follow the violent rules in the Old Testament doesn't mean it's any less of a real Christian practice to do those things.

Yes, this is true. The texts are really confusing and can be interpreted to mean anything, but there are things that it doesn't mean like we know that this text:

3:28 Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliya (supporters, helpers) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself (His punishment) , and to Allah is the final return.

This text does not mean that the sky is blue because blue light from the sun is dispersed in the atmosphere, although it doesn't particularly object to that scientific notion. However, some Muslims take it to mean that you can drink alcohol, eat pork and do anything you want to do to make yourself seem like you're not Muslim just so as to further your aims. Does the text say that? No... Would you assume that when reading it for the first time? No... But if someone wanted to do that and read this text, could he see that? Yes.

[/quote]

So to sum up my point: why is your determination of what the Qu'ran doesn't endorse any more valid then the interpretations of the Qu'ran that would say the opposite? I'm glad that religious texts get watered down as time passes, but it doesn't make that watered down interpretation any more accurate.

 

[Story]

Look, I didn't decide to invent the practice of taqqiya, nor did I decide which verses give justification for it. The fact remains, it's a practice which people justify by verses in the Qu'ran. The question isn't so much what the Qu'ran endorses, to the same extent one can say it does not, another can say it does. If we're going to deny that there exists any possible endorsement then we might as well say it endorses nothing. I'm not hear to explain how reasonable the basis for this practice is, I've shown common examples of what some Muslims use to show what they believe to be reasonable. Think about it this way, just because Christians don't follow the violent rules in the Old Testament doesn't mean it's any less of a real Christian practice to do those things.

This thread is about what the Quran says, not how it's interpreted. It's interpreted in many ways by many different people with many different political agendas. That being said, the majority of Muslims, including militant Muslims, do not believe that they are allowed to lie to benefit Islam. Neither does the concept of taqqiyah call for that.

Think of it this way, just because Muslims practice something that isn't in the Quran, it doesn't mean that it's a Muslim practice to do those things.

So to sum up my point: why is your determination of what the Qu'ran doesn't endorse any more valid then the interpretations of the Qu'ran that would say the opposite? I'm glad that religious texts get watered down as time passes, but it doesn't make that watered down interpretation any more accurate.

This isn't a case of the text being watered down, this is a case of the text being watered "up". I'm not saying that the texts can or can not be interpreted to mean something or something else. I'm simply making it clear what the Quran does and does not say. There are many myths about the Quran, most people seem to think; Muslims practice X means Quran preaches X. My point is that this is not the case.

The reason why I'm making this point is so that people can make better arguments against the book. When people make arguments like you're making about taqqiyah. It ends up being meaningless, because Muslims in general do not believe those verses mean what you seem to think it means. Nor do the verses themselves call for what you say they call for. It's not just you making this mistake. I actually heard Coughlan616 on YouTube make the mistake of saying that the Quran states that apostates from Islam should be killed, which it doesn't. Many Muslims believe and preach that Islam teaches this, but also many do not. Coughlan was actually making a point in defense of something about Islam when he made that statement, which demonstrates how much misinformation has been spread about the Quran. I'm only trying to put these things straight.

 

[magicalpants]

The reason why I'm making this point is so that people can make better arguments against the book. When people make arguments like you're making about taqqiyah. It ends up being meaningless, because Muslims in general do not believe those verses mean what you seem to think it means. Nor do the verses themselves call for what you say they call for. It's not just you making this mistake. I actually heard Coughlan616 on YouTube make the mistake of saying that the Quran states that apostates from Islam should be killed, which it doesn't. Many Muslims believe and preach that Islam teaches this, but also many do not. Coughlan was actually making a point in defense of something about Islam when he made that statement, which demonstrates how much misinformation has been spread about the Quran. I'm only trying to put these things straight.

Didn't feel like quoting the entire thing, it's making the pages quite long. To be perfectly honest with you, your splitting semantic hairs as I've previously mentioned. If the Qu'ran falls short of saying: 'All muslims must do X', then no matter what is written about X we cannot say what the Qu'ran says about doing or not doing it. As in, after a certain point we can't say that the Qu'ran says anything. While your statement is relatively fair, cutting out interpretation cannot be done to one's prefered standards. You'd just be giving your own with the preclusion of higher accuracy (maybe I didn't use preclusion correctly, oh well ;p). It just gets to a point where if we realize the standards set, your determination of what interpretations are fallacious such that the Qu'ran says to do X, Y, etc then the determination becomes quite worthless. But then again, maybe you and I differ on what the importance of determining what the Qu'ran says based on varying standard is an impasse.

 

[Story]

There is no semantics involved. You're just spewing falsehoods.

You originally said that

"if the Q'uran verses I've seen are hadiths then the Q'uran must be short as hell."

which clearly shows your bias about the Quran being full of horrible things.

Then you said:

Basically it states that later verses have precedent over other contradictory versus, which is why one can say the Qu'ran does not endorse certain acts. The problem is for the large part the bad stuff is later in the book....

And you didn't provide evidence for that.


And you said:

but then again there's this practice where you're encouraged to lie if it benefits Islam.

And you failed to provide evidence for that either.


And then you're saying I'm splitting semantic hairs because I'm just not accepting every vile thing you care to say about Islam. That's not semantics, that's bias and as much as you might feel you can help people by thinking this way, you can't. Accepting everything bad you read about Islam because it coincides with how you think is not good or proper, nor will it help solve the problems inherent with Islam, as a matter for fact it will only dull the effect of any honest revisionists.

 

[magicalpants]

There is no semantics involved. You're just spewing falsehoods.

You originally said that

"if the Q'uran verses I've seen are hadiths then the Q'uran must be short as hell."

which clearly shows your bias about the Quran being full of horrible things.

You can't take a joke can you?

Then you said:

Basically it states that later verses have precedent over other contradictory versus, which is why one can say the Qu'ran does not endorse certain acts. The problem is for the large part the bad stuff is later in the book....

And you didn't provide evidence for that.

"And when we put a revelation in place of (another) revelation and Allah knows best what He reveals -- they say: you are just inventing it. Most of them do not know. Say: The Holy Spirit (Gibril) has revealed it from your hand with truth and as a guidance and good news for those who have surrendered (to God)" [16:101-102]
I'm sorry for not making it clear that I was reciprocating what some Muslims are saying about abrogation. They cited that, and like many things in abrahamic religion specific rules are inferred. All I'm saying is it's as relatively valid that there is such a practice as abrogating later verses...or wait how do you use abrogation as a verb...I just think your claim that it's not in the Qu'ran has at least as much merit as those who say it's not in their. One will say this verse means that..and another will say oh no it doesn't. Then there will be hadith's referenced to show what the most appropriate interpretation is and those will be determined to be valid or invalid based on what I would think is a biased standard of confirmation.

And you said:

but then again there's this practice where you're encouraged to lie if it benefits Islam.

And you failed to provide evidence for that either.

Look, buddy, I didn't make the claim that it says that. I said there is a practice. I didn't say it was substantiated by the Qu'ran did I? I did about abrogation however.

And then you're saying I'm splitting semantic hairs because I'm just not accepting every vile thing you care to say about Islam. That's not semantics, that's bias and as much as you might feel you can help people by thinking this way, you can't. Accepting everything bad you read about Islam because it coincides with how you think is not good or proper, nor will it help solve the problems inherent with Islam, as a matter for fact it will only dull the effect of any honest revisionists.

I'm not saying your splitting hairs, here's the key part, BECAUSE your not accepting it. I'm saying your splitting semantic hairs by separating the source from the interpretation in a way that alleviates certain meanings as if their two different things. So there's the objective meaning of the text, and the subjective interpretation of the series of objectively predefined words. I really don't know how to explain how inappropriate this is when deciding what ISN'T in a book. I don't think you'd use whatever standard of meaning your using for the Qu'ran on a typical book.

You're claiming I have bias because I'm bringing up an opposing interpretation of Muslims? All I'm doing is showing an opposing view point, one that isn't mine because I don't have one, and I don't think I'll be adopting yours any time soon. All I did was match up what you said with what I've heard from other people, and noticed they were conflicting. Initially I just didn't feel like your views were completely accurate and moved on, that was fine. And then I came upon something relevant and thought I'd share it. And now your telling me neither of them exist. I'm sorry, it's unfortunate, but Taqqiya as a justification for lying to benefit Islam, and abrogating the 'later' or more 'violent' verses is something that exists. I just don't see how your interpretation, and I say interpretation because you and I have different standards of meaning, makes the one I'm bringing up any less valid.

I was willing to let it end, read your response and be done--but I do not appreciate attacks on my character.