Tariq Ramadan

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

If found this (and more) in a Moroccan newspaer:
In a recent interview with the Belgian channel RTL-TVI, Majda Bernoussi, the Belgian-Moroccan woman who claims to have been Ramadan’s mistress for five years, recounts her psychological ordeal for the first time after three years of silence.

For Bernoussi, behind the camera lies a “pervert man who uses religion to manipulate and abuse women.”

“His ethics, his morals, his faith, he reserves them to the camera. Out of the public eye, he is just the opposite… He believes in nothing and even less in God. He talks about God only when it comes to manipulating us, apart from that, it’s never mentioned and he does exactly what he wants,” she added.
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2018/0 ... rds-women/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tariq Ramadan is a Muslim theologian/historian who for a time worked in Switzerland, where he is now wanted on rape charges, who is presently in prison in France on rape charges, who was sacked from the university in Rotterdam for "confidential" reasons, and last worked as a lecturer at Oxford university.

What surprises me is that even Muslims in Morocco can see this man for what he is, a vulgar fraud. However, there is another man who behaved very similarly towards women, and did much else besides, one that live some 1600 years ago, and Muslims cannot find anything wrong with that.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

that's because its only exist in your christiany-fantasy, christian have fantasy that prophet of islam did wrong thing to justified their fantasy that prophet of islam are false prophet because they cant find what wrong in the teachings of islam.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

We have hundreds of hadith about the behaviour of Mohammed, written by Muslims, not Christians. They tell us very clearly how he behaved towards women. As to his teachings, they are mostly things copied from other sources, but always altered to fit his personal agenda.

He was a wicked man, a cult leader who used religion to get power sex and money, the lowest of the low. He even once openly said that religion only has one purpose: "to get others to die for for you". I mean, seriously, what else is there to say about a man who claims God ordered him to have sex with a little girl?

You speak of fantasy.... the Mohammed Muslims venerate is a fantasy, something incompatible with the sources offered by early Islam.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

yeah, either hadiths which contradict the Quran (fake hadiths) or misinterpreted hadiths, the problem with christian is always same, either false source, or false logic.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

Garudaman, any Muslim knows that telling lies about Mohammed or even say true things that bring him into disrepute is punished by death, since the days of Mohammed himself.

So when a Muslim says something like that and at the same time knows he is risking his life, it is fair to pay attention. Sure some things may have be errors, but when we have several sources, which Muslims themselves say are reliable, then you really cannot just say "fake" and that's the end.

And you speak of logic.... if something "agrees with Qur'an" it must be true and if it does not then it is fake? How is that logical?

How do you know if a historical source is true?


Or are you not simply manufacturing your own "perfect" Mohammed, a person who never existed?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

manfred wrote:And you speak of logic.... if something "agrees with Qur'an" it must be true and if it does not then it is fake? How is that logical?
its logical because the Quran is holy book of Islam, or lets say, muslim must believe in the Quran or he's cant be called as muslim, i mean, is it logical? if you want talk to muslim, but you're looking for people who reject the Quran? :lotpot:
manfred wrote:How do you know if a historical source is true?

i dont know as i cant look/go back to the past, but what i know is :
1. there's claim that Islam's holy book is the Quran
2. there's fact that the Quran's teachings are true/dont have any wrong
3. the Quran teachings are true = the Quran is from God -> the logic conclusion/the acceptable hypothesis
4. source from God is the most true source

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

No, not quite, Garudaman. You don't "know" that the Qur'an is from God or that it is true. You only know that is what the Qur'an says about itself, and you BELIEVE that.

To actually check the claims you need to do something Muslims are afraid to do: check the text against known facts, historical facts or scientific facts, and to check forinternal contradictions.

I know that is something you would find a very difficult thing to do for you, but nonetheless, that is the only way you can turn your BELIEF into KNOWLEDGE. Sadly, the Qur'an does not stand up to its claims. And what is worse, it very obviously is a collection of edited texts, which all have an agenda: to establish Mohammed's claims to power and wealth.

We have discussed here a great many examples of the Qur'an having errors and inconsistencies. If you want to discuss any of them, I am happy to walk though it with you.

On the other hand, if you prefer to hold on to that image of Mohammed you have made for yourself, no, problem. Just don't pretend it is "knowledge" when it is a mere unfounded belief.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

manfred wrote:No, not quite, Garudaman. You don't "know" that the Qur'an is from God or that it is true. You only know that is what the Qur'an says about itself, and you BELIEVE that.

To actually check the claims you need to do something Muslims are afraid to do: check the text against known facts, historical facts or scientific facts, and to check forinternal contradictions.
those are things that I have done in various threads in this forum!
manfred wrote:I know that is something you would find a very difficult thing to do for you, but nonetheless, that is the only way you can turn your BELIEF into KNOWLEDGE. Sadly, the Qur'an does not stand up to its claims. And what is worse, it very obviously is a collection of edited texts, which all have an agenda: to establish Mohammed's claims to power and wealth.
thats something that oftenly I have proved wrong in various threads in this forum.
manfred wrote:We have discussed here a great many examples of the Qur'an having errors and inconsistencies. If you want to discuss any of them, I am happy to walk though it with you.
then go on, choose one of your strongest argument!

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

I am not sure how to say this without sounding impolite.... I really cannot recall any occasion where you have proven anything to me or to others here, so please be so kind and show me an example.

As to errors and inconsistencies in the Qur'an we have had hundreds here discussed in detail ... the Samaritan and Moses, the Mary and Miriam confusion, the trinity error, the Dirham, the source of the sperms, the thing man was was created from, Abraham and Mecca/Kaaba, the sleepers, the place of the setting sun, the night journey , the shooting star stuff, the jinn, the crucifixion absurdity, the father of flames, burnt bricks and towers in Egypt.... I could fill the page with problematic passages. Some are simply factually false, some historically, some internal contradictions. In addition there are many instances of verses being "revealed" purely for Mohammed's convenience.

I am happy to go over any of then again if you wish, (or any other you like) but I can already guess your responses...

When any such thing is pointed out, the texts are stretched and manipulated to try to hide the problem, sometimes to hilarious degrees, and always contrary to established and accepted interpretations from respected Muslim scholars.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

if im not wrong, we're already have all of those threads, so remind/show me all of those threads & i will show/remind you all of the examples of the point i was debunk you.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

Find me an example of something you "debunked", please, just one....
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

frankie
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by frankie »

Garudaman wrote:if im not wrong, we're already have all of those threads, so remind/show me all of those threads & i will show/remind you all of the examples of the point i was debunk you.
So far you have not "debunked" this claim of yours, to which I responded by quoting from the Quran and tafsir.

Would you like to "debunk" it now?

Here is the full thread in context.


sum wrote:
Hello Garudaman

The Koran in its last chapter of guidance says that I should convert to Islam or die because I am a person who does not believe in deities.

Do you whole heartedly accept this guidance and without any reservations?

sum
nope its not said like that, its said if you fight muslim you must die (QS. 4:88-92, QS. 5:33), but if you're repent before muslim start to catch you/fight back, muslim must dont kill you (QS. 5:32, QS. 5:34), but you must show that you're really repent/dont want to fight muslim anymore, by pay compensation/jizya without convert to Islam (QS. 9:29). or by convert to Islam without pay jizya (hadith).

nope its not said like that, its said if you fight muslim you must die
That's not what Allah tells you, so who is right Allah, or you?

http://quranx.com/Tafsirs/9.30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quran 9.30
The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because They are Idolators and Disbelievers

Tafsir Ibn Kathir 9.30
Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that `Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over `Isa, it is obvious. This is why Allah declared both groups to be liars, That is their saying with their mouths), but they have no proof that supports their claim, other than lies and fabrications resembling), imitating the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime.) They imitate the previous nations who fell into misguidance just as Jews and Christians did,, may Allah fight them), Ibn `Abbas said, "May Allah curse them (how they are deluded away from the truth!) how they deviate from truth, when it is apparent, exchanging it for misguidance.......

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

manfred wrote:Find me an example of something you "debunked", please, just one....
here : viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17864&hilit=Samaritan+Moses" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Spoiler! :
manfred wrote:The place name is Samaria, the people are called Samaritans in English. They are not called Samarians, because we have the English word via the Greek and Latin. In Arabic, the term is borrowed from Syriac. The place name is السامرة (alsamira-tu) The "tu" means place or land. In Syriac it was Assamar(e)-to
ok, but its still can be mean :

1. just the similiarity of jew names, first there's person who named Samiri, then after a long time there's city that's also named Samiri.
2. acronym for stray person, as in NT Samaritan is stray person, stray in religion.
manfred wrote:("send" is what you mean....)

This does not follow .... he gave Hagar some provision, then fetched Ishmael, and then they were sent away. What is there not to understand?

them: "mereka"
her: "dia"
you're who dont understand, the problem isnt about Abraham send who, but about Abraham said I send you guys to who, & as you can see, Abraham only give provision to Hagar (its should be, Abaraham give provisions to Hagar & Ishmael [no give Ishmael to Hagar] and send them away)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

About the Samaritan during the days of Moses you said this:
1. just the similiarity of jew names, first there's person who named Samiri, then after a long time there's city that's also named Samiri.
2. acronym for stray person, as in NT Samaritan is stray person, stray in religion.
Your first claim is that somehow Samaritans existed before "Samaria". The people of Samaria where originally Jews, but their religious observance was slightly different to the "Southern" Jews. This was essentially caused by the split of the kingdom after Solomon. So this does not hold up to history. There simply is no point in arguing that the "Samiri" are not Samaritans, they have had the same name in Arabic and Syriac certainly since the days of Mohammed up to modern Arabic.


Your second claim is an interesting one, but there are also some problems with that: first of all, the Samaritans are not portrayed as "stray in religion" in the NT, in fact quite the opposite: the Pharisee is does not help the person in the ditch who was robbed, nor does the priest, it was the Samaritan who is held up as an example of how people should behave towards each other. This was a criticism of how some Jewish contemporaries viewed the Samaritans. So if it is the kind of acronym you mention then it certainly does not come from there.


An acronym is only any use if the audience, in this case, the Arabs, understand what it means. You are merely re-writing the Qur'an to try to remove a problem.

We do know how this curious thing came about:

in Hosea we find this:
Throw out your calf-idol, O Samaria! My anger burns against them. How long will they be incapable of purity? They are from Israel! This calf - a craftsman has made it; it is not God. It will be broken in pieces, that calf of Samaria. -- Hosea 8:5-6
This is a reference to king Jerobeam also instituted places of worship in his kingdom and put up a calf in each of them (1 Kings 12:26-33)

The give-away is in 20:97 which says something quite similar to Hosea:
(Moses) said [to the Samaritan]: "Get thee gone! But thy (punishment) will be that thou wilt say, 'Touch me not'; ... Now look at thy god, of whom you hast become a devoted worshipper: We will certainly burn it in blazing fire and scatter it broadcast in the sea!"
So Mohammed simply mixed two different "calf" stories, the one with Moses and the one in Samaria, and that is how the Samaritan ended up with Moses.

What you are doing, sadly is not "debunking" but simply trying to explain things away without taking account of the facts.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

frankie
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by frankie »

Garudaman

You have made the clam:
"nope its not said like that, its said if you fight muslim you must die"

but Allah tells you that Muslims must "fight Jews and Christians because they are disbelievers and idolaters", are you claiming to know more than Allah, or are you wilfully ignoring your god in favour of your own interpretation?

Your own sources tell you are wrong, but yet you still insist you are right, and Muslims are only allowed to fight people who fight them.

You obviously are unable to respond truthfully, and so you ignore the obvious and refuse to reply to my questions put to you.

This tells you plainly, your faith is not what you claim it to be, it is a lie, of which you are a victim, if you refuse to accept this, then your remaining life will be based on this lie.

If you want to be on the side of truth, you cannot remain a Muslim, your faith will not permit it.



Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because They are Idolators and Disbelievers

Tafsir Ibn Kathir 9.30
Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that `Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over `Isa, it is obvious. This is why Allah declared both groups to be liars, That is their saying with their mouths), but they have no proof that supports their claim, other than lies and fabrications resembling), imitating the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime.) They imitate the previous nations who fell into misguidance just as Jews and Christians did,, may Allah fight them), Ibn `Abbas said, "May Allah curse them (how they are deluded away from the truth!) how they deviate from truth, when it is apparent, exchanging it for misguidance.......

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

manfred wrote:Your first claim is that somehow Samaritans existed before "Samaria". The people of Samaria where originally Jews, but their religious observance was slightly different to the "Southern" Jews. This was essentially caused by the split of the kingdom after Solomon. So this does not hold up to history.
so you basically said that there's no way the jew name Samaria exist before the split of the kingdom? :lotpot:
manfred wrote:Your second claim is an interesting one, but there are also some problems with that: first of all, the Samaritans are not portrayed as "stray in religion" in the NT, in fact quite the opposite: the Pharisee is does not help the person in the ditch who was robbed, nor does the priest, it was the Samaritan who is held up as an example of how people should behave towards each other. This was a criticism of how some Jewish contemporaries viewed the Samaritans. So if it is the kind of acronym you mention then it certainly does not come from there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the Christian Bible, the Gospel of John relates an encounter between a Samaritan woman and Jesus in which she says that the mountain was the center of their worship. She poses the question to Jesus when she realizes that he is the Messiah. Jesus affirms the Jewish position, saying "You (that is, the Samaritans) worship what you do not know".[57]

20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
manfred wrote:An acronym is only any use if the audience, in this case, the Arabs, understand what it means. You are merely re-writing the Qur'an to try to remove a problem.
so there's no Christian Arabs nor Injeel/Euangelion near Kaaba at that time? :roll:
manfred wrote:We do know how this curious thing came about:

in Hosea we find this:

Throw out your calf-idol, O Samaria! My anger burns against them. How long will they be incapable of purity? They are from Israel! This calf - a craftsman has made it; it is not God. It will be broken in pieces, that calf of Samaria. -- Hosea 8:5-6

This is a reference to king Jerobeam also instituted places of worship in his kingdom and put up a calf in each of them (1 Kings 12:26-33)

The give-away is in 20:97 which says something quite similar to Hosea:

(Moses) said [to the Samaritan]: "Get thee gone! But thy (punishment) will be that thou wilt say, 'Touch me not'; ... Now look at thy god, of whom you hast become a devoted worshipper: We will certainly burn it in blazing fire and scatter it broadcast in the sea!"

So Mohammed simply mixed two different "calf" stories, the one with Moses and the one in Samaria, and that is how the Samaritan ended up with Moses.
well, you have to prove first, that there is no Jewish name, Samaria at the time of Moses.

& you still have to prove that the Bible is reliable source/stating facts, by debunk this :
Spoiler! :
manfred wrote:("send" is what you mean....)

This does not follow .... he gave Hagar some provision, then fetched Ishmael, and then they were sent away. What is there not to understand?

them: "mereka"
her: "dia"
you're who dont understand, the problem isnt about Abraham send who, but about Abraham said I send you guys to who, & as you can see, Abraham only give provision to Hagar (its should be, Abaraham give provisions to Hagar & Ishmael [no give Ishmael to Hagar] and send them away)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

so you basically said that there's no way the jew name Samaria exist before the split of the kingdom?
"Samaria" is a name of a PLACE, not of a person. It was first used after the split of the kingdom, following the death of Solomon. Moses was MUCH earlier. People cannot be called after a place name that has not yet been so named. Before Mugabe, "Zimbabwe" was called "Rhodesia" and if you lived there or were born there you would have been called a "Rhodesian". Only after the place was renamed, people referred to themselves as Zimbabwean. Today we have "Belgians" but before 1830, there was no such country, and also therefore no "Belgians".

As you your curious claim about John chapter four please read the chapter, and you get a completely different picture. Jesus is befriending the Samaritan woman, and encourages her to follow him. This in itself is a comment on the contemporary Jewish view on the Samaritans. He asks her to give him a drink of water. Jews at the time would not share food or drink with a Samaritan. As to "worship that which you do no know" applies to all religious beliefs. (Unless you claiming Allah regularly comes to your house to have some ayam betutu)
so there's no Christian Arabs nor Injeel/Euangelion near Kaaba at that time?
Sure there were Jews and Christians (mostly Nestorian ones) in Arabia during Mohammed's time. For some Jews "Samaritan" has a slightly negative connotation, for Christians the first thing they will think of the parable of the good Samaritan. And the average Quariash, being neither, they would have no clue at all what Samaritan is.

As to your spoiler, I think that is self-explanatory. Suppose you go on a picnic. You ask your wife to carry the food, and you fetch the car. Does that mean the food is ONLY for your wife, and not for you and the kids?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

manfred wrote:"Samaria" is a name of a PLACE, not of a person. It was first used after the split of the kingdom, following the death of Solomon. Moses was MUCH earlier. People cannot be called after a place name that has not yet been so named. Before Mugabe, "Zimbabwe" was called "Rhodesia" and if you lived there or were born there you would have been called a "Rhodesian". Only after the place was renamed, people referred to themselves as Zimbabwean. Today we have "Belgians" but before 1830, there was no such country, and also therefore no "Belgians".
Samaria means Guardian/Keeper, so tell me, what prevents the Jewish parents before the split of kingdom, from naming their child as Guardian/Keeper (of the laws of prophets)?
manfred wrote:As you your curious claim about John chapter four please read the chapter, and you get a completely different picture. Jesus is befriending the Samaritan woman, and encourages her to follow him. This in itself is a comment on the contemporary Jewish view on the Samaritans. He asks her to give him a drink of water. Jews at the time would not share food or drink with a Samaritan.
& then that women ask to Jesus about Jewish claim vs her religion :

20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.


nice try, manfred.
manfred wrote:As to "worship that which you do no know" applies to all religious beliefs (Unless you claiming Allah regularly comes to your house to have some ayam betutu)
20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.


try again!
manfred wrote:Sure there were Jews and Christians (mostly Nestorian ones) in Arabia during Mohammed's time. For some Jews "Samaritan" has a slightly negative connotation, for Christians the first thing they will think of the parable of the good Samaritan.
thats for Christian who never read John 4:22, not for such this Christians, certainly : https://www.biblestudytools.com/comment ... ke-10.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown wrote:33. Samaritan--one excommunicated by the Jews, a byword among them, synonymous with heretic and devil (John 8:48)
manfred wrote:And the average Quariash, being neither, they would have no clue at all what Samaritan is.
who's need that clue anyway? they're only need who's led people of Moses to astray.
manfred wrote:As to your spoiler, I think that is self-explanatory. Suppose you go on a picnic. You ask your wife to carry the food, and you fetch the car. Does that mean the food is ONLY for your wife, and not for you and the kids?
you ask your wife & your son to go on picnic, you ask your wife to carry the food, & give your wife, your son? how old your son?

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by manfred »

It seems you have some problems finding chapter 4 of John's gospel... and only those tow verses, out of all context, play in you minds.

Here is what immediately follows your two verses:
23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”
And here is what the woman says just before the verses you selected:
19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
So, what does it say?

First the woman mentions that Samaritans do not worship at the temple of Jerusalem. Then Jesus says IT DOES NOT MATTER. Then woman speaks of the messiah,and Jesus tells her he is the messiah.

So the message is... neither the Samaritan mountain nor the temple are really important for true worship. And she as a Samaritan is as invited as any Jew to be part of the followers of Jesus.

As to John 8:48, again you cannot be asked to read the whole thing. It is some Jews hostile to Jesus who say he is a Samaritan and "demon possessed". There is a reply by Jesus in the next verse:
49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honour my Father and you dishonour me. 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”
This is interesting in that it addresses the "demon possessed" thing, but ignores the "Samaritan" thing all together. Why do you think that is?

So we have a confirmation that Jesus did not agree with the way some Jews see the Samaritans.

who's need that clue anyway? they're only need who's led people of Moses to astray.

Which cannot be a Samaritan as they did not exits yet. So the Qur'an is simply wrong on that count. And the Hebrew word for a guardian is "shomer". The "Shomeroni" (=Samiri) are the People of Samaria. If you think "Samaritan" is a personal name, find me just one man called that name.

you ask your wife & your son to go on picnic, you ask your wife to carry the food, & give your wife, your son? how old your son?

I sense some desperation here... It really is very simple. Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away, because of the problems Ishmael caused with Isaac. Ishmael, if you use the biblical texts, would have been about 18 years old when this happened, give and take a year. We are not told who carried what, merely that Abraham gave the provisions to Hagar. The notion that as a male teenager you are the master of your mother is a Muslim one, not a Hebrew one.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

Re: Tariq Ramadan

Post by Garudaman »

manfred wrote:It seems you have some problems finding chapter 4 of John's gospel... and only those tow verses, out of all context, play in you minds.

Here is what immediately follows your two verses:

23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

And here is what the woman says just before the verses you selected:

19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

So, what does it say?

First the woman mentions that Samaritans do not worship at the temple of Jerusalem. Then Jesus says IT DOES NOT MATTER. Then woman speaks of the messiah,and Jesus tells her he is the messiah.
it doesnt matter when the messiah coming, before that the rule which applied is :
20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
otherwise the above verse is doest have any use.
manfred wrote:So the message is... neither the Samaritan mountain nor the temple are really important for true worship. And she as a Samaritan is as invited as any Jew to be part of the followers of Jesus.
the message is neither the Samaritan mountain nor the temple are really important for true worship after the messiah coming.
manfred wrote:As to John 8:48, again you cannot be asked to read the whole thing. It is some Jews hostile to Jesus who say he is a Samaritan and "demon possessed". There is a reply by Jesus in the next verse :

49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honour my Father and you dishonour me. 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

This is interesting in that it addresses the "demon possessed" thing, but ignores the "Samaritan" thing all together. Why do you think that is?
because :
1. the most severe point is the Jesus teachings is come from demon.
2. the accusation that Jesus are Samaritan/astray people/heretic jew can be debunked together by the answer I come from my Father/your God.
manfred wrote:So we have a confirmation that Jesus did not agree with the way some Jews see the Samaritans.
if he didnt agree, then there's will be no John 4:22.
manfred wrote:Which cannot be a Samaritan as they did not exits yet. So the Qur'an is simply wrong on that count. And the Hebrew word for a guardian is "shomer". The "Shomeroni" (=Samiri) are the People of Samaria.
ok, then Samiri is the acronym of astray people/heretic as John 4:22 suggest, or idol worshiper maybe : http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianc ... ommentary/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Samaritans were despised by the Jews because they were known as half-breeds, half Jewish and half Gentile. When the Northern Kingdoms were taken captive by the Assyrians, they intermarried with them to settle in the place that is called Samaria, just north of Judea. As usually happens in such cases, they adopt the worship of their false, pagan gods, falling into idolatry.
manfred wrote:I sense some desperation here... It really is very simple. Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away
nope, Abraham wasnt sent Hagar and Ishmael away, but sent Hagar and her baby away, as you dont hand over a man to his mother.

Post Reply