So you are not going to carry forward with the translation card? That's always a good one, if used right, and attempting to quell those that are not informed. The context seems pretty clear to me. Did you want to argue that smiting the neck (does Daniel Pearle come to mind?) doesn't mean smiting the neck? Perhaps it means to give a hickey? I'm not forcing anything about a throat. That's not my style and not in my religious teachings. What I am doing, is correct dishonesty and doing so with your own holy book. I don't need credentials to understand what smiting a neck means, nor do I need credentials to understand many of the other verses in the quran. If you want to prove they mean giving chocolates and roses to the infidels, I eagerly await your effort. Everyone? No. Non-believers, yes. Unless you believe your holy book is only meant for certain muslims and not others. There is no twisting. You've failed to offer an alternative meaning to smiting the neck of non-believers. Until you do, the twisting seems to be in your corner. I disagree. You've failed miserably to account for such. The only thing you have done is suggested that smiting the neck is twisted. We can agree on that. I believe it is twisted as well. However, it is in your holy book, it is addressed to muslims (not angels, as was dishonestly suggested), nor has any alternative been presented. Contrary, I believe it is I that has exposed your dishonesty here. I welcome the opportunity to continue doing so.
1st question is yes because he saw what we were doing to him, 2nd question is no and you know this is true. Mossadegh was never man interested in absolute power . He was a hero to the intellectual iranian student movement, and he did everything he could to help his people. This is called a hero, something you dont understand. Tell me right now how bush would be reacting if the chinese tried to covertly overthrow our government. Your so full of it its not even funny. Everyone here knows who the person with no integrity is. You would have mossadegh just stand there and let us overthrow him and you call yourself someone who believes in freedom and democracy when you approve of us overthrowing a country's leader that was no harm to us?????? Trust me i dont need to tear down your integrity dude, your doing it yourself. Now go and reasearch the shah and tell me what u came up with? Was he elected to office, was he not one of the most brutal iranian leaders of our age. Who trained his secret police? Your so out of touch with the world that you cant even step outside your cozy little bubble to see the reality that everyone else sees. Im an american and i love my country, and this is why i speak out, but im not for the oil barrons or the elite. Im for the regular honest everyday working joe that is down to earth, honest , hard working and decent, im also for our soldiers that are out there dieing everyday for this lie of a war you support. Sorry i didnt change any subject. This has everything to do about why i dont support the war and in your crazy way of thinking you think that because im against this war that im against america. If you equate america with the elite than your really out of touch.
Thank you. I accept your apology for suggesting I said otherwise, or that he did otherwise. This is what I said, this is what I stand behind, these were the facts. Now, will you be apologizing for accusing me of twisting your holy book's scriptures? Are you ashamed of scriptures that instruct you to smite off the necks of unbelievers?
This is speculation on your part. VCTech says otherwise. History shows he dissolved parliament to obtain power. Without dissolving he, he would not have been able to assume power. How do you account for this discrepancy?
I certainly do not follow what are you trying to say here And why are you so obssessed with the "smiting the neck" phrase when the first part of the verse clearly says that this was addressed to the angels? You mean "twisting" the Qur'anic verses to suit your agenda. Yes. Again, taking things out of context when this has already been explained before. Just like your twisting with Mossadegh. Don't waste your time with this tactic, GTech, it is not going to work with me. I believe that I referred to your interpretation as "twisted", and nothing was referenced to "smiting of necks", which was addressed to the angels. Such dishonesty is incredible, given that I had provided this link. Feel free to think as such, if it pleases you. I will continue exposing your lies as usual.
VCtech says otherwise? can you show me that post please lol. Your brand of history shows this. Not the history of the iranian people. How would u know whats going on in there unless you ask them. Operation ajax is a fact!!!!!!!!!! and the fact that you dont admit this shows to me you keep twisting the truth. He was trying to save his country and if he didnt dissolve pariament the shah would have taken over sooner than expected. Of course you failed to mention that the shah had our cia's backing and wasnt elected to the presidency by the iranian people, and had to keep himself in power by constant funding and aid from our cia, but i guess teh full truth isnt something your used to posting about.
I was not "apologising" for anything. Apparently he did so BUT he did do these under circumstances which deemed this action necessary. I am not going to write about Mossadegh but I wish to set the record straight, plus using this as an example of how this tactic is used by you to manipulate the Qur'anic translations as well. I am not going to apologise for anything, because (1) you have not been repentant of continuously manipulating the Qur'anic verses, (2) you have not proven that this is a general directive to all Muslims, when the passage clearly addresses the angels, (3) the interpretation of Ibn Kathir shows that it is a reference to a specific historical context, i.e. the Battle of Badr, (4) your fondness of trying to force your own interpretation down other people's throat has led you to commit lies, dishonest interpretations and twisting and manipulative meanings of texts and contexts. So in other words, I have nothing to "apologise" for, nor am I ashamed of the Qur'anul Kareem. You have yet to prove that Islam is violent and yet to prove that your interpretation is a valid one which is held by all Muslims.
I bet you don't Ever play chess? It was not addressed to the angels. I have proven this dishonesty numerous times now. Repeating something dishonest does not make it true. Further, "smiting the neck" goes to the core of the verse, therefore it is a concern. Perhaps, as a muslim, you are not so concerned about neck smiting, but as an infidel, who that verse is aimed towards, I'm always concerned about "neck smiting." But that isn't the point. The point is, that it is in your holy book, it is addressed to muslims, (not angels) and it the subject of that neck smiting are those who do not believe in islam. That proves my point, nor yours Being aware of the twisted quranic verses that exposes the agenda of islam. The quran is not eloquently written. It doesn't require an advanced education to understand or read. This is dishonest. I've taken nothing out of context. I challenge you to put what you believe is out of context, into context. In order to claim "neck smiting" is out of context, you must first show what context "neck smiting" is acceptable, and offer an alternative meaning. This is dishonest. I've yet to see your interpretation of "neck smiting." Please, share with me your interpretation. I'd love to hear this! This site has no credibility. As such, it is exactly why I source the USC for scriptures, because just like you can accuse a source of being biased "propaganda," so to can I make the same call. You'll impress me to stick with authoritative references. So far, you've not done a good job. I'm using your own scriptures to prove otherwise. Le'ts visit some more, and see if you will attempt to twist these, and call them "out of context" without providing a real context: 005.051 Not very "tolerant" is it? Gee, I bet there is some "context" these are supposed to go into, so that they don't really mean what they say?
Sure. Having browser cache problems again? Wikipedia shows the history. He violated his country's constitution and dissolved parliament to gain power. The irony is, you "claim" similar for your own country and cry relentlessly about it, but seem to laud others who have done the same. How does a man of Lebanese decent living in America know what Iranian people say? Are you going to tell me you went to Iran to ask them? I've called you on similar things before, ping. Ever thought about keeping it honest? Or would that inhibit a desired result?
I was a school representative for a chess competition once. But I am sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with chess Again you have not proven anything to show that it is otherwise. This has been said again and again. Repeating your twisted interpretation does not make it "true". Again, the core argument against yours is: (1) It is addressed to the angels, as was shown before. (2) It is set in a specific historical context, as suggested by Ibn Kathir. (3) It is not a general directive to all Muslims to smite anyone who disagree with them on sight. This is getting pointless. I find myself repeating the same thing over and over again (which you then conveniently accused me of arguing ad nauseam), while you on the other hand have done nothing to show your interpretation is the correct one. What preposterous nonsense! Tafsir.com is a well-known site containing the tafsir of Ibn Kathir. As far as I know, it is the only site which does this. Rest assured that this is an authoritative source, arguing otherwise does no credit to your "credibility". And as for that silly claim about "not taking Jews and Christians as friends", that is an old claim based on the mistranslation of "friend" (when it should have been "political allies"). There is no need to reinvent the wheel for that, it has been addressed before.
This is not true. Let's review the scriptures, in several accepted interpretations from an authoritative and neutral source, again: 008.012 I've noted the important part in bold/red. Your claim is, that this is addressed to angels. When then, is the writer suggesting to remember what was told the angels, when addressing the angels? That doesn't make sense, does it? No, I thought you might agree. The writer is addressing believers and to illustrate what must happen to those that do NOT believe, he is reminding the "believer" audience of what was told to the angels. I have redressed this dishonesty and illustrated so above, in bold/red, that it was not addressed to angels. Further, there is nothing to suggest before, or after, that the context is anything other than what it reads as. No one has suggested that it is "a general directive to all Muslims to smite anyone who disagree with them on sight." It is a directive to muslims to smite the necks of non-believers. I find myself directly quoting your scriptures, in context and historical meaning, and proving who they were directed to and NOT to, over and over again. I'm more than happy to continue doing so. I do not have an interpretation. I have merely sourced the quran, giving three accepted translations for each verse in question from a neutral site. If it is the only site, then obviously it's not well accepted. It has no credibility with me. I do not need a third party site to "interpret" what a verse from the quran means. The quran is not complicated and most fourth graders could grasp it's concept. Feel free to source what you need to, but I'll stick with direct and widely accepted translations from a respected and neutral site. That's really all I need. Again, using the translation card for convenience. All three widely accepted english translations say the same thing. Sourced, from a neutral site that was put together by muslims at a major university. Thank you, but I'll stick with what the quran says. I don't need a third party site to retranslate what the quran says.
I've already done that before, you are simply reinforcing my point. Again, see the interpretation of Ibn Kathir in relation to the verse. The Muslims are told to remember what God addressed the angels in connection to their victory at the Battle of Badr. What is so hard to understand about this? You, on the other hand, are making this out to be a general directive addressed to all Muslims at all times. That is ripping out the context of the verse in question. You sure have the cheek to call me "dishonest" while at the same time dishonestly confining this verse to your warped interpretation with utter disregard for the context. You have given your version of the interpretation, i.e. to suggest that Muslims must "smite the disbelievers' necks" at any time should they come across one, when the verse is actually addressed to the angels who have already done so during the Muslims' victory at the Battle of Badr and the Muslims are commanded to remember God's help when doing so. To me, this seems like you trying to wriggle out of a bad situation. The site exposes your warped interpretation as false, you do not like this and therefore you try to make silly claims about it being an unauthoritative source. Sorry, sir, but that will not work. In any case, it is not a problem for me whether you accept it as an authoritative source or otherwise. I implore readers to take a look at the site and compare it with GTech's lying statements. The same goes for the so-called "third party" site which GTech rejects as evidence but actually refutes GTech's claim about taking Jews and Christians as friends. Make the conclusions for yourselves.
Only if your point is that it was not addressing angels, as I clearly illustrated from your holy book above. Thank you, no. I will stick with neutral sources and quote those, straight from the quran, as I did above, to illustrate that it was not being addressed to angels. Surely you are not suggesting all those islamic scholars, that translated the quran, are liars? Are you suggesting you are smarter than they were? Surely allah would not be pleased. When people are dishonest, I point it out. For example, here you are being dishonest by suggesting I have made a warped translation. This is dishonest. I have not translated the quran. I have simply quoted it from your own holy book from an authoritative source that offers three different english translations. Perhaps you meant to call those islamic scholars, renown for their works, dishonest? This is incorrect. It is not my interpretation. I simply read (have you tried it, it really does work!) the verses from an authoritative source. The quran is not a complicated book. This is easily illustrated by how many in third world countries with little or no education are able to grasp it. This is an interesting tactic. I must admit, I had not considered the notion that I was in a bad situation. I feel quite confident, to be honest. While I'm quoting direct passages that are very clear in context and what they mean, you are trying everything to prove they don't mean what they actually say. I'd rather be in my position, than yours I've made no such statements, unless you are calling your holy book, the quran, a book of lying statements. For I have simply quoted it, with source, and have patiently nurtured this conversation while watching you attempt to twist and distort and claim it doesn't mean what it says. Read the scriptures quoted from the quran, not from a third party biased website. If you believe the USC compendulum of your scriptures is a lie, then you should contact them and ask them to alter those messages to fit your version of islam. Good luck with that. You will keep me posted on your progress, right?