egafd.com

We disagree. No more to be said.

""If David wants to say the extreme interpretations are wrong, we are left with what I've already said before........that only God/Allah can judge that."

A huge range of Islamic scholars disagree with you. However, I am sure you know better.

I will leave you to debate your increasingly bizarre views with those scholars.

Apparently my views on this are 'bizarre'. I don't know what world David is living in. In summary, all I'm saying is:

"Only Allah can be trusted on the true interpretations of the Quran. Any scholar who says he knows as much as Allah is a liar and a blasphemer."

There is nothing bizarre in that. To me, even as an atheist, if you think Allah is the creator and giver of life, that is all knowing and all powerful and who sends messengers to us to give us guidance and knowledge via holy books, there is no way anyone but the author could know the true meanings in those books. With any book open to interpretation, no one can know for sure the meaning behind the words apart from the author. Same with a song or poem. Unless the writer tells us, we can only guess.

This isn't bizarre, it's logic. Even scholars that may believe they know, cannot prove they know for, again, that proof would come from God/Allah.

And I like how David uses this 'range of Islamic scholars' as a retort to my logic. There will also be a 'range of scholars' who think hanging adulterers in a football field at half time is justified, but I'm sure that 'range of scholars' aren't as clued up on the Quran as David's 'range of scholars'. He's cherry-picking his scholars to suit his particular stance. I've no problem with that as long as he knows that that's what he's doing and that in reality, the scholars he doesn't like have views on certain passages that are just as valid as the scholars' views he does like.

You see......blasphemer that I am, if I was God/Allah and wanted to write a holy book for my people to live their lives by, I would be very specific and clear in what I wanted of them. There'd be no misinterpretations because I'd start at the beginning that everything I say is to be taken literally. It would be a long book, and not a very poetic one, but no one would be under any doubts as to it's meaning. God/Allah didn't seem to think it through with his. Or maybe he did, but just forgot to tell us he meant everything literally. We can only guess, right? - Right.

But my religion wouldn't get very far. You see, only the religions that appeal to everyone survive through the ages. They have to be a one-size-fits-all type of religion that people can bend and mould to their particular morals and characters. It makes them very useful to many more people. So, religions that can be 'misinterpreted' will be more appealing to the most people.

My religion would say:

"Eat tomatoes on Tuesday or I'll have Rolf Harris tickle your balls."

My religion is 'literal'. There is no mystery here. You fucking eat tomatoes on Tuesdays, or else.

If my religion was like the Abrahamic religions however, the passage:

"Eat tomatoes on Tuesday or I'll have Rolf Harris tickle your balls."

...becomes a bit of a mess once you add in the bullshit.

Person one, takes the text quite literally. He doesn't want Rolf Harris tickling his balls, and quite rightly so. He eats his tomatoes on Tuesday like a good SamSlateran (because all followers of my religion are called SamSlaterans......you have to be a bit of a big-headed cunt to be a creator of a religion imho).

Person two says the text is full of metaphor and mystery. When the text says 'eat tomatoes' what it's really doing is using the tomato as a symbol of all red fruit and vegetables. Red is the colour of blood and life. As long as you eat a red fruit or vegetable on Tuesdays, Rolf Harris won't be making a visit. This is handy for people who don't like tomatoes.

Person three goes further. He also thinks the text isn't literal and he thinks the colour of the tomato isn't really the issue. Sam Slater, may his beauty blind you, just wanted us to eat fruit at least once a week to combat scurvy. The tomato is just a symbol for all fruit, vegetables and berries. Doesn't matter what colour they are. It's the day that's important. We go out partying all weekend, feel shit on Monday and on Tuesday we need a good dose of vitamin c to help recover. Sam Slater, may his beauty blind you, knows this. Isn't it obvious? This is handy for person three, because he doesn't like tomatoes or many other red fruits.

Person four is a sort of 'Church of England' type SamSlateran. Obviously, everything in the book of Sam Slater, may his beauty blind you, is metaphorical and meant more of a guide in life than a rule book. The passage about the tomatoes on Tuesday isn't important, it's just a metaphor to eat more fruit and veg. Doesn't matter if it's a tomato, or if the fruit is red, or even what day you eat your fruit and veg. It's just telling you to eat fruit and veg 5 times a day but in a more poetic way. And Rolf Harris won't tickle your balls if you don't. It's just a metaphorical little warning that if you don't eat enough fruit and veg you'll get cancer. This is handy for person four as he works away at sea a lot and can't always get his fruit and veg on Tuesdays.


Now, as you can see, once you leave something open to interpretation, almost anything goes. Just a simple passage about eating a tomato on a specific day of the week suddenly becomes a mish-mash of shite. It is now anything you want it to be and usually the most convenient for you. I've only interpreted the tomato eating differently and not focussed on the punishment. If I did, we'd have even more interpretations from just being subjected to listening to Two Little Boys, watching a full season of Rolf's Cartoon Club, having Rolf actually tickle your balls, right through to being tied up while Rolf Harris rapes your family in front of you. And it's all ok because it's all open to interpretation and only I, may my beauty blind you, can tell you the true meaning. Person one, two, three and four haven't a fucking clue. They're guessing. They're moulding their religion to fit into their own lives and this is the problem. Some will use it for good, some bad, but don't say only the good stuff is due to their religion and all the bad stuff has nothing to do with it. That's bollocks and you just defending the religion for some unknowable reason. If any passage can be interpreted in a way to allow you to murder innocent schoolgirls, then you seriously have to look at the religion and push people to modify it.

Now Sam Slater, may his beauty blind you, has spoken. Take heed.

"Now Sam Slater, may his beauty blind you, has spoken. Take heed."

None so messianic as the lapsed Muslim, I guess?

DJ forgives you my son. !wink!