In the book, Nawaz gets the first speeches, but Sam comes back strong with his usual stuff (A - polls showing support of killing by nearly half of Muslims, B - the Koran is basically about military take over). So far, Nawaz has taken an ‘interesting’ strategy. He says, there needs to be a method. He explains a few of these, by bringing current Islam scholars and their historical support, explaining things like, how few passages say alcohol is forbidden, actually there is just one against wine. He tells several sides of this argument, is it just wine, is it actually about drunkedness, is it about all alcohol, what about accounts of Muhammad drinking wine, do those accounts count as support for or against scripture? He then stops and clarifies that he is not supporting any particular conclusion, merely pointing out each has a method.
I can see his point, but I’m not sure I’m buying it just yet.
In the book, Nawaz gets the first speeches, but Sam comes back strong with his usual stuff (A - polls showing support of killing by nearly half of Muslims, B - the Koran is basically about military take over). So far, Nawaz has taken an 'interesting' strategy. He says, there needs to be a method. He explains a few of these, by bringing current Islam scholars and their historical support, explaining things like, how few passages say alcohol is forbidden, actually there is just one against wine. He tells several sides of this argument, is it just wine, is it actually about drunkedness, is it about all alcohol, what about accounts of Muhammad drinking wine, do those accounts count as support for or against scripture? He then stops and clarifies that he is not supporting any particular conclusion, merely pointing out each has a method. I can see his point, but I'm not sure I'm buying it just yet.There s no reason to "buy" everything anyone says, but there is plenty of fodder for discussion in this book. I've enjoyed your posts on the book, which I also found fascinating and informative. Lois