[Dean's World] Dean: The Order Of Verses In The Koran

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dean:
The Order Of Verses In The Koran
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1159665680.shtml


   I have recently received a deluge of comments in email about my
   arguments over Islam, most of them positive. Which is quickly leading
   me to the conclusion that those who are most anxious to argue with me
   are not always those who are most important. My Muslim friends are
   reluctant to engage in these arguments because they feel hated,
   intimidated, and harassed. Why? Because they don't feel like people
   want to discuss things with them, they want to debate them. They feel
   like people want to pelt them with "oh yeah, what about this and this
   and this?!?!?" logic rather than just asking them what they really
   think and believe and have been taught--as if their faith is on trial
   rather than something decent people want to discuss as friends.

   "Debate" and "discussion" are not the same thing by the way. Any Jew
   would be dumb to "debate" someone who believes in ZOG, but might be
   smart to discuss their faith with someone who was paranoid about it
   and just had questions.

   Similarly, I have found that non-Muslim-hating people have usually
   avoided the Dean's World threads just because of the radioactive
   Muslim-hate that emanates from some commenters. But the emails I get
   are interesting and enlightening, including from some who are
   respectfully confused. Take for example this:

     Hi Dean,

     This line caught my attention in your interactions in the comments:

     "Most Muslims I know will tell you that the sections of the Koran
     that deal with warfare mostly stem from the time in the early
     Muslim community when they believed themselves under seige from
     unbelievers"

     I think that this has it backwards. It is the more peaceful Suras
     which are from the Mecca (early) period, when the Muslim community
     was in a position of weakness and did not posture itself
     threateningly toward the infidel Arabs. The Medina (later) period,
     in which Mohammed was in control of a Muslim polity, is the period
     from which the more threatening Suras of the Qur'an come. It was in
     this period that the Muslim community was episodically at war with
     the infidels.

     This is important, since it bears on the interpretation of the
     Qur'an, which I'm sure you will agree is a matter of crucial
     importance to what Islam means to Muslims. I urge you to look into
     it at your leisure.

     I did a quick hunt myself, and here is a link to a Islamic site
     that gives the order of the Suras:

     http://www.submission.org/suras/app23.html

     here is link that is easier to read

     http://www.submission.org/Q-T.html

     Here is an older history that gives a table (about 2/3 of the way
     down) of the suras and the periods in which they were received:

     http://www.mountainman.com.au/islam_0.html

     According to that article at wnd citing the Pentagon study on the
     motivations of Muslim suicide bombers, the Suras most commonly used
     to justify these attacks are Suras 2, 3, 8, 9, 55 and 103. Of
     these, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 55 are late (chronologically 87th or later
     out of 114 and in the Medina period according to submission.org
     [note that Ali puts 55 in "early Mecca" while the submission.org
     puts it at sequence # 97, which would be in the Medina period])
     while only 103 is early (13th in the sequence, which would be in
     the Medina period).

     Sura 9, which commends killing and being killed in the cause of
     Allah (9:111), is chronologically the next to the last Sura.

     I think that this is worthy of your consideration.

     Sincerely yours,

     Sam C.

   Now to be clear, I think Sam's reasonable here. It's a fair set of
   questions in my mind.

   But, first off, please cite for me where the Koran says that a verse
   recorded later necessarily supercedes a verse recorded later. I don't
   think you can. (For that matter, find me that as a general Biblical
   principle.) If anything the Koran makes clear that it is whole and
   complete--which means that no later part can supercede any earlier
   part, or vice versa. The whole notion that "later is more important
   than earlier" is the sort of pseudo-logic that intellectual puffballs
   like Robert Spencer and [1]Hot Air's Bryan trade in.

   Seriously: this is like saying that when Christ said (in Matthew 7:4)
   "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your
   eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" it should
   take precedence over when Christ said (in Mark 9:47) "And if your eye
   causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the
   kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into
   hell."

   After all, Matthew comes before Mark right? So what's that mean?
   Examine your eye for beams before you gouge it out of your eyesocket?

   For that matter, some authorities say that Mark was written before
   Matthew. So does that mean that you should gouge your eye out before
   you take a speck out of it? What kind of idiot logic is any of this??

   At this point I am convinced that Michelle Malkin and just about
   everyone at Hot Air and Michellemalkin.com owe me some big time
   apologies. Whatever I did to offend them, they owe me back double in
   spades. My worst offense was getting mad at a Dean's World troll, and
   instead of answering my actual questions Michelle & Co. dug into my
   comments and found that instance of me losing patience with that
   troll. Oh whoop-de-doo. I have no apologies for losing patience with
   that idiot, and otherwise Malkin & Co. acted like total asses (as did
   Charles Johnson and quite a few others who sent me trackbacks).

   And in any case: whatever moron told you that "a later verse abrogates
   an earlier verse" was just making crap up. Indeed, the truth is that
   Muhammed spoke the Koran aloud to his followers, and his followers
   wrote it down, and then long after his death Muslims compiled it into
   a written book. It is not clear which sections of the Koran as we have
   it were recorded before or after the other sections. Which means that
   even if you accept the childish "later verses abrogate earlier verses"
   psuedo-logic, you still can't make any definitive statements on the
   matter.

   Which is why, by the way, everyone at Hot Air and Michellemalkin.com
   are poseurs (and possible traitors in the War On Terror) until they
   find a Muslim co-blogger. Which, I predict, they will never do.
   They're no better than a bunch of Christian-haters who think they can
   read the Bible and pontificate on its evils without ever bothering to
   ask any practicing Christians what they think--but then challenge
   Christians to "debate" their lunatic interpretations.

   "Do you deny that Jesus said you should gouge your own eye out? Do ya?
   Huh? Do ya?!?!?" What idiotic madness. Such things are not the subject
   of "debate." They're the subject of discussion--which starts by asking
   actual believers what they actually think.

References

   1. http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/18/when-atheists-and-secularists-quote-scripture/